Topic: Are the negative trusts you have given so far really necessary? - page 2. (Read 1145 times)

Ok, I'll bite, since you keep bringing this up. What is this "last straw" you want to talk about?


Unworthiness to be on DT1 calls for an exclusion, not for a flag.


Remove the rating if you can't comment.

In my haste to finish the response earlier, I neglected to point out of the couple of posts mentioned by nutildah, the majority of his posts were trolling that he distrusts me and the few other posts of his didn't offer any contradictory evidence to the proof I had offered.

Indeed trolling me in this tread is yet more proof nutildah has no genuine concern for my feedbacks given instead he just wants to troll me...

Saying someone is wrong is not the same as providing proof or a contradictory view.

...and if he is prepared to troll me then he'll do the same to you.

Perhaps you should go back and finish reading the irfan_pak for the rest of the information provided instead of flying off the handle as suchmoon did with his "last straw" comment having also not read the whole thread.

There are many flags that are unsupported or opposed - the majority in fact which have not had their creator withdraw support. Perhaps you should go back and read the additional information concerning the connection that some are alts (which was proved by others, hence there aren't even 8 in total). We have seen at least two others prove their unworthyness to be on DT1 with their unreasonable posts. (and thanks for confirming that you don't have issue with the rest of my flags, perhaps now you would like to support them as you haven't aired any objection to them?)

No charges have been laid in the Cryptopia case, so I cannot comment any further while a criminal investigation is ongoing. (make of that what you will).

I had previously given Thule multiple negative posts and had condensed them into just one post.  I have been slowly working on my entire back catalogue of feedback's as evidenced in this post where I had six feedbacks for quickseller and have condensed them into just one.  I don't expect you will have seen my various comments concerning my reviewing all previous posts to ensure they pass the litmus test, I have already reviewed ~ 400 of my 2,400 posts, (about 1/6^th) so although I have a way to go I'm happy with my progress even though you didn't seem to noticed the clumping together of similarly themed posts. My feedback to you is the starting point.

humanrightsfoundation is pre-the review point.  Would you like me to review them next?

As with quickseller, I have multiple feedback posts against Lauda - some of which are before the review point.  Would you like me to review them next?

---

Sandwiched between these dates are dozens of other ratings which *you* disagree with - but, clearly they are not wrong - you would have said they are wrong. (QED)  You can join the school yard threads of "this is a counter to X, Y and Z's counters" if you like.  From your multiple reactions I have no doubt you do or will.

I have, many times. Most recently I can remember the case of irfan_pak who you incorrectly linked to a wallet not belonging to him, your 8 flags against the Turkish community (only 1 other member supported 1 of your flags, the rest are all opposed by over a dozen other members), and of course when I brought up this gem in which you refuse to remove a negative feedback after explaining to you they were joking about having hacked cryptopia.

Here's some other examples of your erroneous negative feedback:

Thule   2020-01-10   Reference   Narcissist.

Do you really think its appropriate to leave a negative feedback for being a narcissist, especially when the account has already been tagged to shreds?

humanrightsfoundation   2019-08-27   Reference   Who creates a self-moderated thread in the *Reputation* section?

This guy was in all likelihood a scammer for other reasons but making a self-moderated thread in Reputation is hardly grounds for a negative.

Lauda   2019-07-09   Reference   ~85% of all Flags Lauda has created are without basis or proof. I do not trust this behavior.

Again, not a good reason for leaving a negative feedback. Instead of leaving a negative, simply oppose the flags and perhaps voice the reasoning behind your opposition in their reference threads.

Sandwiched between these dates are dozens of other ratings which I disagree with but I don't have time to go over all of them individually. But I feel referencing 13 instances of misuse of the trust system should suffice for the time being.

No. No you haven't. Next.

My first interaction with TS that I can recall having was asking him why he was so upset with the trust system given his great rating, and this was back during the time of the old scoring system, when he had zero DT negatives. I was just trying to ask him an honest question and he proceeded to be extremely condescending in his answer, going so far as to compare himself to Morpheus. Long story short: you can't stop some people from going nuts.


Not true. I've pointed out several times to you how you were wrong, more than I can remember. This isn't exactly the thread to get into it though.

People will criticise me for giving negatives months or years after the event, but none of you good people will ever utter how I am wrong, where I am wrong, nore why I am wrong.

When I took over the Known Alts thread I took a mostly hands off approach and yet you talk as though my negatives were posted yesterday, not years ago.

I am not interested in playing 2000 questions in the hope that you might deign your good selves to answer me.

Since we are projecting emotional states upon one another, please don't have a psychotic break down. Do yourself a favor and pull your nose out of situations you have no knowledge about. This is not about a single post but a long time pattern of antipathy from The Pharmacist, and you imagining this is about a single post is based in ignorance. Also, very good of you to tell me what I experience, I appreciate it. Just totally ignore the whole point of my statement that new users don't know any better, but its not a problem because you do. I guess all my problems are solved because you tell me they don't exist in your eyes.

selamun aleykum
trust system in the forum collapsed
Giving feedback is legal and normal for one and suspicious for others
While preparing a trustlist, one is free while others have to "get permission"

merit system is also wrong
completely subjective and vulnerable
somebody contracts multi accounts and makes a living from the forum
people move away from the forum as they see injustice and double standards

Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.

You really are obsessed with me aren't you? This is why I rarely back off people like you, because even when I do they still can never let their obsession go. Maybe you can regale us all with the story of how I left you that neutral rating that one time. The problem with your logic is you might know to ignore those frivolous ratings and that I am safe to trade with, but new users, a large percentage of my trade base don't. As a result those abusive ratings have a direct impact on my ability to trade even though they are left for dumb shit like accusations of "trolling" or stories about "trust abuse". The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis and no one kicks them off the DT.

Guys, I created this topic to discuss something right. Please do not go beyond the subject. I don't think the personal conflicts I criticized in the first place could affect the overall forum. Already when I said it in the beginning, LoyceV, and suchmoon said the same thing. Negative trust should be given only for problems concerning the forum, not yours.

If your personal conflicts has special importance to you, you can indicate this by giving trust/distrust in your trust list.

Again, I would like to point out that nothing I mentioned here is for encouraging violation of forum rules, spam and scam content! Rather, it is because this system should be against violation of forum rules, scam and spamming.

Unfortunately, there is no 100% absolute distribution of justice. But it is necessary to start somewhere. And please choose to use your judgments in favor of the forum! I'm sure that if everyone tries to do the right things, the forum will become a much nicer place for all of us.

Some people don't like to just delete their negative rating, some rightfully so. Although the neutral rating is a thing, most people prefer to keep the big red "negative" trust for years. For people in situations like you've given an example for, the trust rating mostly serves to warn people who are planning to do any business with the member. A negative trust might be bad in comparison to neutral trust, albeit more efficient.

Looking back at the negative trusts I've given in over 7 years, I see none that requires any rectification. I do also have some "defaulting on loan" neg trusts. After checking their profile I see that they literally vanished around the same time the trust was given. Not to mention it's a hassle to constantly check your trust list to see if someone is back on the track. I would say that if there is anyone out there who solved their problems regarding a previously given neg trust, they should contact the person who gave it, rather than complaining per se.

But for over 95% of the time, what Lauda has said is correct. Don't abuse the forum (don't violate the rules, don't find loopholes to give yourself an advantage etc.), don't get tagged with red trust.

I like people like you who actually either change or remove trust feedbacks whenever needed, but there were people on DT and some are still on DT who went dormant after leaving negative feedbacks and not coming back to the forum. I know that their feedbacks shouldn't really be a priority for them to come on the forum, but then, such feedbacks completely ruin an account if their negative trust is either baseless or is not relevant anymore to what they were given it for. Let's say someone defaulted on a loan a few years before and you leave a red tag to him back then, but he manages to repay it by time and settles it with the lender, shouldn't it be your responsibility to either remove your rating or neutral tag him? But if you are too busy in your real life and can't come online, who will take the responsibility to counter tag that person or exclude you from their list so that the borrower's account doesn't get wasted?

I don't think that's why he came up with the flag system, though I have to admit I haven't paid much attention to it and have yet to make a flag against a member here.  TECSHARE has always brought up the issue of the difference between dispicable behavior and trustworthiness in business deals--and sometimes, but not always, they're the same thing.  As an example, I think TECSHARE is an angry loon but I would do business with him with no hesitation because of his track record on the forum of not screwing people over.

There have always been allegations of trust abuse by DT members, but the fact is if that happens those DT members would be called on it and probably would be kicked off DT via exclusions by other DT members.  TECSHARE is actually one example of that happening (years ago), but there have been others too. 

I'm comfortable with all the negs I've left for members, which mostly deal with account sales.  But back in 2017-18 before the merit system was launched, I was leaving negs for shitposters because there were no other tools available to combat them.  I was never comfortable doing that and ended up removing all of those feedbacks after the merit system came along.  If you're on DT, you have to be careful about leaving either positive or negative trust just because of the weight it carries.  Hopefully new DT members realize this and act accordingly.

He's reply, whilst trying to hide it, is solely based because his own abuse among his own Turkish gang got called out:

Your argument on its own is valid, but in relation to my response is invalid.

Please don't mind when I try to point this out, but isn't it true that there were DTs who abused their authority of giving bad trusts by trying to show their power on the forum through false/baseless accusations? I don't want to get involved in all this drama anymore because the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags". TBH, I only see the best in the interest of an individual to have a trust list maintained here, though it doesn't make any difference at first but once a DT (of any depth) is proven wrong, this might turn out to be a win-win situation for that person who was accused either due to jealousy or baseless assumptions.

Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".

I'm really sorry.
Every day, I began to walk away from this forum, which I fell in love with because of unfair accusations and slander.
I really don't understand why they're doing this.
I have always enjoyed being a part of this forum.I've seen everybody blame each other lately .this is painful.

Well said for a Cat.

---

Someone is triggered with the discussion...

---

Also don't forget those users who just make unnecessary feedback just because you offended them, also there are some users who provide links but their feedback are just copy/pasted from the other users. I simply disagree with copy pasting of feedback. Its too obviously biased, someone should still create their own feedback even though the reason for tagging is the same.