Topic: ㅤ (Read 342 times)

That is a weighted coin that you are providing: the two halves are unequal. Preventing scammers from pulling off more scams = good. Forcing them to create a new account and continue scamming = good. Why? Because the only part that you are influencing is the former half of the latter statement: forcing them to create a new account [in the event of a ban]. They are never forced to create a new account, but they always have the ability to do so which multiplies their scamming potential and spread to users. But when you ban them, you take away one of their accounts which is an active threat - focus on the now, rather than what they'll do afterwards, especially if they would have eventually done it anyway.

Just like bitcoin system created for the good of all bitcoin users along with its purpose why it was being created however some are abusing bitcoin making it as a medium of fraud activities or scam.

Just like DT system created with a purpose and that is to defeat the scammera by tagging them with their activities so as users will going to be aware and cautious when trading with a certain user.

There are forum moderators and staff but they are needing more help from other users (DT USERS). Since the number of registered users here still DT work here is a big load. However, all of us users here are able to help. We just need to report every possible wrong doings in the forum.

Yes, unless you excluded someone on your trust list.

---

---

No system is completely perfect so DT is not an exception to that, I do wonder why scammers are allowed to roam here but a plagiarist gets permanents ban but that is how the system works here.Flags can give a warning about scam user's topic but I do want the trust system should be shown even if they are not logged into it.

Flags were created to attempt to supplement the trust system and make scammers more obvious. I feel like there's both sides to a coin; on one hand, banning scammers would prevent them from pulling off more scams, on the other, banning them forces them to create a new account and continue scamming.

Giving anyone the rights to ban users for scamming does introduce a potential situation with the conflict of interest. IMO, they tried to strike a balance in between by just giving the users easy access to the facts for them to make their own decisions while not banning the user completely. It's not perfect but a compromise should be made, especially in a Bitcoin forum.

Ah, I see now. So DT members are always 'on my trust list'? I don't have to edit anything specific?

Trust list is your personal view of the trust system. Imo, trust feedbacks are suggestions from others on who is trustworthy or rational and who isn't. With your custom trust list, you choose whose opinion is shown to you and whose isn't, based on your assessment of the member's judgement
Overview:
Go to your trust settings
To add a member to your trust list, enter their name into the box shown. Their feedback would be visible to you.
To exclude a member, enter their name with the prefix ~. For example, ~qwerty. Their feedback would not be visible to you.

If you do not have a trust list, you would only see feedback from DT - default trust members.

Yeah, I hear you there.  DT members do try to combat scammers, too, but bitcointalk is unique in that scamming is allowed.  I've never seen another discussion forum where that's the case.

And as far as the reasons for this, you'll hear all sorts of explanations that I think are excuses being made on behalf of Theymos. 

That's an excuse IMO.  There are very clear-cut cases of scamming, and yet the scammers never get banned.  True, their trust page ends up looking like it was splattered in arterial blood, but the end result is that their account is still active and they can pull off more scams if potential victims don't (or can't) see the red trust. 

I never understood why scammers aren't banned, but it's a fact I've come to accept in my time as a member here.  I always keep in mind that this isn't my forum and I don't run it.  That isn't to say you shouldn't try to suggest improvements, and I applaud OP for writing his post....but the sad fact is that I'm fairly certain nothing is going to change.

Anyone with half a brain would clearly realize the trust system in its current form is actually dangerous.
It allows those in DT and the sponsors of DT to scam with impunity.
It also forces collusion even if you wish to be no part of it just to remain unscathed.

The problems range from

Red tags to discourage whistleblowing on DT or their sponsors. Many proven cases
Red tag removal trading between 2 DT scammers  all of a sudden people who have considered each other highly dangerous scammers suddenly both decide they were both wrong all along at exactly the same time.
Flagging doesn't work DTs collude to prevent flags on proven scammers where they can't even dare try to dispute the independently verifiable incriminating evidence.
DT have been busted telling each other to exclude people against their will and they have admitted they only do so out of fear of having their account ruined via the trust system
DT have even said they are afraid to tag other DT they feel should be tagged because they will get tagged back in return
DT have been busted telling others to help reject flags on their sponsor
DT then caught lying they ever sent such requests.
DT busted bribing or instantly rewarding those who help reject their sponsors flags with trust includes

Dt will bust ordinary members for wearing a sig of a certain sponsor but will say nothing to DT wearing those sigs or even managing their campaign.
DT will bust a scam then sit there and watch their DT pals offering paid services to help said scam get repatriated to the forum via their services and say nothing.



Basically the trust system acts as a huge protection racket that allows them and their sponsors to scam with impunity and scare away whistleblowers from presenting independently verifiable evidence of DT scamming and wrong doing

Because DT is stupidly linked to merit and as we know merit is the key to not only DT1 but the entire pay per post environment here they can power up as many alts and asslicking dreg noobs that are willing to do or go along with anything for fast track to sig " riches"

The trust system is actually highly dangerous and probably the worst and most I'll conceived design you could come up with.

Because they have removed any central point of accountability and made it piss easy to replace a DT1 account that does go so totally rogue it must be deleted  it does not matter they can power up their alts to DT1 in no time.

When it was very old accounts, with long trading histories and zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing or scamming over their long years then it was much safer.  Those accounts can not be replaced and have huge histories to examine and explore.

You literally have a DT1 with many examples of scamming and scammer facilitating in their pasts.
You wonder they are all of chipmixer and escrow and campaign managers ? Lol
The greedy scammers have gamed this system because it is wide open to being gamed and rewards handsomely those that game it.

Want examples just ask.

DT is a protection racket with so many holes and exploits it is a danger to the forum.

From a newbie perspective, I have no idea what that even means. And I believe that I am not the only one...

I've seen the post about the trust system still needs some modifications that's why theymos has not applied it for visitors and I am agreeing to that. However we need to have some kind of solution for visitors not to get scammed just because they can't see the member's trust summary and I think the best solution for that is having all market sections in the forum be restricted for visitors to view so that they avoid being victims just because they are blinded.

Mostly the users who deal on this forum have an account on the forum. There are very few cases where a guest user come on the forum and do a deal with a person without making an account. This is the first time i have come across a user who is scammed and the reason for it was he did not created an account and check the trust rating. 

I think this is because the trust system is still an experiment.

Any scamming incident is bound to have a two-sided story and it's not so clear cut. Trust system, though not perfect, at least allows users to comment on their trust and leaves the judgement to whoever is reading the trust. It's a lot easier to ban users for plagiarism or spam because what they're doing is wrong and the evidence is clear as day.

Agreed, such a system would've saved the user. However, it's worth noting that the trust system works based on the user's own trust list. It's easy to game the system if you were to show the guest everyone's trust rating; he can just spam to cover up the negative trusts. In trust-enabled sections, a warning is displayed for the guest if the user has more negative than positive ratings.

The forum cannot moderate scammers; it is simply too time consuming to review the evidences and the judgement can be biased and skewed. Shitposters and copy-pasters are much easier to ban in comparison. Warning Flags were introduced to help combat non-registered users from being scammed.

ㅤ