Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 2. (Read 84251 times)

@theymos, I know you never cared about such cases even though is expected from someone with your stature to care about things like that.

But as a reminder, just to know what a joke  they have turned trust system into.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5468086

That post will come back to haunt you one of these days...

Archive [N] [1] [2]

It's probably because he just reset the password via secret question but new came online if you look at his profile, he was last active on January 12, 2022, 04:01:44 PM and his last post was on March 17, 2021, 04:38:26 PM

In order for BPIP, to detect if the account woke up after long, the profile has to make a new post. This is what I have always known happens.

Wait a minute. I have no idea how BenCodie was added, it's a mistake 100%. Other day I was checking my list and was considering to update the whole list before changing the mind to do it later. It's now restored.

Until BenCodie was DT trusted by BitcoinGirl.Club , the only other person to DT trust them is ny2cafuse

https://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-02_Sat_05.07h/404695.html

---

---

@suchmoon & @ibminer

ny2cafuse has been inactive for 602 days [BPIP - (Active 602 days ago)] - Archive [1] [2] there seems to be a gltich in BPIP as they came online 6/27/2023 10:07:51 PM    password reset via secret question however, BPIP does not reflect their recent activity.  Might be a glitch in BPIP ??

---

---

Looking at ny2cafuse's default trust list, we can see they too don't have a grasp of the nuances of the "Trust" system:

https://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-02_Sat_05.07h/81419.html

---

---

Looking deeper, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=81419 we see that quite a few of their DT trust are the result of trades:



( @gmaxwell might want to review their DT trust of ssateneth too )

I appreciate all of the effort that you put into your post. I won't address it all as for the most part, as a lot of it can be left at where it is. I will say, that I'll have to agree to disagree with nutildah believing I have impaired judgement. I think that in comparison to others, my judgement is quite the opposite of impaired - however, maybe my use of the trust system and the way that I think that it could be used (which I believe, would not only be an appropriate way to use it but also effective for the betterment of the forum) is different to that of the norm. Whether or not that warrants my opinion to mean nothing is another subject, to which I and I'm sure everyone else can not be bothered discussing.

I think that time will tell as I continue to use the system as I see it is fit to use.

In relation to what you said about the feedback on JollyGood, the feedback wasn't primarily retaliatory. It would have been left whether or not he had left one on my profile or not, after the thought given over the few days following the reputation thread left by Shirshar or whatever his name is. The reason is that I believe blatant lying is untrustworthy, and poses trade risk (already detailed). At the minimum, someone who has these traits and has displayed them on multiple occasions should not have the power that he has. It can very easily be abused, and become destructive for the forum. However, that's my opinion. I've left my feedback, I will leave it as is and if someone else displays the same characteristics, my rationale will be the same. Liar = negative feedback, referenced with proof of such. Someone who fiddles with the truth to hurt others shouldn't be trusted IMO but if some users of the forum defend this kind of behavior and sees this view as impaired judgement, so be it.

I apologize that you had to spend so much time on that post and credits to you for putting the effort in. While I am stubborn with negotiating my logic and reason, I am sure that post will help others to use the trust system as you and others see fit.

As for me, time will tell if my judgement will have a positive impact on the forum

---

tl;dr: nutildah probably most likely distrust you because you leave incorrect feedback and have an impaired judgement instead of simply disagreeing with you.

---

I won't pretend I know what's exactly on nutildah's mind, but I'm pretty much sure you're wrong about why he distrusted you; that he simply doesn't see eye to eye with your view. I think it's more to what you left on JG's trust feedback and said here on this thread, as evidenced on #2805, #2807 [and yes, I read every part of that essay], perhaps can also be glimpsed on #2809.

If I may divulge more, if you don't trust JG, as stated on #2805, then what you should do it put a tilde on JG's name on your trust list, or perhaps simply ignore him, instead of writing a negative feedback. When you leave a negative feedback based on what arguably a retaliation,


or that you've been placing incorrect feedback numerous times, or as stated on #2807, "however I am someone who looks at things as they are, excluding the politics and general consensus, and making my own judgements", others are allowed to consider a possibility that you didn't know how trust feedback intended to work, thus allows people to at the very least questions your ability to leave an accurate feedback.


I believe, this is also what Loyce implies when he said,


He politely asked you if you would like to get yourself acquainted with the trust system of the forum, or you'd like to perceive the trust system the way you want it, which, by the way, you're completely allowed to, as the forum are leaning toward decentralization, there's no strict and absolute mainframe established by one person. But, again, it'll imply that you doesn't know how the trust system intended to work, and though you're fully entitled that opinion, others are also entitled to perceive that you might leave inaccurate feedback later in the future because of that perspective you have. Thus, excluding you from the decentalized system of Default Trust, thus tilde.

So this is where it all started. I saw BenCodie made a thread on the reputation board.. Looks interesting  

---

I have prepared a cup of coffee to watch this drama. Hopefully this is more interesting than the movies on netflix

Oh, right. I see. I don't see what the difference between nutildah distrusting me and BCG trusting me is then. To me it just seems like nutildah doesn't see eye to eye with my views and thus my judgement, while BCG sees eye to eye with my views and thus my judgement. That's my best guess...and to be honest, if I put myself in BCG's shoes and another member was randomly distrusted due to defending his reputation, highlighting facts about a scam, calling out power-trippers, gambling fiends, fake victims, etc. I probably wouldn't feel a need to balance any scales or trust them any more than another member, but I would definitely feel more obliged to support them if someone distrusted them for no reason if their judgement is ultimately right in my eyes. That's just me though

He has positive default trusted you, not given you positive trust feedback which is why you cannot see it. (And it's still there)

Here it is: https://bpip.org/TrustLog?&trusted=bencodie&chtype=All

I don't think anyone can certainly say who's feedback will and won't show up by default in the future (you can't be talking about the present as my feedback never has been/was default). Your opinion on my rationale is different to others as the trust system is subjective, as is how much you trust someone (especially online). The future is not static or known either. The only thing that is static/known is the formula used to make up everyone's trust score.


I believe I'm using it in a way that is reasonable, and helpful, and takes into account "trade risk" by considering the outlook of someones future actions based on their (proven and referenced) misdeeds (both financial and non-financial) in the past. If my rationale (explained mostly in last post) and referenced feedback is not valued by the community, that's nature. As long as I'm not being unreasonable then it's fine by me (I don't believe that my use of the trust system to-date has been unreasonable).

That's okay. It's how the Trust system is designed. But it will also mean your feedback won't show up by default.
So it's really up to you: do you want your feedback to mean something to the majority of users, or do you want to use your own interpretation of the Trust system?

For pretext of what I will say following; I know that the use of the trust system seems to be something widely agreed on, however I am someone who looks at things as they are, excluding the politics and general consensus, and making my own judgements

TLDR: Does finance really need to be involved before giving someone who is showing potentially threatening characteristics and behaviors a negative feedback? I don't think so. If I believe someone is dangerous, twists the truth, lies, etc. based on a negative interaction where these characteristics are clearly provable/visible and where it's clear that the same could happen to a worse extent or is already happening to others to a lesser extent, I think a negative feedback is warranted. This is my rationals for the negative feedback.

A debate or heated interaction which involves some name calling or any bs outside of messing with reality and factual information - I'd say that's a neutral at best. Messing with factual information is the line for me, hence negative for Jolly.

I'm not asking anyone to join me in my opinion and to do anything to JollyGood. I just think that my rationale for leaving a negative feedback is well justified. I only elaborated as I was prompted to. I was happy to put the situation to rest otherwise..

TLDR /off
My opinion is that if the way you've interacted with someone shows cause for concern for other users and their future interactions, people should definitely know about it.

A negative interaction which shows no reasonable concern for others in the event of a transaction in the future, might warrant a neutral feedback if absolutely necessary and if the sender of the feedback thinks it's something people should at least be notified of. If the consensus disagrees and believes that even the neutral feedback is completely unreasonable, I'm sure it will be made known. Are neutral feedbacks necessary? Probably not...like you said, the trust system shouldn't be a personal journal, it should be used to help protect other users from potentially threatening users.

On the other hand a negative feedback should reflect when someone does pose somewhat of a threat to other users in the event of a transaction taking place, or where the user holds power to effect negatively effect users or the community if they suddenly chose to.

A side note: I am really watering down my words to-date in terms of what JollyGood actually is, for the sake of avoiding drama. Though even after more thinking, I think that there is absolutely no doubt that JollyGood can pose a threat to the community in the future. That comment isn't just based on my experience with him, but from what I've seen before I interacted with him. It also doesn't mean that JollyGood will, it's saying that if he did, he could cause a lot of destruction before he is stopped.

Let's get hypothetical...

Say JollyGood gets into a transaction with a new user. The terms are negotiated and the new user sends some bitcoin to JollyGood. JollyGood delivers a bad service, product, or something entirely subjective to a third party. Though it's factual that JollyGood has done wrong by the user.

Of course, the new user gets infuriated with what is going on. JollyGood then uses this to invalidate any publication of the situation and that user eventually gives up.

This is a completely realistic scenario, whether or not people think so or not. It is clear that he/she is not only capable of this but has actually committed it on numerous occasions in non-financial situations around the forum, with myself included.

From my experience, it has been shown that JollyGood is entirely capable of making that new user look like he is the wrong doer...and get away with it. Heck, he and another two users got several members on the bandwagon of labelling me as a hypocrite, narcissist, etc. mostly because I said he had a stick up his a** (which is a very common saying, which JollyGood definitely fits into when you look at how he carries on here). He even has LoyceV up in here saying that I knew about the WW scam before it happened and was wrong for not saying anything about it...freaking LoyceV! If you can convince LoyceV of some BS like that, anything is possible.

Touching on the Whirlwind crap for (hopefully) the last time - Growing suspicion and red flags while avoiding drama and effort in justifying unprovable red flags does not = me knowing about a scam before it happened. The fact is if I knew about a scam before it happened with concrete evidence, I'd post about it in an instant. Check my thread history for proof. I've done it before. I'm not posting updates about my growing red flags ESPECIALLY if there is a herd of people who are arguably powerful AND being paid up to $150 by the service I am posting about. That's temporary suicide until actual scam occurs. Or at least, A LOT of posts just like this long-ass one...and for what? For people to keep using it anyway, for my posts to get invalidated, for JollyGood to and people like him to turn me into a villain for speaking against the current forum darling....etc.


To address it, I agree. Giving positive feedback over "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a bit too much. I understand it, and understand why someone would be prompted to do that. Obviously if BitcoinGirl.Club had negative interactions with JollyGood and he/she is a like-minded person to myself, then seeing the situation and my opinion on JollyGood would bring a sense of trust for a short period of time until that feeling passes and some rationale is restored. I think that's just human nature/psychology for most. Me included. Clearly it didn't take long for BitcoinGirl.Club to restore rationale and remove the positive feedback, because I didn't see it happen.

I don't always agree with JG's trust ratings, and I wish he'd use the trust system a bit more sparingly than he does. But in your particular case, its just a neutral that doesn't really have any effect on your standing. Having said that, its also a case of "using trust feedback as your personal journal" mentality that we should all try to avoid.


Not necessarily. The proper maneuver would have been to leave him a "retaliatory" neutral feedback rather than upping the stakes to negative. Everyone is entitled to have bad takes that have nothing to do with their trustworthiness when it comes to executing trades on-forum.


Definitely an improper use of the trust system.

AFAIK using the trust system is about whether or not you trust someone based on your experience with them. Right now, all I have seen from JollyGood is internet-nazism (for better lack of a term) and on top of that, my recent direct experience of him twisting truth into stories that would be incriminating if they were true.

This is a serious violation of my trust, hence I have given him a negative one.

The reason why JollyGood has not retaliated is because he is not entirely bad, he does know that his feedback is based on misconstrued facts and hence, it's neutral and not negative.


I think that the feedbacks I've left are all good descriptions for those whom which I left them for.


I didn't know about WW becoming a scam. I saw red flags, which grew over time, there is a huge difference. Put short, jollygood's accusation is that I have been concealing evidence and facts, the reality is that I was quietly under growing suspicion.

If someone misconstrues, lies, gives negative labels, etc. Their trade risk is higher than that of a person without these trusts. Negative feedback is justified IMO, but if I'll give further consideration at another point.

It's updated (reading millions of data files took hours. I'm looking forward to your graphs

Actually agree with you on this one. It's not trust feedback that I agree with or approve of as it certainly shouldn't be negative based on some opinion. Ideally BitcoinGirl.Club would re-consider this inclusion.

When you get neutral feedback you don't like and retaliate with negative feedback it never looks good, despite how you might try and paint it, re: BenCodie

BitcoinGirl.Club's DT trust of BenCodie in the last 24 or so hours is more to do with their mutual distrust of JG than the *cough* quality of BenCodie's trust feed-backs given BenCodie has slapped JG with negative trust feedback...

Oh yeh, that. Had forgot about that. An update would be useful though cheers, that's the data I should logically be using for overall DT inclusion/exclusion.

You mean this one? I can get you an update if needed.