Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2019, 06:54:56 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust  (Read 15455 times)
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
December 13, 2014, 06:22:10 AM
Last edit: December 13, 2014, 07:15:49 AM by BadBear
 #141

...This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES...

That sounds great, but reality doesn't always meet expectations. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. Nothing is stopping you from doing it now, nobody is forced to use default trust. Really the only people who should be using default trust are those who choose to, and new people with no idea who to trust. I don't even use just default trust, I chose to add it along with others to my trust list because I find it to be fairly accurate.  I've said it before, but default trust is a good starting point, and that's all it is, and that's all it was intended to be. (example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263067.msg2812517#msg2812517) People seem to be using it as the end all be all for everything, and that isn't what it's for.

I'm not a huge fan of default trust either, never have been (and really I could care less if I'm on it, last I checked I was pretty high up on the list of people in custom trust lists, and that's not counting people who didn't add me because I'm already in their list via default, so I'm highly trusted enough without it where I can do good within the community, and that's what's important), but I do recognize why it's needed. You don't see the need because you have been here a long time and know people, but there are a lot of people who haven't been here very long, and don't know anyone. Those are the ones who need the help.

I'm not going to derail this thread anymore with talk about defaulttrust though, this thread isn't about that.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
"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. Advertise here.
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170
Merit: 1868


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 06:32:55 AM
 #142

...Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible...

This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff).

Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries.

But as you said, those with a direct interest have reason to keep the default trust list under control. Thats fine and dandy for a "Default" Trust group. I honestly think that for new members joining the forums, Default Trust isn't a bad way to start off. By the time they are no longer newbies and can gauge the community, they can build their own trust groups. There is nothing stopping a decentralized trust network from starting in tandem with Default trust. If people are too lazy to switch from default trust to their own systems, that would be the case regardless of whether Default Trust was in play or not. By the time you are around a while, you realize trusted trust and untrusted trust don't make a difference, you find yourself looking for specific names as references rather than green letters. For example Mabsark under CanaryInTheMine. I don't care if they are on default trust, I had no idea who they were before this thread, so I'm not going to value their feedback anymore than someone else I dont know. I'm looking for feedback from longtime members and businesspeople before I trade with someone.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1692



View Profile WWW
December 13, 2014, 06:48:00 AM
 #143

Going back on topic - it appears that Chris_Sabian was recently added to CanaryInTheMine's trust list. I noticed because as of when this thread started Mabsark has zero trust feedback, however he now has a positive report from both CanaryInTheMine and Chris_Sabian. I had noticed that Chris had given Mabsark positive feedback a few days ago, but it was showing as 'untrusted'

When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in. It also appears that KaChingCoinDev was recently added to the bottom (last active November 10 2014), as well as sjc1490 who appears to have given Canary feedback several months ago, along with FACTOM which I have no idea why he is on his trust list as he was registered ~a month ago with 7 posts and no trade history.

I am not 100% sure on the above three (although if they were previously on his trust list, their position was recently moved, because I know that suchmoon was ~the 2nd from the bottom. I do know for certain that Chris_Sabian was not on default trust network previously

Do you think I am spamming? If so, you are probably wrong.
Wardrick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 07:58:50 AM
 #144

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account. Even if 90% of the time the people are right, there's still a 10% rate that it will be abused. Given the weight that a trusted negative feedback carries (Warning: Trade With Extreme Caution!) it doesn't seem to me that the system would work in the long run as more and more people would start to gain this power, and it would become harder and harder to monitor and deal with.

I see a main problem is negative feedback is being given because of a personal view on things, and not having to do with scamming or potentially scamming. Even if 90% of everything is right, again it still opens up the chance for 10% abuse, which would be 1/10 times a reputable members account would be damaged. As the trust web grows it would be harder and harder to deal with this, and there's a lot of problems you could run into when removing it. In order for this to not happen I think it would be a good idea to keep the trust system in a monitored rate, where only people that have proven that their opinions are correct, that are willing to quickly correct something they did wrong, and that show the responsibility to not abuse the system and their power if something doesn't go their way or if they get mad are given the power to negative rep someone's account and have it show up on their main profile.


The Default Trust Members and people who carry the high feedback weight are like the Bitcoin Police. In a regular police force, a cop wouldn't be able to give a recommendation to someone and them become part of the team. Sure, the cop might personally know that person and know they're a good person, but they haven't gone through the process of being a cop. As more and more recommendations are given out, you'd eventually have citizens killing other citizens and making decisions that aren't really applicable to the law or what they are supposed to be doing. It would be hard to monitor because there would be so many people to deal with that finding the rights and wrongs would take more time than humanly possible. If the trust system isn't kept at a monitorable rate, pretty soon there will be newbies having more say in a situation than a reputable member who's been here for years (Which I believe is already close to what happened in Canaries case).

redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1038


#Free market


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 11:11:16 AM
 #145

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.
there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)

Good suggestions , but  maybe   theymos can add the function "report"  near the feedback so we can easily report the "fake"  & *abused* feedback.

[it is only a suggestion]
Muhammed Zakir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 504


I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2014, 11:22:15 AM
 #146

I would like also to add :

With this trust system it is so easy *abuse it* so I think we need new change , or better modify it completely. Because I've seen a lot of these type of threads ( it is always the same story).

What do you suggest as an alternative? I cannot think of a feedback system that is flawless or foolproof to abuse but if you can some up with one maybe it will be considered.
there should be limits as to how many people can be on your trust list if you are on level 1 default trust. This will prevent the privilege of being on default trust being given out as a "thank you" for your customers.

There should be different formula for calculating positive trust if multiple people give trust feedback that are not trusted by different people. For example if everyone that gives you positive trust are all trusted by badbear then each additional trust rating by someone on badbears list should count for less while someone on theymos' list would count for more. You should not be able to receive "green" trust unless you are trusted by people that are on at least two different trust lists.

Negative trust should cause a profile to turn "red" at first with one scam report but would go away after n time without a second scam report. This would prevent someone from being able to continue to scam but would prevent someone from abusing the trust system and would force scam reports to be community reviewed (and a 2nd person agreeing on default trust) after a scam accusation is opened (as it should be after giving negative trust)

Good suggestions , but  maybe   theymos can add the function "report"  near the feedback so we can easily report the "fake"  & *abused* feedback.

[it is only a suggestion]

That would be good IMHO. How about restricting newbies from giving feedback till they get 14 points or become Jr. Member? It would decrease the pain for moderators. Roll Eyes

   ~~MZ~~

theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 5934


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 03:17:44 PM
 #147

When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in.

That list is ordered by user ID, not added time.

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
CanaryInTheMine
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1020


between a rock and a block!


View Profile
December 13, 2014, 05:52:06 PM
 #148

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
yep, we've dealt with inaccurate or blatant abuses before and will continue to do so as necessary.  most people are not evil and if they flip, we can resolve disputes.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 1352


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2014, 10:12:03 PM
 #149

I think what the staff is telling everyone here is, the key is to lie to them and everyone else and just PRETEND you think the individual you negative is a scammer rather than being honest of why the feedback was left for various other reasons  (like prominent people on the default trust do almost daily). Going around "scambusting" is a nice cover for throwing in a few personal enemies into the grinder as well. In the end the staff care about one thing, THEIR PAYCHECK, and they don't have any other interest while getting involved with disputes. Why should they care if you were ripped off, harassed, or otherwise slandered?

SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170
Merit: 1868


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 14, 2014, 12:36:46 AM
 #150

I think what the staff is telling everyone here is, the key is to lie to them and everyone else and just PRETEND you think the individual you negative is a scammer rather than being honest of why the feedback was left for various other reasons  (like prominent people on the default trust do almost daily). Going around "scambusting" is a nice cover for throwing in a few personal enemies into the grinder as well. In the end the staff care about one thing, THEIR PAYCHECK, and they don't have any other interest while getting involved with disputes. Why should they care if you were ripped off, harassed, or otherwise slandered?

You are correct about one thing, the staff not caring to get involved in disputes. We aren't the government out to protect bank account balances or to tell people to play nice, we are pretty much here just to keep things organized and to step in when there are major issues ie death threats, etc. This is a public forum, you can come here to chat with other people of similar ideology or that are interested in similar technologies. We aren't interested in babysitting or problem solving, if adults can't solve their own problems, then thats on them. If people don't like Default Trust, remove it from your trust lists, if you don't like CanaryInTheMine's trust picks, remove CanaryInTheMine from your trust list, no one is helpless.

I haven't reviewed the people on CanaryInTheMine's list, nor do I care to. Because as above, its not really my problem, people can work out any issues with other parties involved. But I agree with their above post to an extent.
yep, we've dealt with inaccurate or blatant abuses before and will continue to do so as necessary.  most people are not evil and if they flip, we can resolve disputes.

Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 14, 2014, 12:57:05 AM
 #151

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account. Even if 90% of the time the people are right, there's still a 10% rate that it will be abused. Given the weight that a trusted negative feedback carries (Warning: Trade With Extreme Caution!) it doesn't seem to me that the system would work in the long run as more and more people would start to gain this power, and it would become harder and harder to monitor and deal with.

I see a main problem is negative feedback is being given because of a personal view on things, and not having to do with scamming or potentially scamming. Even if 90% of everything is right, again it still opens up the chance for 10% abuse, which would be 1/10 times a reputable members account would be damaged. As the trust web grows it would be harder and harder to deal with this, and there's a lot of problems you could run into when removing it. In order for this to not happen I think it would be a good idea to keep the trust system in a monitored rate, where only people that have proven that their opinions are correct, that are willing to quickly correct something they did wrong, and that show the responsibility to not abuse the system and their power if something doesn't go their way or if they get mad are given the power to negative rep someone's account and have it show up on their main profile.


The Default Trust Members and people who carry the high feedback weight are like the Bitcoin Police. In a regular police force, a cop wouldn't be able to give a recommendation to someone and them become part of the team. Sure, the cop might personally know that person and know they're a good person, but they haven't gone through the process of being a cop. As more and more recommendations are given out, you'd eventually have citizens killing other citizens and making decisions that aren't really applicable to the law or what they are supposed to be doing. It would be hard to monitor because there would be so many people to deal with that finding the rights and wrongs would take more time than humanly possible. If the trust system isn't kept at a monitorable rate, pretty soon there will be newbies having more say in a situation than a reputable member who's been here for years (Which I believe is already close to what happened in Canaries case).



Your right, brother. The problem is if someone does not care for your view of something and they have positive trust and you do nor BOOM red name. TRUST only be given for transactions or attempted transactions. With some kind of gain or loss, And It should have to be tied to a SPECIFIC instance or removed.

malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 14, 2014, 03:05:30 AM
 #152

Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170
Merit: 1868


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
December 14, 2014, 03:14:09 AM
 #153

Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

He would be removed from default trust. I just want to make sure we are still talking hypothetical, we can't prosecute a guy for something he could possibly do. Theymos could make 50 accounts, give himself fake trust, and then scam someone out of free dancing lessons, but I'm not asking to remove Theymos from default trust yet.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
RiverBoatBTC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
December 14, 2014, 03:44:17 AM
 #154

CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-11   0.00000000      keeps an eye out on possible scammers

^^^ Hilarious that was the same thing I was doing that he gave me negative trust for lol (just cause it involved havelock where we all know he has a vested interest)

malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 14, 2014, 04:22:05 AM
 #155

Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

He would be removed from default trust. I just want to make sure we are still talking hypothetical, we can't prosecute a guy for something he could possibly do. Theymos could make 50 accounts, give himself fake trust, and then scam someone out of free dancing lessons, but I'm not asking to remove Theymos from default trust yet.
But the thing is that he is doing something very close to that. He is putting almost anyone who gives him positive trust on his trust list, which improves his trust score. As a result he has a extremely high trust score (probably the highest, or close to the highest on the forum) which means it is essentially fruitless to open a scam accusation against him if he were to short you a miner or otherwise not deliver as promised.

Also every person who has recently been involved in something that caused them to be removed from default trust list has involved CanaryInTheMine in some way, including people who have tried to scam. You say that he is putting his reputation on the line by putting people on his trust list, but there have been many instances of problems with people on his trust list but he has both remained trust worthy and remained on default trust.

Plus it is not realistically possible to tell when you are in control of multiple accounts so theymos would probably not even know if/when CanaryInTheMine has his puppets on his trust list giving himself positive trust feedback

peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 595
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
December 14, 2014, 09:50:30 AM
 #156

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

Nah, I don't think so.


This should be reminder not to throw accusations as 'fun speculation'. BadBear might not be always available to answer and it will lead to ruining someone's reputation.
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
December 15, 2014, 08:03:14 AM
 #157

Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 15, 2014, 11:25:19 AM
 #158

Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?
NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 15, 2014, 02:10:29 PM
 #159

Mabsark's use of the trust system is a bit curious.  I warned him about two of his "investments" being scams.  When those investments turned out to be scams, he left me this feedback:



Not sure if this is how the trust system was intended to work. 
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 15, 2014, 02:12:46 PM
 #160

he left me this feedback:





^ true though.  Cheesy

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!