Topic: Abuse of negative trust – mr.relax (Read 468 times)

Huh, is it trolling time again?
Your negative trust from GazetaBitcoin is well deserved because trading with you might be high risk for your trading partner as you're completely clueless or just outright evil to go for exposing other people's privacy.
It's very shady to act like you did, in addition to your other potential and even proven abuses (protecting a scammer).
And you should stop writing from your alt account, it's ridiculous already.  


Writing from an alt account to defend a scammer has never worked out and is a known pattern used by trolls, scammers and abusers!
Please stop embarrassing yourself.  

---

And as LoyceV already said, it's off topic here. You have your troll topic already, where you can write fake accusations and defend scammers but please don't derail my topic with your off-topic troll spam posts...

I don't always agree with GazetaBitcoin's feedback, but that's off-topic here. Feel free to show the exact feedback you're talking about in a more appropriate topic, and mention me there.

Ahh... yes, I stand corrected. I read your post with few remaing brain cells that still awake and misunderstood your context of "now" as well as automatically assume --again, with half brain already asleep-- a "DT" refers to the forum's default trust instead of the custom trust list. Kindly forgive the miscommunication happened from my side.

I never said that user had only just begun trusting mr.relax, what I did say was right now those three are the only UID's who have merit of note who *right*now* DT trust mr.relax.

Please don't try to put spin on something where there is none.

---

---

Agreed and point taken.  Let the forum vote as they will.

Umm... I think you read the data wrongly. micaxel has been trusting mr.relax since the earliest time Loyce's record begin to scrape data, and MinoRaiola by data published on 03 Dec 2022, and none of them are currently on DT... well, MinoRaiola used to be, but not anymore. I even checked with BPIP to see if the result shown on my page is correct or was it affected by my trust list who distrusted them:

MinoRaiola
micaxel

I'm happy that you've been looking into the issue and also distrusted him but I'm not sure if his abuse really justifies a type 1 (Newbie) flag. Yes, he did some shady and misleading things but he didn't request any money. For what he did, I've added a neutral trust on his account as a neutral trust is currently our lightest measure to act after an abuse has happened.
In addition, the issue of mr.relax is also DT related because he abused negative trust, he doesn't know what's neutral trust (at least it seems so, when he called it "bad trust") and just has shown to be lacking any knowledge about DT.
That's why I've went with a neutral trust and distrusted him (~mr.relax).

And nice to see mr.relax now being distrusted by 5 new members.  

Speaking from experience, and if I may add personal opinion within, i think it's quite safe to say it's decentralized. I learned the hard way --actually, it's more to "confused way" than "hard" as LoyceV helped me-- that when you tweak your trust list, the result could change your forum experience quite significantly.

If the person you trust distrusted someone, you also distrusted them [on the next depth level]. So, apparently, if I put someone --not sure if it applied to any user disregarding their DT level, but my case was a DT1-- on my trust list, and they have someone they distrust [~username], even if that person is DT2, their feedback will no longer shown on my "trusted feedback" table, and thus when that person [~username] left a negative feedback [~username left a negative trust to "username2"], the said feedback will not shown on my screen. Their feedback instead appeared on that "untrusted feedback. These ratings are from people [...]" table.

--pheww... even writing this made my head spinning--

So yeah, in a quite complex, complicated, and confusing way, I think we can argue that the trust system is really decentralized, in a way that no one has exact and absolute control on who can leave a visible score on someone else's feedback, since DT1s are handpicked --isn't it?-- by theymos through parameter which outcomes are dictated by every user on this forum [by setting their trust list], and DT2 are "handpicked" by DT1, yet DT2 can be kicked with a right amount of vote from DT1 --apparently, DT1 can also be kicked with enough votes too-- and anyone can ask for a DT2 to be revoked --this thread is a case on point-- by plausible reason and enough support.

In one perspective, this brings "trust" into a whole new level of literally trusting someone, because who we put in our list would greatly --as well as instantly, based on my confusing narrative above-- affect our forum experience and collectively affect the whole forum system.

I have to agree, though, that the rising amount of credible DT2 has reached a point where it should be a concern. Loyce has addressed the same concern on his weekly updated thread,


And jumping through his posts through links and threads --which, an interesting activity if I may say, as he has so many interesting posts-- he had also proposed an idea that crossed my mind when I typed this post,

Update for week 215 shows mr.relax is now DT trusted by @Buchi-88 @MinoRaiola and @micaxel who may not be aware of this thread.

https://loyce.club/trust/2023-02-25_Sat_05.07h/522205.html

---

---

As people seem to be willing to support a flag (even if they are hesitant to actually create one), I have taken the liberty of creating a flag against mr.relax

Please support this flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3117

anyone then wanting to escalate with a type 2 or type 3 Flag can do so as they wish.  (At least newbies and guests will be made aware to exercise caution).

Agreed, trust flags are even more confusing.
And as you've said: an overly complicated system will be used less, for example when a member has been scammed (type 2 and 3 flag) but doesn't know how to proceed.

Maybe displaying trust for everyone (no need to be logged it) and in every section would be a better idea?
I would also be in support of it, to remove flags completely and re-introduce a warning message under the trust score "Warning, trade with extreme caution", as it has been handled previously.
Flags are much more complicated but sure, for our current DT flag selections + DT trust feedback we have more options to apply for scammers and different abuses.

Ugh, those flags.  Just my unsolicited opinion here, but those just complicate an already byzantine system of trust feedback.  I'm not claiming they're not useful at all, but if you wonder why a lot of members don't understand said trust system it's likely because they'd have to spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out what to do in what situation and why some things are appropriate and other things aren't--and to a newcomer (or even someone who's been here for months), I can see how everything might not be crystal clear, especially if those members haven't had the need to use the system before.

Yep, and this is why threads like this one are useful (JollyGood has had at least one similar to this).  It'd be nice if mr.relax would weigh in and let the community know if he got the message or not. 

The biggest problem causing DT issues are laziness and a lack of education about the DT system in general.
When it comes to a lack of education about the DT system, we have several abusers here:
- People being active on various platforms / barely active members. Such members only write a few dozen comments per year and most of them don’t know much about specific rules on Bitcointalk – let alone DT and DT standards.
- Quite a bunch of members here are just active on Bitcointalk to earn a few bucks from signature campaigns and a green trusted account looks much better to get accepted into a campaign (or a better paying one). They don’t really care for DT standards and just want to push their accounts.
- Lazy uneducated trolls
- Outright scammers

In addition, we also have flags now, which are even more unknown to some of our uninterested / shitposting forum members.
So, yes: a bigger degree of decentralization is prone to get abused but I would consider the benefits to be much more valuable for the community overally.
People just need to be educated on how DT works before giving out feedbacks…
And DT members should distrust abusers quickly.

---

Since mr.relax has also left a neutral trust for GazetaBitcoin, where he claims GazetaBitcoin would have left a "bad trust" for him (which is not true because it's just neutral), he's showing that he's quite clueless about DT and in my opinion, people being unfit for DT should be distrusted immediately to keep DT as clean as possible.
If he's willing to learn about DT and apologizes for his abuse, maybe it would be an option to stop distrusting him.

I'm always open to review DT issues when people are admitting their mistakes.

I don't know how decentralized it really is, but IMO the DT system is much worse than it used to be even if only because so many barely-known members make it onto the list, and I'm not so sure that's a good thing.  At least before the system was extremely strict and it was hard to get on even DT2, much less DT1; now it's a free-for-all.  That's why I've cleared out my trust list entirely and don't pay attention to any of it anymore.

The feedback given here by mr.relax does look to be a misuse of the trust system, but even if I were inclined to ~ him, it'd take more than one wrongly-given feedback to move my hand.  That was true for Vod and/or Lauda (can't remember) when one or both started a pattern of bad trust page paint jobs.  Anyone can screw up once or twice, but that doesn't mean they should be bumped off of DT at the drop of a hat, you know?

I see it an unnecessary act to just leave a negative feedback on a user who doesn't go inline with your opinion, this is an act of abuse on the trust system and needed to be cautioned, for goodness sake one can easily press the ignore button than the unnecessary stress in leaving a negative feedback, i think those that do that out if curiosity, anger or any kind of vexation on the user they do so to tells more about themselves than the user they left with negative trust, some feedba doesn't worth deserving it when looked into, we take the law into our hands instead of following the due procedures.

Unfortunately, this clown is at it again...  

---

You are absolutely right here...
When it comes to trust, mr.relax is completely clueless and he doesn't listen to advice / explanations.
He claimed multiple times last year, that we would have left him negative / "bad" Trust.
Which is not true because it's just neutral Trust.  



A "bad" trust, dear GazetaBitcoin.  
It's probably the opposite of "positive" Trust. Or is it "good" Trust? And "neutral" doesn't exist?  
We don't know...  

Ohhh come on, not this clown again!

Yet he is back in action!

I remember I first heard about him last year in September and it seems he is still doing same shady activities here. In a way, he reminds me of saxydev, with his shenanigans regarding free AML checks.

I added him to my distrust list since September 2022 and I also gave him a neutral feedback:

---

I believe that our mr.relax barely knows anything about Trust and feedbacks, as he noticed my feedback only in November last year when, of course, he came to me, very angry, asking me to remove the negative feedback I wrote. I explained to him that it wasn't a negative feedback, but a neutral one and, in case he wants to see how a negative looks like this can be arranged.

If I remember well, he replied, apologized for using wrong terms, but then he sent me a retaliatory feedback though:



It is what it is. In any case, distrusting him is a very good measure.

No problem, I've also checked your left trust feedbacks and didn't saw a negative one sent recently, so everything is fine.
Many thanks for getting active on DT and acting against abuse, +1 

We are always happy to get more Bitcointalk members actively using the DT system, making it a bit more decentralized. 

Sorry, I was in a hurry earlier and expressed myself wrongly. I mean, of course, I distrusted him and of course I didn't leave a negative trust entry. That would have been wrong and I didn't do it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

Yeah, that would be a good idea, although I beleive I have at least explained him the difference between the use of positiv, neutral and negative trust or even linked our German translation of your Trust guide topic. But he still doesn't know the difference between neutral and negative trust...
If there's an opportunity, I'll provide a link to your topic of course.  


According to our DT standards, we should be hesistant to give out a negative trust for the abuse mr.relax did. Distrusting him would be more appropriate because it would remove him from DT and his left feedbacks would only be visible under "untrusted feedback". Such feedbacks would not show up as default.
Distrusting works by adding ~mr.relax to your trust list, which you'll find here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
Of course, it would be the best solution if mr.relax realizes his abuse. But I doubt it after his recent abuses.
Here's also a good beginners guide about DT: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

That's a mistake, you should judge the case by spending time to reach a reasonable conclusion. Relying on what X, Y, are saying or not is bad by many standards. Especially when it's the reputation of another human being on the line.

We should always think about the consequence of our action before doing them.

Even though I'm only DT2, I've given him negative trust now. Unfortunately, I can't say much on the subject, since I have absolutely no idea about trading and haven't followed the subject either. But I rely on the statements of 1miau and this thread.