DefaultTrust is BAD. Very bad. - page 2.

EvilPanda

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Small Red and Bad

Quote from: hilariousandco on September 09, 2014, 09:04:44 AM

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

I know they can proxy or use dynamic IP, but you'd at least make their life harder.

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on September 09, 2014, 09:12:55 AM

Perhaps because calling out a scam (who admits in their ToS that it is a scam) is not 'FUD' and you are the one initiating all the personal attacks.

Trading trust ratings is allowed.

I'll come to you when I need a lesson in scamming Wink

Quote from: BitCoinDream on September 09, 2014, 11:25:14 AM

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I think you have to pay to be allowed to access this forum with TOR, so very few people are using it here. Most trolls aren't as sophisticated.

BitCoinDream

legendary

Activity: 2394

Merit: 1216

The revolution will be digital

Quote from: EvilPanda on September 09, 2014, 08:58:55 AM

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue: why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If ~~moderators~~ Admins have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: EvilPanda on September 09, 2014, 08:58:55 AM

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue: why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

Perhaps because calling out a scam (who admits in their ToS that it is a scam) is not 'FUD' and you are the one initiating all the personal attacks.

Trading trust ratings is allowed.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3990

Merit: 2713

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on September 09, 2014, 07:41:26 AM

Quote from: hilariousandco on September 09, 2014, 02:41:39 AM

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

When another people adds a user to trust list, will Theymos or BadBear review it or they just enter into the list?

~~MZ~~

They don't review individual additions by others, but I think theymos has stated he reviews it every so often and adds or removes people. If people abuse it and start leaving silly or unjust feedback they're likely to be removed by someone at some point.

Quote from: EvilPanda on September 09, 2014, 08:58:55 AM

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue: why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

EvilPanda

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Small Red and Bad

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue: why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: hilariousandco on September 09, 2014, 02:41:39 AM

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

When another people adds a user to trust list, will Theymos or BadBear review it or they just enter into the list?

~~MZ~~

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3990

Merit: 2713

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

galbros

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

While I doubt this is the account he is planning on using, I think THIS offer to sell trust ratings highlights the potential abuse of the current trust system.

If the account listed is a shill account for a real account on default trust a lot of damage could be done.

bbxx

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

cryptoshark

Quote from: Vortex20000 on August 31, 2014, 03:59:52 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

And you neglect to answer it because you know it is true.

He did it again!

This is crazy.
I will not answer him here becouse it is off topic.
I am glad that he has been removed from default trust by theymos today.

BitCoinDream

legendary

Activity: 2394

Merit: 1216

The revolution will be digital

Quote from: acs267 on August 30, 2014, 06:06:12 PM

Quote from: BitCoinDream on August 30, 2014, 03:52:45 PM

Quote from: acs267 on August 30, 2014, 02:41:05 PM

Quote from: Lohoris on August 30, 2014, 02:10:43 PM

Quote from: bbxx on August 30, 2014, 01:26:14 PM

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile. Though my first choice would be no default trust at all. Users should not join the forums and jump into trading. People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll. Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him. (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

I was aiming more so to the fact that, it doesn't matter if it's DefaultTrust or not, once you get a negative rating... There's still that portion of users that tag you off as whatever the accused said. For DefaultTrust, this might happen more often, due to the fact that's its easily seen.

I dont see any logic in the argument u r putting here for DefaultTrust to stay. A red signal from DefaultTrust is always a problem is doing normal business on the forum, because the majority are not going to check why it is red.

Quote from: DiamondCardz on August 30, 2014, 04:13:56 AM

If I flip the finger to DefaultTrust and stop using it for x period of time, then during that x period of time if someone on DefaultTrust gives me a negative trusted feedback I have no way of seeing it, while the vast majority of the forum will see me with a nice little red tag under my name. Say what you like, but that affects any jobs I want to do, businesses I want to create, et cetera.

When the trust is NOT moderated, there should not be any DefaultTrust either. U'll give power to certain people to show a red signal by default and then wont moderate it ...is not logical at all.

Vortex20000

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

sucker got hacked and screwed --Toad

Quote from: ?? on ??

And you neglect to answer it because you know it is true.

He did it again!

Vortex20000

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

sucker got hacked and screwed --Toad

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on October 18, 2013, 09:21:13 AM

I don't really think the red numbers mean that much. I find the trust system to be more like a personal feedback/suggestion system. If you see someone has negative trusted someone else, you go to the reference, and if its BS you disregard it. That or if someone has been neg'd by Sock9001 I tend to not pay that much attention to that rating either. I'm not sure if the system was meant to work this way, but I believe its evolved into a system where people just leave their thoughts/opinions, and a few times real scam accusations, and whoever is going to make a deal with them is in charge of judging the validity of their trust rating themselves. Even John K has a few negative feedback ratings, and the guy does dare I say tens of thousands of BTC in escrows. The people named NewAccount90210 that say that JohnK scammed them out of 1 BTC tend not to get me to believe it. Just like everything else in this community, you get to judge the validity of peoples claims.

I beg to differ, sir.

Most users on this forum can't be bothered to click the trust rating link and only see the red numbers. Users who have been unfairly given negative trust have to go through the hassle of explaining why they have red lines under their username every single time they do business or even want to be respected properly.

acs267

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: BitCoinDream on August 30, 2014, 03:52:45 PM

Quote from: acs267 on August 30, 2014, 02:41:05 PM

Quote from: Lohoris on August 30, 2014, 02:10:43 PM

Quote from: bbxx on August 30, 2014, 01:26:14 PM

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile. Though my first choice would be no default trust at all. Users should not join the forums and jump into trading. People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll. Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him. (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

I was aiming more so to the fact that, it doesn't matter if it's DefaultTrust or not, once you get a negative rating... There's still that portion of users that tag you off as whatever the accused said. For DefaultTrust, this might happen more often, due to the fact that's its easily seen.

BitCoinDream

legendary

Activity: 2394

Merit: 1216

The revolution will be digital

Quote from: acs267 on August 30, 2014, 02:41:05 PM

Quote from: Lohoris on August 30, 2014, 02:10:43 PM

Quote from: bbxx on August 30, 2014, 01:26:14 PM

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile. Though my first choice would be no default trust at all. Users should not join the forums and jump into trading. People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll. Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him. (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

acs267

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lohoris on August 30, 2014, 02:10:43 PM

Quote from: bbxx on August 30, 2014, 01:26:14 PM

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile. Though my first choice would be no default trust at all. Users should not join the forums and jump into trading. People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll. Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him. (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

DiamondCardz

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1118

I don't think DefaultTrust needs to be removed altogether. But the system should at the very least be changed to make it much less centralized and abusable than it is currently. For instance, the "established members" idea that was used for highlighting the ignore button when people ignored someone. Possibly if a certain amount of established members trusts you, then you would be added to a certain depth of DefaultTrust. This would be quite a high requirement though.

EFS

staff

Activity: 3822

Merit: 2123

Crypto Swap Exchange

DefaultTrust should be removed.

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: bbxx on August 30, 2014, 01:26:14 PM

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile. Though my first choice would be no default trust at all. Users should not join the forums and jump into trading. People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll. Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him. (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

Quote from: galbros on August 30, 2014, 01:59:10 PM

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

galbros

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DiamondCardz on August 30, 2014, 04:13:56 AM

If I flip the finger to DefaultTrust and stop using it for x period of time, then during that x period of time if someone on DefaultTrust gives me a negative trusted feedback I have no way of seeing it, while the vast majority of the forum will see me with a nice little red tag under my name. Say what you like, but that affects any jobs I want to do, businesses I want to create, et cetera.

It will still appear in your profile though wont it? Just under untrusted feedback?

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile. Though my first choice would be no default trust at all. Users should not join the forums and jump into trading. People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll. Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him. (No offense Vod.)

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.

I guess I can understand that.

bbxx

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

cryptoshark

Quote from: Lohoris on August 30, 2014, 04:19:28 AM

And that's why you should be requesting for this broken system to be taken down.

that is right, such cases too:

beastlymac is at default trust tree

he has scammed my brother for 2.1 btc and put him negative trust
i tried to recover some losses so i got negative trust from him too
he has scammed Mr Jinx, who got his 10 gridseeds at may (13 feb promised delivery), used and with no equipment - jinx lost 3+ BTC
also he got negative trust from beastlymac.

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

Topic: DefaultTrust is BAD. Very bad. - page 2. (Read 12862 times)