Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 91. (Read 85467 times)

Extraordinary Claim


Extraordinary Evidence

That's in your head, because the thread that questioned whether the JusticeForYou account had been hacked/sold predated all of this if I'm not mistaken, and he hadn't responded to it until someone bumped it.  Besides, he was making pretty level-headed arguments and in my mind wasn't even taking a strong stance on the DT issue like he is now.  It's not likely anyone would tag him for that. 

The fact is that there are some legitimate concerns that the account changed hands, and all the evidence seems to point to that being the case; everything JFY has said after the tagging just seems like the excuses you'd expect to read after someone got caught buying or hacking and account.  I really don't want the accusations against JFY to be true, as he doesn't seem to be a shitposter or a scammer--but the latter could happen eventually if he eventually decided to use his reputation and rank to scam someone. 

Are you talking about JusticeForYou?  How is he going to have any of those consequences if he signs a message?  Plus I don't think anyone knows enough about his real identity to even assume any of could happen.  Hell, if I was in that much danger from just owning a bunch of bitcoin, the last thing I'd do is post on bitcointalk. 

Yeah, that's the part that you can't make an excuse for.  I've tagged members for buying accounts based on mostly this kind of evidence, and when they try to explain why their English suddenly changed when they "woke up", it's never anything that makes sense.

It is almost like this is the forum and thread for discussing the issues with the trust system and you keep wanting to make it about this person's imagined crimes instead of the topic of the counterproductive nature of the current administration of it.

this drama will only go the other way: "DT did this and that" instead of maintaining focus on the VIP account. Now any discussion the focus change to something like: " DT did this and that ". in the Meta and reputation is flooded with themes like this "DT did this and that"

BTC_Bear/JusticeForYou has already disclosed having large amounts of BTC years ago. Asking for a signed message is typical when an account is suspected to have changed hands and doesn't put them into any more danger and it doesn't disclose IRL identity.

If my account starts posting with an Indonesian accent I sure as hell hope that "investigators" paint it red up the wazoo as soon as possible. While you would wait for it to scam someone.

Is is absurd or irrelevant? Why is it the position consistently needs to be shifted away from this poor standard of evidence and the negative results back to the suspicion on this person demanding him to confirm his account for no particular reason other than to satiate the desires of people with nothing better to do? You know what is absurd is you arguing against a standard of evidence with that signature tag on.

Again bravo for demonstrating once again several people here are struggling with every tool they have to put everyone who questions them on the defensive by hook or crook, and the topic itself is only secondary.

Why should anyone care that this kind of behavior can get people thrown in prison, robbed, or killed in their home nations for no other reason than some people here have nothing better to do than play private investigator?

I'm just having a laugh at the absurdity of believing that the current grammar and posting syntax of this "Justice" account resemble, in any way, that of past BTC_bear posts.
And a bonus smile at your obsessive contrarianism, which I first recall encountering during the WoodCollector saga.

But hey, I'm just an arriviste, cult member, whatever, self righteous, other stuff, forum ruining "scam buster", WTF do I know?

At least that's my interpretation of the trust system.
I personally will deal with people with a negative trust rating, for example.
The trust system is a warning to noobs:
Be cautious, the person you're dealing with is considered likelier to rip you off than the mean by other, more experienced users.


Fortunate for us that the trust system itself has a built-in mechanism to cope with abuse: the trust list.
A person abusing trust is likelier than the mean to be excluded from trust lists with "~".
Of course, it's not a perfect system, but I personally feel that blatant abuse will not go unnoticed / unsanctioned.


Absolutely.
We should also encourage them to build their own trust lists.


True, but not really important.
Since we're not dealing with accusations of a crime in front of a court, I've always stood for "shoot first, ask questions later".
"Innocent until proven guilty" is not the way to go with a trust system, IMHO.

The only harm done to an "innocent negged user" is a loss of reputation and maybe some income from (what I consider) SPAM.
There's no absolute right for a user on an online forum to generate income from the forum, and there's no right to being liked.
Ergo, no rights are infringed.

As for people who feel mistreated, I feel with you, but that doesn't change my attitude.
I mean, come on, we're all basically nerds here, we all know how it feels not to be loved, right?
It hurts, but you'll get over it and hopefully come out stronger.


And who would watch over compliance to this standard?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Clusterfuck, that's what it is. I blame Lauda.
No, seriously, the people bitching about their "unjust" trust ratings are the clusterfuckers here, if you ask me.
Just get over it, guys, you're not gonna change it anyway.
Complain as you might, the trust system in its current state is most likely to stay for a while.
I seriously doubt that theymos will rework it anytime soon.

Interesting how it is always a joke when it goes the other way but the sky will fall if your own accusations are unheeded.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of making a joke of the guy defending himself from mere accusations of suspicion, but the accusations themselves are of utmost importance apparently. I am sure it is just a total coincidence these accusations escalated to negative ratings shortly after this user started raising issues of abuse in meta.

Funny how this serious discussion is suddenly so boring. So hey lets liven it up a bit with some more drama, so all the arguments can be dismissed and the topic slid to some other side issue right? You cry about drama but you simultaniously make a joke out of serious discussion. You add nothing.

FTFY

Please note, this is again an attempt to hamper my personal repo and get unwanted info from me which is totally wrong. I can keep my identity as much as anonymous I want on the forum no one could force me to reveal my personal things here.

Can everyone see how this constant default position of inquisition is not only not a desirable user experience, but can literally be dangerous to the physical safety and freedom of users?

Someone with vast BTC does not need to answer that question and should not.

I see this line of questioning... show us all of your btc, tell us your ip and country of origin ... tell us your native language as a line of questioning that is not suitable here on this forum. I would not reveal my own native language or which country I am originally from and why should I.  If I were a vip member I would be doing all I could to throw people off of my scent.

Probably using tor, vpn , someone elses wifi,  putting on fake lack of english writing skill etc... all totally within his right and you guys seem to be pumping him for and bringing unwarranted attention to these personal details.

Meantime you are all spamming away your sigs for btc dust whilst he gave more to the forum with donations that you will likely ever earn here.

Had it dawned on persons here that he may well want to give the appearance of losing his btc, not being native English speaking etc to mask his ID now he is vastly wealthy?

There are many possible explanations that he may not want to divulge for perfectly understandable reasons.

Innocent until proven guilty. It is quite simple.

neutral trust at a max or prove the account is hacked

what country are you from? I asked this question here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49546606

That is the issue. The trust system is supposed to be a simple guide for noobs right? Unfortunately though no system is free from exploitation. We should be encouraging users to use the green and red numbers as a QUICK REFERENCE, then to do their own due diligence before trading. By overly applying the ratings we are just creating signal noise and confusion allowing this kind of manufactured crime of suspicion creating complete ambiguity as to who is actually a scammer and who is not. The net is too wide so you catch too many innocents, or for very petty reasons, people notice, then the whole system becomes useless for its intended purpose.

We need a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating, otherwise it can never be a useful quick reference as explained above. Even if it WAS a good quick reference, teaching noobs to just use those numbers and not do due diligence is feeding them into a wood chipper of fraud by teaching them to trust a system that can be manipulated. Furthermore these trust police feed into this feeling by giving the perception that they actively stop scams.

I am sorry but this whole thing that has arisen here is what we call a clusterfuck and it needs to stop. I can't even imagine how much more we could have accomplished if all of this energy was redirected towards constructive things rather than playing cops and robbers and ripping apart the foundation of the cohesiveness of the culture of the forum itself.

Well, exactly, as it is to be determined it should remain at neutral. Persons are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

@Bones.

People who are going to do a trade that they will not use escrow for or they are vulnerable at any point should be reading everything they can about the person including the neutral ratings.
However, I do agree I  think there could be a different warning for things like possible account change ownership or proven account change ownership. Since people may purchase an account just to earn at a higher rate and never scam anyone.

I personally believe trust should be for people that are likely to scam . All other "opinions" about that person should be in a separate feedback area which could just be called "other feedback" . In this case a person that was highly generous and has not done anything wrong  now has a big red label that suggests he is a scammer.

We should be really pushing people to do   their own investigations on the person they will trade with before trading rather than relying on a score corrupted by subjective opinions.

Whatever their trust score I would try and use DDE for anything of real value.

The only problem with Neutral trust is if a person has a zero trust rating,  many people don't even bother to check the trust comments. Perhaps a message under trust to "click here to read peer comments" should be warranted.

I'm going to get back to you about that, don't worry.


Nope, before the re-awakening his English was master class. Almost perfect by forum standards. I'm going to perform a comparative analysis of the two different time periods when I have some free time.


I actually agree with you here but if it is proven then the red trust is warranted. This is yet to be determined.

What specific task?

Also what if he was not a native speaker. I don't see any examples of exemplary English, I see adequate command of English. Maybe he has not had a reason to use English for some time and has gone back to his native tongue and his English has got a little rusty.



I see that

1. he has the original email (so not the usual hack due to the forum being compromised)
2. he is not sig spamming like 99% of people on meta so this demonstrates likely he does not need btc dust
3. he seems familiar with the history of the account
4. no vip has come forward to say their account was hacked.
5. No proof of hack or account sale at all.

Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.

Sometime between August 2017 and November 2018.


I understand missing their/there occasionally; most of us do it on occasion. But this guy went from having an extremely strong command of the English language (native speaker) to knowing it as a second language. He went from not posting in Meta too often to almost exclusively posting in Meta, and now Reputation because he's involved there (not their). It seems like he was awoken to perform a specific task.