Topic: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) - page 6. (Read 2827 times)

Thank you for showing all users of this forum how worthless/useless I really am on this forum, and accordingly to that my feedback worth less then 0.

Why is it funny?

Most other spammers (I am not saying OP is or isn't spammer) are also payed but they don't use "method" you mentioned. They simply spam, and what is most important, to repeat again, is that they are payed. I am pretty sure you noticed "couple" of them in last 3-4 years.

I didn't say that, read my post again and please response with appropriate answer (for example, "I tagged OP for spam but I didn't tag any other spammer because.....")

Besides, I suggested you what you should do, I mean, everyone told you what you should do (remove -ve or change it to neutral).

I've been following this topic for a while, and want to add my 2 3 Satoshis:

In general:

• I don't think you should tag something that should be handled by Mods.
• Before leaving feedback, ask yourself if it makes the forum better.
• Try to make the feedback and tags you leave as accurate as possible. It's a reference for later on, and it's your "business card" as you present your judgement to the forum.

Lucius isn't included by anyone who matters for DT-voting:
Excluding Lucius would change nothing at this point, and that's probably why nobody did that after this topic was created.

What do you mean by "budging" here (in respect to me)?

In other words, how do you actually imagine me budging? Further, if you think that the right way to handle this matter would be to exclude such users from the Trust lists (which may well be the case), how are the folks going to learn about this and similar cases if we were not to start such threads (which seems to be your point)? If anything, letting it go would only promote such behavior in the future, wouldn't it?


I'm not sure whom you refer to here. Anyway, having no means to handle this situation (i.e. effectively prevent users from abusing the trust system) means it basically failed in its purpose (as theymos himself seems to be about to accept)

So why you didn't tag manager? According to your logic you should tag first campaign manager who have encouraged for spam. Not is it ?

Is he promoting scam ? Handle shitpost is really job of moderators. You should report his spam post instead of leave feedback. Shitpost is not related with trust system.

What action are you expecting from DT's ? Leave retailonary feedback? You already did it. Since both of you are not part of default trust system, I don't think we need counter tag you or tag to deisik for his opinion. If someone want to exclude him then that's different case. We can't force anyone to remove feedback.

That's what I asked on my first post.

You want DT members to tag Lucius. Retaliatory ratings seem more like abuse than prevention of abuse. The right way to handle this would be to exclude users who post ratings incompatible with the purpose of the trust system. That's been pretty much the consensus of this thread. Since neither of you wants to budge you should probably lock the thread and move on.

What do you mean by me misusing the trust rating?

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

It seems obvious (well, at least to me) that such cases of trust abuse should not be neglected by the community as they destroy or massively erode the idea behind the trust system. theymos made it quite clear but without a means to actually prevent people from abusing this system, it is no more than a wish

If you can't resist leaving feedback in cases like this, then the "neutral tag" ignored by most members (including myself until I was notified) should be encourage to be used. Just as the below user stated on one of my previous thread


I believe leaving feedback for that offend isn't worth Red tagged but again the trust system isn't moderated so what can we say.

The trust sender should note,

Often there is a difference between being trusted with money and being trusted to have good judgement, like e.g. a difference between a business person and a judge, or between wife trusting husband with $1000 and trusting his answer on how she looks in that dress .

I don't know if you or Lucius can be trusted with money. It's possible. But you both don't seem to have good judgement. Bitcointalk trust system has two different albeit somewhat related features for that - trust lists for people whose judgement you trust/distrust, and trust ratings for people whom you would trust (or not) with money. You both seem to be misusing the latter one.

Okay, I decided to tag them with a neutral rating with a link to this thread:



If anyone is with me on that, you can do something to that tune


Well, that's not what I meant

If someone is irresponsible, you can't trust them as it is essentially synonymous with being untrustworthy (by and large). You can't trust such people (as in I would trust him with my life and with my wife) because you can't reliably expect them to make rational decisions and choices. It is like two sides of the same coin, where the one side is impossible without the other. If this is not what Trust is about, then I stand corrected

That attitude is exactly the reason why I believe you were/are considered as a spammer. I don't fuckin need to find any threads. If you think you're not a spammer, convince the dude that left you a negative trust and not me. I give two flying fucks about your existence on this forum because you clearly haven't contributed shit.

My agenda - Leave you the fuck alone and stop trying to post my opinions on why you don't deserve a negative tag.

You'll appreciate what?

That's fucking hilarious if you ask me. You are spreading misinformation (read, outright lies) and now I should go find that thread? No, that's definitely not how it is gonna work out. You make a claim and it is up to you to substantiate it (read, if you don't prove it, you will go as a liar)


You evidently remember it wrong. I joined the Coinroll signature campaign when Yahoo was already the campaign manager (I just didn't know he was the one). Now think how much of what else you could remember is actually true (and how much of that is just your "unbiased" imagination)


You are stepping on a very thin ice here. Basically, you are walking right into a minefield as I'm neither the top poster here (in terms of total post count), nor the most active one (in terms of posts contributed daily). So tread carefully here as with such generalizations you may not end very well as you evidently don't know who is posting that much, if not more (this is not a threat, this is a warning). She is a real bitch (this is not an insult)

Anyway, this campaign lasted for 8 weeks. For me, it started with this post and ended with this one. That makes a total of 1100 posts which produces less than 140 posts per week. So much for "making over 200+ posts", huh. Apart from that, you may actually want to visit my profile to see how many merits I earned during the last couple of months (read, a lot more than you). It seems like you desperately need a good reality check right now

As you can see, in all your three points, you are either severely distorting the facts or just outright lying. So what are you actually doing here? What is your agenda?


So you can't substantiate your claims. Okay then


That's not how it looks and feels. So much for "well-qualified shit-posting"

1. I'm not spreading any information. Everything is just public here. Can you find that thread where this was being discussed? I'll appreciate that.
2. Your campaign manager was Yahoo, right? Before he took over you were managed by an inexperienced campaign manager if I remember.
3. Making over 200+ posts just to get a good income from the signature campaigns is called well-qualified shit-posting and not really contributing constructively. Like if you did, you'd have much higher merits than what you have now.

Then you are free to tag Lucius with a negative rating saying as much, but you cannot reasonably expect DT members to tag him on your behalf. Trust is not moderated, as you can see by the plethora if completely nonsense ratings on most DT members' trust pages. On the other hand, spam (perceived or real) is an issue to be dealt with by the moderators, not by using the trust system. In short, the rating is incorrect, but no one is going to remove it on your behalf.

Also, trusting someone to do a deal, hold money, or not try to scam you is different from trusting someone to leave accurate ratings on other users. The former is reflected by positive/negative trust ratings, the latter is reflected by inclusions/exclusions on trust lists.

I did not ask you now to send me PM, but that the problem could be solved through PM without opening this thread. So read better, I do not want anything from you, and I do not try to make any way out of this situation.


Funny that you ask that, but I will answer to that question. Reason is simple, he was user with most post per week in that campaign, and he is using method for reply on posts, which I have already described. So it makes no sense for you to tag only one account, I should tag them all to make some sense?


I agree, but OP is not asking nothing but that DT members tag my account with red trust because of abusing trust system.

You are entitled to that opinion, ans Lucius is entitled to his.  I agree it seems frivolous, and maybe malicious, but that's a risk inherent in any public trust system.



Again, I agree.  The burden of proof is the accuser's, and in this case Lucius has left no proof.  Furthermore he claims to have risked 1000BTC which is unsupported by his allegation, and once again lacking credible evidence.  The whole community can see this as plain as day.  In my opinion the review reflects poorly on Lucius far more than you.

The only thing you can do is discuss this rationally with Lucius in an attempt to convince him to remove the review.  If he refuses he'll have to live with the ramifications as well.



Starting a rational discussion could easily have resolved this situation satisfactorily for both parties.

@deisik, If I were in your situation I would lock this thread and stat a civil discussion with Lucius about the issue you have with his feedback.  YMMV.

So report post to moderator and moderator will merge posts into one if it is necessary or remove second post and you should really change this feedback to neutral.

---

Just tell me something, why is it important for you to tag account deisik but it is not important for you to tag all these spam accounts https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49691649 ? Or any other spammer? Does it make any sense to you?

I find it funny you use this saying, as i feel you've fallen into that trap. You are so focused on what you want people to do for you, as this is an issue you have with what someone has said about you. That you haven't paid attention to the forest of information,options or ways to resolve this yourself.

I refer you to my previous post about this. I will go so far as to say that if you are not willing to take any action such as leaving a neutral or engaging with lucius, i would not be willing to leave a neutral myself in your place, as others have considered.
 
Lucius i would really reconsider using negatives for behaviour/posting issues you have with people. That is a good place for neutral to use as a comment. In your case it will be seen the same to the rest of the world. With the added benefit that others may find your feedback useful

You don't have to report 100. Report a few and in the comments ask to look at the post history. And even if the moderators disagree it's still not a good use of the trust system to tag suspected spammers. "Ignore" would be a more appropriate option in this case.

Reports on the Economics board work just fine BTW. Global mods handle it.

There is no gray area here

As this is all complete bullshit. When things get hot, you can give like 3-4 replies to the same post in a matter of minutes and receive as many replies to your single post from the same fellow. Yeah, the thread gets clumsy (you likely saw such conversations yourself here and there), but that has nothing to do with spamming (as this is the opposite of it)

Note that it is not even remotely the case here as I was replying to different posts made on different dates, most likely, as I kept reading the thread (I honestly don't remember). You read the thread, you post replies. If your reply as you think requires a separate post, you submit a separate post. What's wrong with that?


You have already stated your reason here

If your true reason is different from what you said here (read, what you accused me of), then it would be a double abuse of the trust system. And as I already implied, you put yourself in a position when there is no reason whatsoever for me to ask you anything. Simply put, it is not up to me to deal with this issue

Basically, you are to face the consequences of your actions as this is what being responsible is about. You started it, not me. It is not like you first accuse someone of something and then negotiate your way out of it when things start looking grim for you. Things don't work that way