I don't mean to sound patronising, but the idea is that if you don't agree with the trust left by the user in question, you don't add them to your trusted list. It's up to each individual to draw their own conclusions on not just this particular feedback, but all feedback from that user, then decide if, on the whole, those ratings are accurate. Clearly you don't like what that user is doing, so obviously you aren't going to trust them. What more do you want?
For what it's worth, I certainly wouldn't have left red trust for that. But that's just my personal take on it. I can't speak for others.
I haven't added Lauda to my trusted list, as I do find some of their ratings a little reactionary. But at the same time, I don't distrust them either and am aware of the many perfectly legitimate ratings they have left.
Topic: Calling for SENSIBLE DEBATE on this use of the trust system ( not regarding us) - page 3. (Read 768 times)
December 04, 2019, 10:08:06 AM
December 04, 2019, 09:54:35 AM
Let's have a sensible civil debate regarding this red trust given to eddie13 today for daring to utter the truth.
eddie13 2019-12-02 Reference Selectively acts as as your "friendly neighbourhood guy", but those double-faced pricks are the worst. Most of what he does nowadays, he does out of spite.
After being called out for his virtue-signalling several times, he tries to attack here and there with half-baked "legitimate concerns".
I wouldn't trust this user nor his judgement with anything.
The reason for the red is this post.
This could be interpreted as facilitating a scam or at the very least now a conflict of interest..
There is no conflict of interest other than you trying to attack me for calling you out on your bullshit virtue-signalling on everything.
There is absolutely no proof of this inasmuch there is no proof of other exchanges doing this. Only half-baked accusations, of which there are plenty for pretty much every exchange.
What's the point of this system if you don't encourage accused parties of resolving their misdeeds or "claimed misdeeds"? Oh right, if someone else was to escrow this you'd keep quiet as always.
Does this require red trust? I mean I see one undeniably TRUE statement from eddie.
Yes escrowing for a projects bounty ( likely making money from it) will present a conflict of interests when discussing
a/ whether they should be forced to have an escrow ( lauda himself)
b/ escrowing their bounty will not help at all if they are a scam
So one true statement
and
eddie also just says hmmmmmmmmmm in response to a reasonable post by jolly good?
For this he gets told he is getting red trust, and further more if he keeps making posts like this (the truth) the red trust will remain??
Before deciding DT members should
1/ review this post and read the thread
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52742577
2/ look into how that project was "forced" into using escrow ( they amazingly chose laudas escrow)
3/ the clear financial motive for lauda to want to silence eddie13 simply stating truths??
I mean again it seems the trust system is totally being leveraged in a very net negative way. The DT members were all meriting jollygoods discovery and supporting the notion it looks scammy. Now eddie is getting red trust for simply stating some undeniable truths about it??
SO DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST.
then tell us if this is a valid use of negative trust and what you are intending to do about it if anything.
To us this is almost up there with using the trust system to punish whistle blowers. But will be interesting to hear sensible reasoning from other members.
Let's not immediately derail it. Keep on topic and relevant. Let's all try to remain civil too.
eddie13 2019-12-02 Reference Selectively acts as as your "friendly neighbourhood guy", but those double-faced pricks are the worst. Most of what he does nowadays, he does out of spite.
After being called out for his virtue-signalling several times, he tries to attack here and there with half-baked "legitimate concerns".
I wouldn't trust this user nor his judgement with anything.
The reason for the red is this post.
I forced them to start an escrowed campaign.
they found Lauda as an escrow
Yeah, it should start any day now and that's the very least that I can do.they found Lauda as an escrow
to accept escrowing their campaign
Just because they might in future run a scam-free bounty campaign does not make it a scam-free project because the bounty campaign is directly related to p2pb2b being promoted.
p2pb2b2 have been selective scamming users
Hmm....Just because they might in future run a scam-free bounty campaign does not make it a scam-free project because the bounty campaign is directly related to p2pb2b being promoted.
p2pb2b2 have been selective scamming users
What's the point of this system if you don't encourage accused parties of resolving their misdeeds or "claimed misdeeds"? Oh right, if someone else was to escrow this you'd keep quiet as always.
Does this require red trust? I mean I see one undeniably TRUE statement from eddie.
Yes escrowing for a projects bounty ( likely making money from it) will present a conflict of interests when discussing
a/ whether they should be forced to have an escrow ( lauda himself)
b/ escrowing their bounty will not help at all if they are a scam
So one true statement
and
eddie also just says hmmmmmmmmmm in response to a reasonable post by jolly good?
For this he gets told he is getting red trust, and further more if he keeps making posts like this (the truth) the red trust will remain??
Before deciding DT members should
1/ review this post and read the thread
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52742577
2/ look into how that project was "forced" into using escrow ( they amazingly chose laudas escrow)
3/ the clear financial motive for lauda to want to silence eddie13 simply stating truths??
I mean again it seems the trust system is totally being leveraged in a very net negative way. The DT members were all meriting jollygoods discovery and supporting the notion it looks scammy. Now eddie is getting red trust for simply stating some undeniable truths about it??
SO DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST.
then tell us if this is a valid use of negative trust and what you are intending to do about it if anything.
To us this is almost up there with using the trust system to punish whistle blowers. But will be interesting to hear sensible reasoning from other members.
Let's not immediately derail it. Keep on topic and relevant. Let's all try to remain civil too.
Jump to: