Topic: Conflict of Interest on DT1 - page 4. (Read 2732 times)

when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods?

i'm guessing not.

i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't.

this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority.


not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest.

otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty.

You misunderstand me. I was not insinuating that I think Blazed deserves negative trust. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with your proposed solution. If the community deems that a $200 fine is sufficient to warrant the removal of negative trust, so be it. I, however, think the exact opposite; paying to hide the fact you are untrustworthy is even more untrustworthy.

There are, however, other ways to prove that you are trustworthy. Blazed has done just that, which you can see with even a brief glance at his trust page. He is not comparable to some shitposter trying to buy their way in to a signature campaign. Leaving negative trust for the latter and not for the former is a perfectly logical position to hold.

Quickscammer is likely to be OP; what else should one expect? A solution that actually makes sense? This thread is boring, like all the other ones started by this cartel. Just give them a few number 6's with a diet coke and they are going to be silent for a while.

---

The first rating I gave to someone regarding this was in Q4 2016 I believe. I don't like digging graves.

This is how it works every where, when you have done something against the rules (DT2 made up rules) you would pay a ^[1]fine.
There is no written law to determine the amount here, I'm writing them now and it could be agreed upon by consensus voting. if Lauda has tagged any member of this forum for selling an account 3 years ago, should Lauda remove their tags if they agree to compensate for their wrong doings according to Lauda? if Blazed agrees to pay $200 and Lauda accepts that to be enough for community's retribution. anybody with negative trust for selling an account 3 years ago, has to pay $200. or any amount determined by Lauda and it should be paid to the forum.
I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution.

---

^[1]


And we should find alia (the real young girl on camera) for you as a bonus for your valuable inputs. you don't get to decide here, there is a conflict of interest, you would benefit from the result of your solution. should I call the forum's fella to explain this to you?

~B ~LM for beggar and the forum's law maker.

Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts.  I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest.

Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion.

What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts.

I refuse to take this statement seriously from you. You should know better; unless the sarcasm sensors are broken.

As I said there is a lot of hypocrisy going on around here and they are just going to use the same old excuse of ''those were other times''. The fact is that if someone is going to give negative trust for selling accounts, he should give it to anyone that does so.

Well there ya go.  If Blazed doesn't get negative trust for selling an account, and working with a scammer, then no one else should get negative trust for selling accounts either. 

I believe these people are asking the same thing here, they want you to give them another chance, call their actions as a rookie mistake. I don't think if they publicly sell accounts and share 3/4 of their income with the forum you should tag them. if they are not garbage posting and spamming to farm these accounts. knowing them publicly would also help to prevent scamming.

Would they do that? would DT members do that if they share their income and do everything publicly? what if Lauda and other DT2 members agree on removing their negative tags if garbage posters and account sellers agree on donating $50 to the forum for every account? they should also agree to a few terms, after removing red tag if they start posting garbage according to me and a few other neutral forum members, they will have their red tags back.

They would never agree, there is not much of money in agreeing to my terms, they want DT1-2 members gone.

Do you mind if I answer here? I get the feeling the community responded less strict against account sales 3 years ago, than it does now. When I joined this forum, there wasn't nearly as much spam as there is now, and account farming wasn't a full-time job yet. Selling one of your own accounts to a buddy isn't the same as creating accounts on a massive scale with the sole purpose of selling them.

I was surprised to see yahoo's trust farming thread from 2014. But it only took him 1 reply from Vod and 10 minutes to realize it's a bad idea, and lock the thread. Let's call it a rookie mistake.

Bumping this since this thread seems to have gotten lost among all the April fools day threads.

Thank you for replying.

Do you understand my concern that you have multiple people on your trust list who have given out thousands of Red Tags to other people for the exact same business activity that you engaged in, yet none of these people left you a Red Tag? Do you see the conflict here?

Due to some threads "burning out" at later times than others, it is very difficult to get any realistic handle of community consensus when you did not personally witness conversations/discussions that occurred in the past.


He was one of the 1st people to reply to that thread. Do you think it is possible some people that replied after he replied saw exactly what you saw, thought what he was doing was "okay" and did the exact same thing? If anything, people with trust should be held to a higher standard, not lower because other people will look at their actions and act similarly.

He wasn't "known" (to me) at the time, nor a staff member.  But the reason why I didn't give him a neg was because of all the other trust he'd earned.  I didn't like the fact that he was attempting to deal in bitcointalk accounts, but he did not look like the typical account-dealing scumbag, plain and simple.  And after reviewing your trust page, I see you earned some positives (though from members I don't know) and didn't earn any negatives in 2 years--so I removed the negative. 

I don't remember you asking me about this via PM, but it may well have gotten drowned by a hundred PMs about this sort of thing.

He removed his negative trust. No deal/problem left.

This has been said many times here and on different threads but its of no use. Pharmacist is a controversial personality and he dont deserve to be a DT. 

Actually i try to solve this on pm but he didnt reply me for more than 2 months than i want to write here. Pharmacist gave me negative trust on https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/600-hero-member-starts-at-001-btc-1492296 topic 2 years ago for bidding on auction. Also as you can see OmegaStarScream first bidder and he didn't gave him  negative trust also some of bidder didnt got trust too. So from pm i request from him to remove my negative trust as kindly after 2 years. and if not i request for a reply. He didnt reply also he blocked my pm's.
Is this how to use DT? giving negative trust on same topic to some people and be blind to known people?

We all know you Blazed. You are old here and one of the best DT. I am only talking about the "The Pharmacist" and his behavior. 

I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc... Long story short a friend of mine (in real life) wanted to earn coins via signature campaign. I told him how it worked and he posted maybe 20 times and said he wasn’t into it. If you feel that was terrible by all means drop me a negative. I did the entire thing publicly and have nothing to hide here. You can dig into me all you like, but that is probably the most “shady” thing you will ever find. I have always been very open and honest