|
NxtChg (OP)
|
 |
May 10, 2014, 12:05:09 PM |
|
How can somebody post a negative rating without any proof with "BTC risked" being zero? In real life we can sue for libel. What about here? How can you clear your name? This guy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=37522gave me a negative rating with 0 BTC risked and description "Another new account + IPO scammer." This is not "another new account". And I am not an IPO scammer. All the money are still in there and all promises are being kept. I would kindly ask mods to look into this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You Asked For Change, We Gave You Coins" -- casascius
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
NLNico
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1289
DiceSites.com owner
|
 |
May 10, 2014, 12:10:45 PM |
|
IMO ideally the trust system is not only used after a scam happened but also before (if it's obvious or very likely there gonna be a scam) so it can actually prevent the scam. So therefor the "BTC risked" can be zero.
However, I do not know about your trust rating so I cannot comment on that. Generally to "clear it" you have to ask or perhaps convince the person who added negative trust to remove it.
And obviously the trust system is not flawless, yeh.
|
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 12:17:12 PM |
|
Well, people have their own brains, they can judge what's "likely to be a scam".
This system is supposed to be based on facts, that's why there is a reference link and amount of BTC risked/lost.
So a honest guy tries to do honest work and this is how he gets treated? With a false "scammer" mark without any proof?
Some people have invested and are now spreading FUD to stop others from investing, there are already like 10 topics with false scam accusations.
Now they are abusing the trust system too...
|
|
|
|
hilariousandco
Global Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3794
Merit: 2606
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
|
May 10, 2014, 12:24:55 PM |
|
Well, people have their own brains, they can judge what's "likely to be a scam".
Similarly this could be argued for the trust system too. It's not there as definitive proof of scams or nefarious behaviour but a warning system where people can read the feedback and references (or lack thereof) and make their own mind up whether something is legit (or whether the feedback left is just or unjust). Mods don't act or remove feedback so your best bet is to talk with Tomato and see if you can get him to remove it. |
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 12:26:48 PM |
|
Oh, well, so much for being honest...
|
|
|
|
NLNico
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1289
DiceSites.com owner
|
|
May 10, 2014, 12:29:43 PM |
|
Well, people have their own brains, they can judge what's "likely to be a scam".
Well, no. I can guarantee you that many people are too naive to see even very obvious scams. A big red warning can prevent scams. That being said, I don't know your specific situation since I don't really follow IPOs and alt coins etc. So I am not calling you a scammer, just saying that there can be good reasons to add negative trust to someone while they didn't risk BTC (yet). |
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 12:35:01 PM |
|
Well, no. I can guarantee you that many people are too naive to see even very obvious scams. A big red warning can prevent scams.
It can also scare people off. For no reason. Just because somebody posted it. With zero proof. Probably, because he has some hidden motives, like deterring other investors from joining. How is that not abuse? So is it Ok if I just go on a spree, giving negative ratings to all users here, just because I can? |
|
|
|
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1127
|
|
May 10, 2014, 12:40:43 PM |
|
How can somebody post a negative rating without any proof with "BTC risked" being zero? In real life we can sue for libel. What about here? How can you clear your name? This guy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=37522gave me a negative rating with 0 BTC risked and description "Another new account + IPO scammer." This is not "another new account". And I am not an IPO scammer. All the money are still in there and all promises are being kept. I would kindly ask mods to look into this. This IS real life, but you'd rather be lazy and have someone else do it for you. No we aren't going to get involved. |
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 12:45:51 PM |
|
but you'd rather be lazy and have someone else do it for you
I'd rather see moderators make an effort to create a honest system, which is based on facts. |
|
|
|
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1127
|
|
May 10, 2014, 01:19:16 PM |
|
but you'd rather be lazy and have someone else do it for you
I'd rather see moderators make an effort to create a honest system, which is based on facts. Having an elite few with the ability to arbitrarily decide which feedback should be left/removed isn't the way towards an honest system. No it isn't perfect, but having it be moderated by a select few would make it worthless. The only reason you disagree is because in this instance it would benefit you, but you need to look at the bigger picture. |
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 01:29:43 PM |
|
Having an elite few with the ability to arbitrarily decide which feedback should be left/removed isn't the way towards an honest system. No it isn't perfect, but having it be moderated by a select few would make it worthless. The only reason you disagree is because in this instance it would benefit you, but you need to look at the bigger picture.
That's understandable if you don't have enough resources to do proper fact-checking. But in that case the trust system becomes worthless, because it's so easily abused. It should be replaced by a simple Karma ratio (+ vs -) then, not a big red warning on a first negative feedback! The warning says " Trade with extreme caution!". How can you justify making such a bold, panicky claim if no fact-checking is involved? |
|
|
|
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1127
|
|
May 10, 2014, 01:45:07 PM |
|
There is fact checking, users are fully capable of doing that on their own as long as they have access to all the information. If we start removing feedback based on our opinions, or our interpretation of the facts, then they no longer have access to all the information, only the information we decide they should have, which isn't right.
|
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 01:56:16 PM |
|
There is fact checking, users are fully capable of doing that on their own as long as they have access to all the information. If we start removing feedback based on our opinions, or our interpretation of the facts, then they no longer have access to all the information, only the information we decide they should have, which isn't right.
I agree with you. But the forum software makes a judgement in a form of a scary, red warning and there is no fact-checking involved. It just does this automatically. How can this be justifiable? If there was a simple "Karma: +5/-14" display instead, with a link to read all the feedback so users could form their own opinion - that would be fair. The current system is not. |
|
|
|
hilariousandco
Global Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3794
Merit: 2606
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
|
May 10, 2014, 01:59:49 PM |
|
There is fact checking, users are fully capable of doing that on their own as long as they have access to all the information. If we start removing feedback based on our opinions, or our interpretation of the facts, then they no longer have access to all the information, only the information we decide they should have, which isn't right.
I agree with you. But the forum software makes a judgement in a form of a scary, red warning and there is no fact-checking involved. It just does this automatically. How can this be justifiable? If there was a simple "Karma: +5/-14" display instead, with a link to read all the feedback so users could form their own opinion - that would be fair. The current system is not. Why wouldn't the karma option be abused in exactly the same way? The current system isn't perfect and is open to abuse, but I think almost any other system will be as well. |
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 02:07:16 PM |
|
Why wouldn't the karma option be abused in exactly the same way? The current system isn't perfect and is open to abuse, but I think almost any other system will be as well.
It will. But it won't give users a big scary warning for no reasons. It will be just an advice: you can see it and think "hm, 150 users are against, only 10 for, something's fishy". Not a big scary warning on the very first negative feedback! |
|
|
|
hilariousandco
Global Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3794
Merit: 2606
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
|
May 10, 2014, 02:19:10 PM |
|
Why wouldn't the karma option be abused in exactly the same way? The current system isn't perfect and is open to abuse, but I think almost any other system will be as well.
It will. But it won't give users a big scary warning for no reasons. It will be just an advice: you can see it and think "hm, 150 users are against, only 10 for, something's fishy". Not a big scary warning on the very first negative feedback! Maybe, and I agree getting 'red trust' is alarming and oftentimes doesn't fit the crime, but with your suggestion people will just exploit that by creating numerous accounts to up/downvote certain members and we're back to square one. Like I said, no system is going to be fair and always open to abuse. |
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 02:23:05 PM |
|
Maybe, and I agree getting 'red trust' is alarming and oftentimes doesn't fit the crime, but with your suggestion people will just exploit that by creating numerous accounts to up/downvote certain members and we're back to square one. Like I said, no system is going to be fair and always open to abuse.
I agree. But the system without the big, red warning will have a more appropriate "weight" to what it actually is - a gameable, advisory rating, not a fact. |
|
|
|
|
NotLambchop
|
|
May 10, 2014, 02:36:46 PM |
|
...
This system is supposed to be based on facts...
What made you think that? |
|
|
|
|
Tomatocage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1222
brb keeping up with the Kardashians
|
|
May 10, 2014, 03:54:13 PM |
|
I have adjusted the message to more accurately reflect the rating. If anything is being abused, it's the use of the IPO distro model for new coin chains to enrich yourself quickly. If you wanted your coin to be taken seriously, you would have skipped the IPO model all together and taken the route that other HIGHLY successful chains have which did not use an IPO (ie. Litecoin, Peercoin, Primecoin, Namecoin, and oh I dunno...Bitcoin). For someone claiming to not be a new member, you should have realized this.
|
|
|
|
|
NxtChg (OP)
|
|
May 10, 2014, 03:55:31 PM |
|
I have adjusted the message to mite accurately reflect the rating. If anything is being abused, it's the use of the IPO distro model for new coin chains to enrich yourself quickly. If you wanted your coin to be taken seriously, you would have skipped the IPO model all together and taken the route that other HIGHLY successful chains have which did not use an IPO (ie. Litecoin, Peercoin, Primecoin, Namecoin, and oh I dunno...Bitcoin). For someone claiming to not be a new member, you should have realized this.
Since this is a PoS coin, taking a road of PoW coins was not an option. |
|
|
|
|
