Replacing DefaultTrust

[onemorebtc]

You are misunderstanding and missing the parts for the whole. It is not just about ignoring reports or acting upon every tiny infraction, it is more the fact that no one ever attempted to communicate or display these rules anywhere, then they expect me to follow them to a T. Then when I stumble into an inevitably grey area (because it is all grey since the rules are not written), punishment is fast and without discussion or debate. This is not just about how the staff treat me, but how they treat everyone in general that they don't see as part of their little club.

you are right that its a problem that no rules are written anywhere.
but that goes both ways: if there are rules its hard to change them when needed or to react fast in specific obvious cases .which got missed by the rules.

in this forum are very much users, so i think the best approach is to rely on the feeling of the staff.
yes thats not fair. but this is a forum and not a democracy.

i have seen vod and other staff members to change their feedback if needed and pointed out. i think thats ok.
they dont want to do that in your case - i dont think they are right with that decision so i have added you to my trust list.
to say it again: life is not fair...

I do feel deceived. I was added to the default trust, no one bothered to ever post any of these rules I am expected to obey, no one explained to me my newfound responsibilities to default trust, I was juts assumed to know the rules by using the way the rest of the community uses them by example. If I take users liek VOD as the example of how to act here as my only way to determine the rules, then that is not a very good standard that clearly is enforceable against people like me, but not against people like VOD.

vod is vod...
he acts fast and is often mistaken. but when thats the case he stands up and change it.
i dont think he is treated mich different than you. i really dont see any conspiracy here.

what i guess is the case: as vod is regularly posting feedback to new users he is an asset in detecting new scammers fast.
(at least this is my opinion)

another point: you have a sales thread and the staff thought (i wont comment on that) that you used your defaulttrust-power to tidy up your thread and gain a financial benefit from it.

People are lazy. Alot of people don't bother clicking trusted feedback, or even clicking the trust page and they just look at the green numbers.

i know and this is sad because they will get burned under any system and with any rules.

[1715610460]

1715610460

[1715610460]

1715610460

[1715610460]

1715610460

[1715610460]

1715610460

[1715610460]

1715610460

[PistolPete]

I guess it's time to stop reading this thread, it's no longer productive.

Congrats Vod and TECHSHARE for scaring away the Bear

[DiamondCardz]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

[coinits]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

[DiamondCardz]

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

[hilariousandco]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

How would this help and how is it enforcable? Even if account sales were banned people would just sell them offsite and it will give others a false sense of security.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

It's not and would be incredibly difficult and a waste of time to police, hence why it is currently allowed.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

[Mitchell]

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

[CanaryInTheMine]

Vod, are you going to slap tecshare with negative for hijacking this thread? /sarc

[hilariousandco]

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

I don't dispute that. He seems to know the rules better than most as well.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

How would this help and how is it enforcable? Even if account sales were banned people would just sell them offsite and it will give others a false sense of security.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

It's not and would be incredibly difficult and a waste of time to police, hence why it is currently allowed.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

Personally, I'm not against account selling if people involved behave responsably and i can live with it till such practice is allowed by forum rules. However, i'm not sure if i could trust a user who engagé in such trades specially if such people engage in trading hacked account or used to sell it to scammers, etc. I don't judge Others if they may trust such people since they may know them better.
I just put forward my tought.

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

In effect such a type of situation may worry me a lot since i cannot say if if i could trust a user engaged in trading hacked accounts or selling accounts to scammers. Just as i may not trust someone who give out too many good feedbacks (but maybe He's only a lucky trader who meet only honest people). However, I was not to single out him...i was just thinking about the situation since infact is all a matter of trust.

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

How would this help and how is it enforcable? Even if account sales were banned people would just sell them offsite and it will give others a false sense of security.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

It's not and would be incredibly difficult and a waste of time to police, hence why it is currently allowed.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

Personally, I'm not against account selling if people involved behave responsably and i can live with it till such practice is allowed by forum rules. However, i'm not sure if i could trust a user who engagé in such trades specially if such people engage in trading hacked account or used to sell it to scammers, etc. I don't judge Others if they may trust such people since they may know them better.
I just put forward my tought.

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

In effect such a type of situation may worry me a lot since i cannot say if if i could trust a user engaged in trading hacked accounts or selling accounts to scammers. Just as i may not trust someone who give out too many good feedbacks (but maybe He's only a lucky trader who meet only honest people). However, I was not to single out him...i was just thinking about the situation since infact is all a matter of trust.

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

I don't dispute that. He seems to know the rules better than most as well.

As I said before myself, I have noting against the rules or Quickseller in particular, but i think everyone should reflect on how much you can trust people engaged in account trading in particular if they are trading hacked accounts or selling established account to scammers or leaving too many good feedbacks. IMHO, I'm not so confident to be able to trust enough the judgement of such a kind of users.

[Vod]

Vod, are you going to slap TECSHARE with negative for hijacking this thread? /sarc

Sir, your point was made with or without the "/sarc".

I am no longer leaving negative feedback based on personal gut feelings alone.

[smoothie]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

It is split very evenly. Even the users who voted for each seem so. Interesting that BadBear didn't vote (unless he did on an alt account). I think the current system is the best solution but should be tweaked or kept a closer eye on the people who are on there and maybe limiting the number of users that each person can put on.

I didn't vote because while I'm not sure default trust is the best solution, I've decided I don't think this is either, so I decided to stay out of it. It's easy to say everyone should make their own trust lists, and they should, but fact is newbies won't know who to trust.

I guess it's time to stop reading this thread, it's no longer productive.

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

[hilariousandco]

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

Tl;dr theymos proposed a new trust system and the votes for/against it were pretty much evenly split, and it's no longer productive because most of it is bickering by Techshare who managed to derail this thread like he does every other to whine about his removal from the trust list.

[TECSHARE]

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

Tl;dr theymos proposed a new trust system and the votes for/against it were pretty much evenly split, and it's no longer productive because most of it is bickering by Techshare who managed to derail this thread like he does every other to whine about his removal from the trust list.

Yeah, right. Because my words are so powerful I can snap my fingers and the whole community rallies behind me. As staff, you would never see the malcontent that is created by this system, because everyone here is afraid to speak up under threat of harassment of people like VOD, or from the staff for being critical of them. This was popular sentiment BEFORE I spoke up, all I did was harness it. I am just one of the few who refuse to be intimidated by the same people responsible for the trust abuse to begin with. So please... check yourself first. Additionally as far as bickering goes - it takes two. Maybe you should muzzle your rabid dog, because I left and he is still talking about me.

[hack_]

nope. You can buy trust now in the alt section  

I would spend 5 BTC to get higher trust than the admins.

[koshgel]

nope. You can buy trust now in the alt section  

I would spend 5 BTC to get higher trust than the admins.

Where is there proof of this? Doesn't seem like it would be effective.

[smoothie]

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

Tl;dr theymos proposed a new trust system and the votes for/against it were pretty much evenly split, and it's no longer productive because most of it is bickering by Techshare who managed to derail this thread like he does every other to whine about his removal from the trust list.

Thanks for this now I will not waste further time reading here.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You are still unable to provide an example to support your baseless accusation.

Caught you in a lie yet again.  Been proven many times already.   

This is absolutely incorrect. Vod has NEVER been able to 'prove' a 'lie' that TECSHARE has told. It has been in fact established that Vod's accusations is entirely baseless, and all he can do is resort to diverting the topic, claiming supposed proves when such has never existed, ad hominem attacks, and demands for 100 BTC for the proof.

Please read through this thread and you will see that Vod's accusations are entirely baseless, and no proof has ever been proved: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

[Vod]

demands for 100 BTC for the proof.

That 100 BTC would go to the people you stole from.  I don't need your coins.