Topic: by rallier - page 2. (Read 1099 times)

You should continue to reinforce your privacy, maybe you can get a slot. Mading up fake stories, defamation someone, giving people redtrusts or distrusts without reason is okay for gangs. Everyone sees very well what's going on here. I hope the Bitcoins all you earned are worth to defame other ones. I’m out of this topic now.

What greed makes with some people. It's very funny to believe that everything is rotating around Chipmixer and people with "deep DT voting power"

This is the exact point I was making about Vod 5 years ago. These people want a system that has no hard and fast rules. They want to define the rules on the fly by mob rule. They then want to set the precedent for tagging people as they please, but then never want the precedent enforced against them. This is why I have been arguing forever for subjective evidence of theft, violation of contract, or violation of applicable laws before rating. How the fuck is anyone supposed to follow the rules with people like this setting precedents? Even the people who want to couldn't possibly comply because they are ever changing, arbitrarily, and selectively enforced.

I hereby kindly ask you to stop responding to this thread. Thanks. The thread must remain on-topic otherwise it's pointless and can be archived/removed.

I find it entirely on topic that you are defending yourself here from a tactic of which "precedent" you set yourself..


You'd have much more legitimacy speaking against these actions if you didn't do the same exact thing yourself..

My rating on TECSHARE has nothing to do with the rating the user in question left me. Can people please stop trying to divert my threads into off-topic discussions? I purposely left out self-mod and local thread rules for fairness, and this is what one gets.. sigh.

But... I mean... Isn't that about exactly the same thing you tagged TECSHARE for?
So it's ok when you do it, but not ok when someone else does it to you?

You PM users all the time recommending them to change their trust lists, and even have threads dedicated to trying to get other users to copy your trust list..
Pot calling the kettle black..


"He is manipulating the Default Trust system of the forum for his own benefit. Making false accusations."
This is just as true of you, if not more, than your tag on TS is of him..

I don't know if peloso is learning how the trust system works, or he has been attempting to promote himself.  I noticed him when he added me to his trust list a couple of months ago, then removed me a couple of weeks later.  If you go back even further in the trust inclusion/exclusion history you'll see what I mean.

He was first voted onto DT1 in the beginning of December.  The week preceding 2019.07.14 he added 150 members to his inclusion list, and 114 more the week after that.  The following week he removed 24, then removed 25 more the week after that.  All of the members he removed are those that did not reciprocate his inclusion.  A couple of weeks later he purged his inclusion list of everyone that did not have him included.  His modifications cause me to suspect that he was including people with the expectation that they would reciprocate.  Like I said before, I don't know if that's the case, I've never asked him to explain his actions.

I'm mostly pointing to peloso as an example of misusing the trust system.  Whether it was an attempt to experiment with inclusions/exclusions, or an effort to promote himself in the trust system, it's the wrong way to go about it.  Sometimes I think it might be due to a lack of understanding, but with LoyceV's guide already translated into 12 languages, one would think that wouldn't be an issue. 

I must have forgotten

Speak for yourself, bruh!

Don’t think about it. Just keep sending distrust/red trust to people you never know. Bitcoin investors have already gone from here.

So message is: "I will tag anyone who dares to exclude me" 

I have no clue how some users are picking users for trust list, but by rallier made me think, these are users they have in trust network http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-08_Sat_07.44h/152486.html


Blacknavy accused otto_diesel:
So how can by rallier trust both Blacknavy and otto_diesel?  


And account bobita http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-08_Sat_07.44h/963279.html :


I don't see account bobita posted anything outside Turkish local board, on the other hand account peloso posts mostly in Russian local.  How they decided to add each other as users "whose judgement I trust" on the same week, I have no fucking idea. Oh, wait, there is something in peloso's trust wall about manipulation of DT


Week "number 55" http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-01_Sat_05.15h/963279.html


Week "number 56" http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-08_Sat_07.44h/963279.html





This negative doesn't surprise me at all. There are just more and more shits going on.

There is no doubt that lauda deserves a warning on their accounts. It is a shame that the person giving it is not default trust. It would be best if people included this member on their trust lists.

Laura does manipulate the trust system and does abuse it when and where he likes.  Even theymos wanted him removed, or so he said.

Theymos distrusts tman also. Lauda's key supporter.

Lauda does PM people, and pressures them to make changes to their trust lists as evidence demonstrates.

This red trust is a good first step. May many more follow.

Stop whining and crying and create a system where objective evidence of scamming or strong intent to scam is require for a trust rating.

Laura has red trust people for far more inappropriate reasons. Too bad.

For months I've been suggesting that the qualification criteria be revised.  At the very least I think it's time to increase the number of DT1 inclusions to qualify for DT2.  Right now a member only needs on DT1 inclusion to be on DT2, I would like to see it raised to at least two, maybe three would be better.  

An increase in the merit requirements for votes and super-votes might be a bit premature, but I suspect that's not far down the line either.  Over the last couple of months we've had as many as 126 people qualify for DT1, out of which 100 are randomly selected.  I prefer that DT1 remain limited to 100 members, but the more people qualify the more randomized it'll be.  I'm not sure how people feel about that, whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but I tend to prefer stability.  So, we can either increase the number of DT1 members, or reduce the number members who qualify.



I agree with this statement.  There were issues with the Russian members and their inclusions in the past, but I think that's mostly resolved now.

It would be funny

They just have been mading up stories in order to maintain their DT status and to join high-paid sig campaigns. Not only in the Turkish local forum, but in the whole boards, people no longer use this forum. There are just sig gangs and shooters here. Getting 0.0375 btc weekly is enough to fuck the forum.

Your concerns about russian board is too high. In russian local, compared for example to turkish there no trust-because-origin but in return there some trolls and haters from russian local into DT.

And yep, i really think that previous trust system was much better, at least, for people from local sections. There was no trust wars, trust disputes and other useless shit. Russian local topic about "reputation" had grown up to 350 pages since new strust system were invented. 350.......


It's hard to do something about that. After i got into DT1, i received few proposes from different people to add them in exchange to add me. I told them that i'm not interested in such kind of things.


Tagging liars is an appropriate way. Liar is such kind of person, that if he's lying for someone reputation (where he doesn't have any interest), then with no doubt he would lie about trading and money cases.
 

Nice deflection - look to the skies and ask for Devine intervention.  

theymos never responded to my question in his most recent thread.  I have no doubt he won't respond to your wailing then or now.

Those ratings are appropriate and unrelated. If you have any complaints, you can PM theymos.

Perhaps if you didn't keep posting bile such as this on random users trust feedback walls then you wouldn't get your knickers in a knot.

---

---

Let's examine this shall we? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872;page=sent;offset=0

Just one positive trust feedback, four or five neutral trust feedback then the other 495 trust feedback are all negative. (and that's just the first 500 of your trust feedback posts from recent working backwards from today)  

---

---

Like I tried to warn you about?

I wonder who these guys learned all these standards from...