Topic: Cygan abuses DT - Proof! (Read 853 times)

Topic closed

@LoyceV, write an ebook, man. You can sell a lot of copies.

Ah, Do you think so? I think you are right. I don't know if anyone already watching me with evil eyes.

I don't have to take anything personally. Sometimes I feel helpless when I try to put myself in someone's position. When people talk, they seem to have personal issues with the person. Imagine a forum member violated forum rules, and you reported it. Your responsibility should end here. But how will it look if you keep asking moderators to handle this report and keep trying to get their attention over and over even though they most likely already saw the report? If moderators choose to give them another chance, why are you bothering them by asking for a ban? What is your benefit? It looks like the guy is in a good position, and you have to kick him out to take his position. I mean, why? You both can be in a good position.

I heard a story. An office boss gave 20 balloons with 20 pins to his 20 employees. Told them whoever could keep their balloon intact for the next 5 minutes will get a salary increase. Everyone started bursting into other balloons, so they didn't get a salary increase. In the end, No one was able to keep their balloon intact. The boss said, why didn't you guys keep all the balloons intact so everyone could get a salary increase?

I was unfamiliar with this part of this forum where people discuss others.


Oh, Yeah. I did it already.

While you can simply avoid being elected as DT1 by keeping your Trust list at default so you are not eligible, the more feedbacks you leave higher the chances of others including/excluding you in their list which can result in you ending in DT2 whether you want it or not.

You do realize you've just explained why you added users, right? The reason is totally fine in my book

It's the internet. Stop caring about what anonymous people think of you

Not everyone is trying to get DT inclusions here, in fact I imagine most aren't. Many just don't like scammers, or the idea of members getting scammed (in particular newer members). If I had to guess, many of these scam busters were scammed themselves at one time and if so that leaves a mark. Most DT members (I'd like to think) simply have good intentions trying to protect others, they aren't power hungry drama queens.

PS, without realising it, you're getting involved in drama  


Firstly if someone is being aggressive, it's best not to take it personally. It's usually more about them being angry or annoyed than it is about you. It's also not a good look for that user. Strong criticism shouldn't need to be aggressive, it only makes it less constructive. Secondly being questioned is about accountability. If you don't like accountability, you probably shouldn't be on DT, because it would make members un-accountable.


If you're referencing this topic for example, then there is a good reason this was public. It helped cygan understand how better to include members in his trust list, something that if the OP had contacted him privately about I'm not convinced would of had the same effect, based on use of language as well as lack of explanation about trust lists etc that others fortunately provided.

That said, seeing the next topic created by the OP, then I'm not going to argue that they are trying to avoid drama... especially since this topic hasn't been locked yet.

As I said, I don't have anything against cheater hunters. I don't want to mention names here, but whoring to get DT inclusion creates a lot of drama in the reputation board. They may like it. But I don't want to get involved in dramas.



As I already said. I don't have a problem if people find I did something wrong. They can exclude me from their list if they want. I wish people knocked others privately and told them they did it wrong. But, Nope. They want some attention and possibly some merits.

Well, I decided to update my Trust list today. But I won't explain to anyone why I added whom and why it makes sense to me. I want to see the most accurate feedback, which I could agree with. I wish I could make my skin Thicker.

Even you're not included any user in your trust list, but if there's a DT1 user include you in his trust list, you will become DT2 member.

Based on my observation, don't need to worry if someone analyze your trust list, your judgement etc, as long as you have a reason, you can explain it. If you want to avoid drama, don't distrust any user many users get offended when someone distrust them. Distrust is important, but it will cause a drama.

I'm not a DT member, but that's what I understand so far.

If your judgement is wrong, you should get excluded so you won't reach DT. At least that's how the system is supposed to work. I wouldn't change what I'm doing out of fear that someone might create a topic about it. Let them. It's part of the freedoms Bitcointalk offers. And who knows, they may even have a point.

I'm OK with leaving feedbacks and I should do it when it's needed, even my feedback as non DT member don't have that much weight. But I have no intentions to become DT2 or DT1 member. I really don't want that someone would analyze my trust list, my judgement and etc. Less centralised trust system is good thing, but no, I'll stay away from these things as I used to do during all my time here.

As I said, I understand that he didn't had important enough reasons to include me to his Trust list. But I think that he already learned that he made mistake.

you really don't need to worry about that. i will of course revise my trust list to the best of my knowledge and belief.
and also as other users here have already mentioned, i will not do this stress to myself in the future and my trust list will be forgotten at some point in order to not have to explain myself in the future for my activities - i don't have the time for that here in the forum.

btw airfinex you made it and now you can close this thread.

There's no big deal in adding any user to ones trust list, but it must not be in a shady way whereby it look suspicious to others because that will automatically turn to an abuse on the trust system, if anyone thinks am worth being on his trust list they he can go ahead and i giving a tangible reference to back his claim, this is very simple but when this has been done repeatedly and over time, it makes it difficult not to believe it was an arranged work.

I don't see a problem if someone who hunts cheaters on the forum is included in the DT, as long as they use their feedback correctly. This is why the trust system was created - to fight against scammers and cheaters. Isn't it?.


If you add someone to your trust list who doesn't use the feedback correctly and other forum members point it out, you can simply review their arguments and make any necessary corrections to your trust list (as cygan did in this case). So, where exactly is the problem?


OK, let me get this straight. You rely on feedback from DT, but if no one on the forum is willing to contribute to creating a trust lists, how do you expect DT to function? Just imagine what would happen if all reputable and honest members deleted their trust lists.

I understand how it works. I have seen your guide a couple of times so far. I am not updating my trust list for the same reason LTU_btc said. Humans make mistakes, and we are not robots (I know people consider you an AI). Imagine I did something I wanted, people did not like it, and people created a thread about me. People will interfere with whether my judgment is proper or not. People use their DT Power for their benefit. Some people even whoring for trust inclusion and hunting bounty cheaters.

I have nothing against hunting bounty cheaters. But, Imagine I am doing such a thing to get a trust inclusion from the DT network. Imagine I added someone to my Trust list, and they did something stupid. After that, Someone will create a thread and mention us, and they want me to explain why I added them to my trust list. I see some prominent forum members have cleared their trust list. So, I let my trust list be empty and did not bother to make any changes as I wanted to see default feedback.

That's too bad: the Trust system needs more users who don't want the drama. My advice: leave feedback to users who deserve it, and include users who's judgement you trust in your Trust list. The more people do that, the less centralized the Trust system becomes.

everyone has the right to keep his trust list as he thinks is best for him, I assume that you understood that no one here blames you for that. The discussion in which you were mentioned refers to the fact that cygan added you to his trust list, although you yourself want to stay out of it. when you add to that the fact that your list is empty, as well as your sent feedback page, adding you is completely pointless and has no effect.
this example only confirms that cygan did not have any important criteria when adding members to his trust list. since this is not the only case, it now casts a shadow over all his choices and other lines in his list.


since other members take care of this sort of thing (opening this thread is obvious proof), maybe you should review your list by yourself, rather than waiting for other members to do it for you.

I see my name mentioned here, so, I'll add my input. I interacted with cygan multiple times and I trust him. For example, I participate in his organised Bundesliga prediction pool where he also acts as escrow. Also, he organised contest where I won Ledger wallet and he delivered it to me:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61660355
Fact that I haven't left trust feedbacks to anyone, main reason is my laziness, not because that I don't know how I use it correctly. Cygan and few other guys deserved it for what they have done. But yeah, I agree that probably  he didn't had to add me to his trust list - I haven't done anything significant for it.
Why my trust list is empty? There is people here that I trust and don't trust, but it's personal thing and I keep it for myself. I just don't want to get involved into trust system and all drama around it

Did you by any chance mean to add LFC_Bitcoin (Trust list here)? That would make more sense, and those names look a like (a bit).

I know DT ain't what it used to be, but any DT member should still be way, way more prudent about who they add to their trust list and who they give positive trust to.  It's always been an expectation of DT members to demonstrate that kind of prudence, lest we end up with a bunch of unknowns on DT or with green trust that they could possibly scam somebody with.

Just my 2 cents, but this was some seriously bad judgement.

Edit: LOL, guess I got up too late and forgot what the date is.  Happy Fool's day!

A full third of your DT trust list that you trust have less than 100 merits with quite a few in single digit not to mention a couple of UID's with zero merits.