Topic: Conflict of Interest on DT1 - page 3. (Read 2732 times)

that's actually one of the definitions of authority. a tagged account---for many folks---will carry the same weight as a ban because you're probably better off creating a new account. the fact that theymos centrally dictates who has these powers (and who doesn't) makes the social relationships pretty clear. unequal power distribution is the basis of authority. positive and negative trust have a massive impact on anyone's ability to do business on the forum, so let's not act like the ability to leave feedback is meaningless. if it didn't matter, nobody would care. clearly, people care.


if you haven't noticed, i very much enjoy arguing. when i came in here, i was just laying out a generic negative opinion about how the system is used. i wasn't really all that interested until the personal attacks and contradictions and fallacies came forth in response.


already happened many times before. what exactly do you think i'm trying to accomplish here? lol. i'm much more interested in getting one or two people to escape the groupthink than to accomplish any actual change. nothing's going to change.

the debate won't ever get resolved. in fact, a debate can't resolve anything. theymos just needs to decide to make changes, or not. around the time i joined the forum, the trust system was his brand new invention. this is his show, we're just in the audience. i guess DT are like the ushers or some shit.

dang, there goes suchmoon twisting words again. i might respond later after a few drinks. or not.

What I'm getting from this thread is this:

- A few years ago, account selling and other actions that we are quick to tag today were instead allowed and tolerated. That is true - I feel the forum as a whole hadn't become sick and tired of sc(/p)ammers at that point.

- Of the people that conducted those activities, the members that didn't end up scamming and leaving are today's Legendary members - some of whom are DT2.

- Now that those actions are heavily discriminated against, those members that stayed and were given a chance to change still have those shady backgrounds that the OP and others are somewhat justly pointing at. The thing is - since a few years ago scammers weren't as quickly tagged as they are now, we're nipping all the scammers (95%) and people who would have learned and changed (5%) in their buds straightaway. That's also justifiable - who wants scammers to be present in hordes?

- At this point, I think we've gotten to the core of both sides. Some people are arguing at the irony that our current DT2 members are displaying when they're tagging people that were exactly them a few years ago, while others are looking at the present and positively changed DT2 and questioning the removal of trustworthy members (who were essentially given a second chance at the expense of scammers doing those same behaviors back then as well).

If anything, I'm also looking at the current system with its elitism and I'm seeing one far from perfection. But I agree with this statement from The Pharmacist:


I think a good number of the forum feels like there's room for improvement - there usually is, in all cases. This argument is simply solidifying that dissent, but nothing will be done until better systems can be thought up and discussed. That's what we're lacking right now.

So I appreciate the research and all the thought on both sides, but attacking individual DT2 members that bring disputable shit with them on points that can be argued until the end of time might appease the people who just love the drama and feeding their egos off of it, but in reality it's not going to accomplish much.

TL;DR: we're arguing over the past, but what the forum needs right now are discussions towards improvement.

Yet you claimed that


No, it's not reasonable to assume that at all. If you can prove the conflict of interest - go ahead. Merely not tagging is not proof of anything.


I may know some case or another and still have no time to dig deep enough to warrant a tag. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by withholding my judgement. I think it would be wrong to pressure DT members to do it the way you seem to be implying.


Not at all. I simply don't assume that ALL DT members, or cops, think and act exactly the same all the time. If one DT member doesn't tag someone tag-worthy, another can do it, and DT members generally don't rape or murder but I have to admit that your gang of straw-people looks mighty spiffy.

If none of the 88% tag the presumed offender(s) then it's very likely that's a nothingburger. Having said that, I would like to see a more diverse set of DT members but recently there was another butthurt thread whining about too many DT members so there goes the "community standard"...


Then we might as well put it into rules and let moderators deal with it. Trust network is more than just a rigid set of standards. There are guidelines and there are processes in place (e.g. exclusions) to deal with abusers.


All or nothing isn't how life works.


I didn't say that at all. I said - post proof.


"All speeding drivers in the world" -> "all account traders on Bitcointalk"
"one cop" -> "one DT member"

That was the context for the analogy.

Then, in a different context, I pointed out how unlikely it seems for everyone on DT to have conflicts of interest preventing them from policing each other. But if you can prove such - go ahead. Feel free to start a Scam Accusation against any user (DT or not) who you think should be tagged.


What are you on about?

I don’t think me having never sold an account and advising that Blazed remove the conflicts of interest rather than pay a fine deserves a personal attack.

Well you have a good point about all the sent feedback of lauda so how about keeping the ratings sent as default trust but exclude the person, otherwise it just seems counterproductive to re include someone as DT just because his sent feedback since the person is supposedly not to be trusted.

Not talking about lauda in particular since I don't know what he has done or not, just in general.

Nor does anyone here have any real authority, except the ability to leave a feedback.  Some are weighed more than others, but in the grand scheme of things a greater weight does not equate with the user whose feedbacks have the greater weight having "authority".

DT members aren't the police.  There certainly may be collusion amongst them (or among any number of members of bitcointalk), and if you don't like it...there's not much you can do about it except do what you're doing, which is writing long, screaming treatises about how unfair the forum is.  This isn't a democracy, this isn't the job market, the department of labor, the Chinese government, or anything else.  It's a discussion forum with a trust system that's obviously (to me) broken, and a bunch of human beings of varying intelligence and honesty.

You can keep complaining about all of this, but eventually people will stop coming over to play once they realize the debate is failing to resolve anything.  That's exactly what's going to happen.

If you have evidence of specific people doing specific evil acts, bring forth the proof in the form of a scam accusation in that section of the forum.  Until you do, life--and bitcointalk--will continue on its merry way, being cruel and unfair.

i didn't say that. that's a straw man.

the above said, "get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law." it didn't say, "anyone who got off the hook is the cop's drinking buddy." words matter.

i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. eg if a DT member posts in this thread, it's reasonable to assume they are aware of the cases being discussed. the question then becomes, what are their standards per their sent feedback? if their standards are inconsistent, can we at least form some community standards instead of just perpetual hand-waving? to outsiders, the message is "only those get tagged need to answer for anything; those who who do the tagging are always in the right." this is why i talk about authority. that's the same logic that people apply to cops who beat up, rape and murder people, then protect each other from prosecution. you apparently prefer to give cops, DT members and other authorities the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time. i don't.

for example, if account selling was perfectly trustworthy on date x and scam tag-worthy on date y, can we establish a standard? how about trust farming---how far back is long enough to let bygones be bygones? if there is a time aspect, can users who got tagged get rehabilitated or let off for "rookie mistakes" after a certain period of time, or does this logic only get applied to a limited group of people (who might also now happen to occupy DT)? what about "lying" and "slander?" when does "lying" warrant negative trust?

if you don't hold anyone to any standards, then these threads won't go away. and more bandwidth will be wasted yet.


conflicts of interest don't require collusion. they just confer personal benefit.

and there should be a general expectation that people in positions of authority are supposed to self-police. this is why government agencies have ethical codes that lay out precise standards and define what is and isn't a conflict of interest, with emphasis on preventing them. this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. you're using that as a basis to say DT members don't use their position for personal benefit. i just disagree.


nobody is saying everyone is in cahoots. that's another a straw man:


you point out how few DT members there are. yet a comparison to "all speeding drivers in the world" is applicable? you're conflating well-known DT members with newbie throwaway accounts to bolster the idea that all conflicts of interest are just based on ignorance or nonchalance, because there's oh so many people in the world, can't tag them all! but actually, we're talking about a pretty small group of people.

anyway, just talking about how social authority works in general. i've already said too much here---already got that bootlicking toady digaran lobbing ad hominem attacks and claiming merit abuse because i expressed a general opinion about the trust system. pfff and you guys wonder why people post in meta/reputation from alt accounts? lesson learned: i'll use an alt next time i post an opinion that isn't just parroting groupthink. already half-expecting my opinions to be construed as "lying" or generic "untrustworthy" behavior or "slander" and red tagged anyway.

Lauda was briefly kicked out of DT2 as well. Perhaps all this is the proper reflection of the non-monochrome nature of the issue. Lauda has the negs clearly visible to anyone who cares. Lauda also has tons of sent feedback that was deemed important enough by a DT1 member to re-include Lauda. This has been litigated publicly for so long that I doubt there is anything else that needs to be done here.

Og seems to be douche-canoe of epic proportions but that's an entirely different topic.

Well, lauda for instance has 2 negative ratings from shorena and Ognasty and yet he is still on DT2 isn't he? So they are actually tagging each other, it's just that it doesn't seem to matter, I mean is Lauda a scammer or not? Is Ognasty giving false ratings then? Is Lauda allowed to give shorena trust ratings in retaliation or viceversa? The whole thing seems to be a mess honestly.

No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy. The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women.

Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%?

Quicksy has been going on about all this "DT abuse" nonsense for years ever since being kicked out of it. This thread is just a ridiculous waste of bandwidth.

Back when I bought that account we did not have the current spam issues and no sold accounts were being tagged. The main reason I was fine with buying the account was my knowing the person who was posting with it (known him for 15+ years now). You can tell the thread was publicly posted as was the norm back then.  Paying fines to remove trust is a really bad idea and will lead to all sorts of trouble.

that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before.

the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same.

that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head.

this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist.

It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever. If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.


Besides being physically impossible, this is just plain ridiculous. We have 100+ people in DT for a reason. If some turkey fucker is reluctant to tag someone then someone else can step up. If no one does then maybe the supposed offender doesn't need to be tagged.

Yes, I'm tagging only people that I "want to", i.e. have the time to review their alleged offence and to make up my mind. Trying to make me tag someone I don't "want to" could amount to extortion, something the OP claims to know a lot about.

If you see things as black and white when they clearly aren't, then there is a very obvious fallacy (false binary) present.

That's pretty much how it has been recently more or less (see recent collusion to exclude people you disagree with and whatnot); well, at least for those who abuse it. Theymos rarely steps in (next to never), which makes it even worse.

''The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.'' Why is that a big fallacy? You would be abusing your power if you only tagged people that you wanted to. If you agree that account sellers should be tagged then all of them should be tagged otherwise what's the point of trust ratings. If anyone can do whatever they want then we might as well not have a trust rating system.

I think the correct answer is: "sometimes". But I also think it's pretty clear the majority of Newbies use disposable accounts hoping to pull a quick scam. Once they receive red trust, they move on to the next account.

what, exactly, was contradictory?


wtf? so now shitposting everyday every week to outpace the "activity" count is a prerequisite for not being labelled an alt? you forum police are taking this shit too far.

and how---exactly---is any of this contradicting anything i said?


oh joy, the merit police have arrived!

dude, first of all, who gives a shit about merit? this is just pathetic.

second of all, since you're the merit police, let's have a gander. i received 15 merit total from 13 people. no one person gave me more than 2 merit. in your case, 30 of the 72 merit you received came from one person. that person also has two recent negative trusts for scamming. your alt account, i guess? or maybe just a friend, as you say?

see how fucking bullshit these baseless accusations are? you act like some tribunal member in some orwellian fiction. get over yourself.


first of all, please learn how to apply the english definition of "standards":

whether standards are consistently applied is a matter of objective fact.

i don't need to have been around for years or have consistent interaction with the community (whatever the fuck that means? explain) to talk about matters of objective fact. if someone posts examples of DT members applying inconsistent standards, anyone with a brain is capable of assessing that. this requires logic and reason, not a certain quota of forum posts per day. it's completely ridiculous---no, embarrassing---that this needs to be said.

second of all, i've been reading this forum for like 5+ years. who the fuck are you to say i'm audacious for expressing extremely general opinions about the shittiness of the centralized trust system? the fucked up trust system and the pro-doxxing (and surprisingly anti-libertarian) culture here is why i would never go near the marketplace with a 10-foot pole as a vendor.

and third, i spoke very generally about how authority and conflicts work, and thus why the trust system is doomed to failure. wtf are you on about with "a deep understanding about their friends" and other bullshit like that? you're just making even more shit up now.

What you are doing is contradictory. you have the same post-activity counts. you are an alt account. only your friends have merited you. you have 1-3 posts in average when you are actually active. what kind of consistent interactions could you possibly have with this community to have the audacity to talk about consistent standards of DT members? you are not active enough to know about their good deeds, but you have a deep understanding about their friends, enough to conclude there is a conflict of interest.

You caught the retribution from my post above. why don't you consider the circumstance? if Lauda has left negative feedback on somebody for selling one account 3 years ago. Lauda should do the same to Blazed. but if Blazed is willing to pay a fine and exonerate himself and if Lauda agrees on it, there is nothing you could do other than paying the same amount for the same wrong doing if you were tagged by Lauda for selling account 3 years ago. if there is any evidence of any wrong doings by DT members which has to have happened on the same day as Lauda leaving negative trust on somebody else for the same wrong doing, provide us with that evidence.

OP is saying that Blazed did something in the past, Yahoo did something in the past and OP is asking Lauda to tag them because she has tagged others for the same reasons. I'm telling @OP, show us a negative trust by Lauda on the same dates and for the same reasons on other members. show me evidence of Blazed selling an account yesterday and a negative trust by Lauda on another member for selling an account yesterday. if there is such evidence and you couldn't get justice in this community would be an obvious abuse by the ones in power.


I didn't say that community should deem that amount to be sufficient or any amount. I said what if. I sold an account 3 years ago but just now Lauda tagged me for that. Lauda should tag Blazed too. that never happened.


Wrong. if Blazed is doing something as selling accounts today, Lauda should tag him. do we have any evidence to prove that to be true? saying that Blazed has done so many good things for this community, let him sell accounts today and look the other way, that is what you are saying. or you are saying that Lauda should be the only judge to decide if somebody is posting garbage or not? isn't that the reason to have merit system, to stop garbage posters slowly and don't tag them just for posting garbage?


If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy.

If you think that is consistency, then there is something wrong with your brain. There is a reason for which, when laws or social norms change, we don't apply consequences to people who used to break them before the change.

His "normal" account is already red-tagged the wazoo, so no, this is just the opposite - trying to make it look like more users are joining Quicksy's vendettas.

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. Despite Blazed owning 12% of DT or whatever, the remaining 88% could easily tag those users if they choose to do so. So again, Quicksy is just throwing a fit like a 3-year old who didn't get his ice cream for breakfast.