Topic: DireWolfM14's Trust Setting and Tag Review (Read 739 times)

@Timelord2067, I see you are trying to revise your philosophy and leaving retribution out of the equation when considering inclusions and exclusions.  I'm really happy to see it, because I want you in my inclusion list.  You've tagged a whole shit ton of people and those tags are valuable, in my opinion.



@johhnyUA, if you have any issues with my being on DT1 feel free to discuss it here.  I don't speak Russian, and would prefer to not reply to your post in the local board.  Your post seems to be directed at west vs. east, and I'm just used as an example, even though I'm of Palestinian ethnicity, and English is my second language.

I will say this in response; I didn't ask to be on DT1, I don't need to be on DT1, and I don't necessarily want to be on DT1.  I will, however, accept it as an honor and treat the responsibility as such.  This attitude is probably one of the reasons I find myself here.

If you are one of the people who seem to think of DT status a privilege (and less of a responsibility) and the number of green reviews you've collected entitles you to that privilege, you're probably never going to be on DT1.  Just my opinion.  

s/he did the same thing to me. As with DireWolfM14, my Trust Settings distrust of nutildah was little more than a tit-for-tat when I saw they'd given me distrust.

I've never met either, but if they want to be like that, then so be it - water off a duck's back.

I miss you guys!

I've been extremely busy at work lately; We have 5 new (burger flipping) machines to add to our production facility, and I'm the one managing all of these expansion projects.  It always seems to be that way, it's feast or famine when it comes to work load.  I commissioned one machine last month,  I have two more machines to christen this quarter, and two more in Q4.  It's going to be great to have some fresh machinery on the production floor, we've needed them for quite some time.  

On top of that, I have a ton of home improvement projects I'm trying to finish this summer, so my weekends are booked as well.  Two of my kids are home from college this summer, and being the opportunistic guy that I am, I'm taking advantage of the (adult) child slave labor I have at my disposal.

All of that means little time to spend communing with my friends here on the forum.  So, please don't take it personally, because I really miss you guys.
 In fact, I'm going through some withdrawals that remind me of quitting Copenhagen tobacco.  You fine folks really are that addictive.  

I must admit you make a very compelling argument.  Although I do not condone account sales, and believe it compromises the security and safety of the community, I also understand why the activity is not explicitly banned.  Presenting bob123's actions in actual real-life legal presidents, it would be construed as entrapment.  If a law enforcement officer was to behave that way he would lose his job.  As unfortunate as it may be in a situation situation such as this his actions would be deemed as "going above the law" by comparison.

After some consideration I have decided to remove bob123 from my trust list.  I will not be excluding him, and @bob123, please don't take it personally.  I think you're doing a great job exposing account sellers, and I hope you continue to do so.  Having said that, you may want to reconsider the methods you have used in recent days.

Alright, that's a cometely valid point of view.
My stance is that these accounts (who showed untrustworthy behavior) should be tagged regardless of whether they are currently involved in sketchy stuff or not, except in the case where there are proven to be trustworthy at the current date.

This was also the reason why - for example - i felt it would be inappropriate to start negative actions against you since you have proven to be a reputable and trustworthy member of this community.




I understand this.
The reason for my actions is that I have decided to shift my attention on this forum from the technical support to the reputation section. Not completely, but i will try to make this forum a better - and less scammy - place.

However, thanks for being honest and explaining your actions!

Actually I did that yesterday, like more than 24 hours ago, and the reason is because I don't agree with tagging people for old offenses unless their account is currently engaged in sketchy activity. I tend to agree with the Pharmacist's point of view on this issue:


After going a year and five months without leaving a single feedback you've left 22 negative feedbacks in the last 16 days, some are for account sales in 2016/17. You left a total of 5 feedbacks in your 3 years here before that. That kind of behavior is a bit odd to me, but you know, you're free to do as you will.

You've also been added by LFC_Bitcoin and fillippone so its safe to say you are firmly on DT2. No hard feelings.

Oh, i completely forgot about this site. Thanks for the heads up.

I wonder why i got distrusted by a nutildah.. i guess because he tried to sell his account and i am not a fan of that.. Didn't even do anything about this, oh well. People have reasons for their actions i guess  




I appreciate that you are thinking that i am trustworthy, and not that i am a scammer - like quicksy does.

I added bob yesterday.

Sure there is a way that someone can know this. Simply go to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt and find out who your name is under.  Also, LoyceV publishes information about people's trust lists, weekly. http://loyce.club/trust/ It appear's Direwolf added you recently because your name is not on his list in Loyce's latest data, which was last updated on 06/22/2019.

There is no way you can know this?

Also.. i believe i am not on his trust list, not sure though.

bob123 is included on DirewolfM14's trust list, making bob123 DT2.

What does quickseller's latest navel gazing have to do with DireWolfM14's thread?

Scammer because of rescinding from a trade? 




Where did i admit that? 




Please.. please tell me.. what did i steal?

Oh... now i understand.
I wanted to buy alcohol or guns and rescinded from it. Then afterwards i posted publicly that this specific alcohol/gun is low quality / from country X / made of plastic / basically any non-confidential information.

I see.. i stole... the possibility from the seller to scam people with worthless goods.


How many more threads do you want with this topic ?  Aren't 3 already enough? Do we need 4 ?

This is incorrect.

When I started (check the thread title of the post), selling forum accounts, was widely accepted and done by many, none of which received any kind of negative trust. It was so widely accepted that Vod removed a negative rating he had against an account after he learned it was sold.

Further, I stopped selling forum accounts in or around March 2015 (see the changed title to my thread), around 5 months prior to my receiving my first negative rating, and months after I had many positive ratings, and was well known by many to have previously sold forum accounts. The exception to this was when I was scammed by Chris Boelens (whose real name is public) when he used his account as collateral for a loan he had no intention of repaying (he confirmed this to me via email fairly recently) -- he claimed that he was having drug problems at the time. The negative trust I have is in regards to $12 in escrow fees I received that I promptly refunded when requested (one of those involved initially declined a refund, but asked for one once pushed, but once he requested the refund, he was given one).

---

Separately, you should remove bob123 from your trust list. He is a scammer based on information he personally stipulated to, such as posting a telegram chat in which he said he would buy an account if he received a PM from the account that was being sold, and subsequently did not buy said account. He also admitted to intentionally causing financial harm to someone after obtaining information under what can only be described as false pretenses. It is unacceptable to turn a blind eye to someone scamming just because the victim is doing something that is legal but you do not like.

If you were selling something such as alcohol or guns or something else some people do not like being sold, while following all relevant laws, and someone stole from you, I think you would be rightfully upset if the police had a confession from the thief, but declined pursue the matter -- you would probably be calling for the resignation or firing of the police chief.

No, worries. You obviously take these things seriously and it's always a chance to learn adapt and improve. I would just take from this (and it's something I work on as well) to try and not let rank or a bias(good/bad or both) towards someone cloud your judgement with the totality of what's happening in any situation.


Always happy to help or lend an opinion, especially with those willing to listen or enlighten as well. I hear yah on the cans full of sweet sweet nectar, couldn't help but grab a couple of cold ones after reading that. All this talk of drinks and other peoples things made me think of that guy at the party who was always conveniently drinking whatever booze was least guarded.

I feel like I missed a reply in the threads from csmiami if so I'll post in my rep thread about it and my reasoning so as to not hijack this one, or continuously bump the original.

I appreciate the reply you have given and it has given me pause to think how I approach the various goings on in the forum.

Regards,

I do take it seriously, but I left that review before I was on DT1.  Also, the date I left the review should be considered.    But of course you're right, I shouldn't be using the system for clowning around.


I vehemently disagree wit this.  Thule has proven himself to take a personal vendetta against forum members way too seriously and way too far.  I've done several trades on this forum for physical goods and PayPal, each time exposing my real name (which is uncommon,) and, in some cases my address.  Thule's propensity to dox those with whom he's taken issue puts those people at risk.  Anyone who deals with Thule in those ways can very easily suffer financial or physical risk.  I highly encourage people to avoid any dealings with him.  He may not scam one directly, but he very likely may put a member or his family in danger.

Then there's the defamation itself, which is a type of scam.  Thule convinced me to remove his red-tag once, and then he went on a bigger libelous rant including posting a photo which may have actually been that of a forum member and her family.  There's no fucking way I could ever trust a shithead like that, and I believe no one should.  That red-tag will remain.



I tend to agree; the rigidity of the word permanent is probably a bit extreme, people can change.  When I first arrived here I was puzzled by your trust rating since you do seem to be an established and contributing member of the forum, and take proactive steps to expose scammers.  I did a little research and found the reasons for the negative reviews are based on the community's aversions to account sellers.  I don't recall you denying those accusations, let alone disproving them.  Selling accounts can only serve to counter-act the efforts you make to stop scammers.  Your actions can (which appear to be true,) and likely do put the community at risk.

Again, your position on my exclusion list isn't personal, but I do feel it's better position for the overall health of the community.

1 - I think giving negative trust (and supporting a flag) against Csmiami, and subsequently removing both once he made his victim whole was is an entirely appropriate use of the trust system, and this is exactly how it is supposed to be used. That is to put pressure on people to repay what is owed to others, and to reword them once they have made their victims whole (via the lesser of the actual amount owed, or an amount the victim agrees to accept to be considered made whole).

2 - I think you should reconsider the negative rating against Thule. I don't think he is going to scam 1 out of x people he trades with, which I believe should be the criteria for negative trust (and the type 1 flags). His controversy was ignited by a single event that he was "caught" doing (IIRC) > a year after the fact, and I don't believe he had sufficient support to help him navigate the situation, which eventually escalated, in part because he was getting trolled by certain members. I don't particularly like him personally, but I do think he deserves to be treated fairly, and with respect, and the same as everyone else.

3 - Regarding:
I strongly disagree with this stance. If you have reviewed by stances on trust related matters, you will see that i employ the same standards to everyone, regardless of their position. You will also see that I have a long history going back years of risking my reputation to call out things that I believe to be wrong. I also would say there are few of my sent trust ratings that a do not explain why the person has scammed, or will very likely scam 1 out of x people he does business with.

It's obvious it's not really serious, but since you say you take it seriously, your feedback on satoshi could be improved. It says: My BTC for his PayPal, and he still hasn't charged back. Thanks!, which I highly doubt

But I'm just nitpicking, this is the only thing I noticed (on your first feedback page).

At the risk of multi posting, I think responding to @Timelord2067 deserves it's own post.  Although I value the work you've done to expose alternate accounts, which is a tremendous help in exposing scammers, I think your judgement can be flawed at times.  

This:

...is big part of it.  The tit-for-tat attitude is akin to retaliatory feedback.  I don't remember when I excluded you but it could have been around the time that you made this post.  It gave reasons to believe you are not a good judge of character.  The way you reacted to me referring to that post as trolling was also a bit over the top, in my opinion.

Many times while discussing the trust system and custom trust lists I've mentioned that my exclusions should not be considered as a personal affront.  My list is solely based on whether I value your list, and your judgment in its construction.  I can still see the benefit you provide to the community, and value your contributions to the discussions here, even if you're in my exclusions.  In your case I see a lot of value as a contributing member.

To point to an extreme example, look at QS.  I quite enjoy bantering with him about a verity of subjects, we even tend to agree more often than not when it comes to politics.  And I often enjoy some of his contributions to discussions, whether we agree or not.  But, rest assured he's earned a permanent spot on my exclusion list.  

I can't argue with that logic, and looking back my public behavior in that it thread I do feel some shame.  In my defense I did PM Csmiami 23 seconds after I made this post telling him that I would send the money back (minus tx fees.)  I should have been more responsible in public, and shouldn't have needed DarkStar_ to point out that out.



This is also a very good point, and I was putting things into a narrow minded perspective due to the amount.  Integrity shouldn't depend on amount; $3 is essentially one 24oz Coors Light to me (which my waistline will attest I can live without,) but could be someone else's daily wages.  Thank you for your feedback, Steamtyme, it is really helpful.



I agree.  The fact that he PM'd the two of us to ask our advice is commendable, but I also think he should be more careful with other people's money.  Even if that individual is a fuckstick.

First of all I thank Darkstar_ for mentioning this thread, since I didn't even think it would have reached the Reputation board so fast. DireWolf should have a PM coming from me because of that same reason, I first wanted to talk to him and Darkstar about the feedback and then move it to the reputation board if I was not satisfied (less people involved, means less mess).

I didn't answer the original thread right away since I was having some drinks with some friends when everything was going on. I admit my actions may not have been the best ones, but at no moment did I think this would go this far; as I have stated a couple of times. I did repeat the stupid offer of "0.03 for 0.015" on each message on porpuse (and with smileys), trying to make the OP realize what a stupid situation he was offering. That did not happen, and I was actually sent some funds. At first I took that as something funny, but after giving it some thought, I realized how quickly and badly the situation could scalate, so I PM'd bot suchmoon and DireWolf (both had been active on the thread) to ask for some advice.

The first one to reply was suchmoon with this:


You may be right at me not handling the situation the best way, but I think I've made pretty clear that I wanted to have nothing to do with those funds, since I considered them quite a hot potato. The only thing Darkstar and Direwolf have triggered was an almost heart attack on me when I opent the forum

FWIW I don't think Csmiami had any ill intent in the situation. I saw my name mentioned in that thread, here is the actual PM I sent:


You also gotta keep in mind that Armadillo-whatshisname is a total lunatic. It's not like there was any deception in the "deal" he was offered, it was just plain ridiculous and he was too eager to scam 0.15 or 0.015 or 0.0015 BTC or whatever he was expecting there.

If you're being honest about having a discussion about your trust settings, I would appreciate it if you could walk me through the reasoning behind giving me distrust on your trust settings ?

AFAIK we've never exchanged pleasantries so I would appreciate some insight into the rationale you used.

Thank you.

*Edit* my own distrust of you is a tit-for-tat response. Nothing more.

Thanks for reading.

I read into it a little and was trying to figure out more about how the fees worked into it but I've never used that service. Either way it was a gross overestimate in an attempt to withhold, as shown by Darkstar_  so the feedback makes sense. Whether you review it at a later time or they make amends it's up to you how to proceed in the future.

---

A few points for you to consider, or ignore that's fine to. Your earlier interaction didn't really seem to give off the vibe that you didn't approve. I know you've said you were joking and I believe you, but in an instance like this it may have been prudent to actually point it out. This seemed like after the fact csmiami was feeding off the jokes made at the newbies expense and the suggestions of what to do with the funds. In the end what they did was still untrustworthy and disrespectful.

It also would have been nice to see a negative come to mind here first once it was realized theft was involved. You have corrected that and owned up to the whole process so well done, and I'm sure with time you will have firmed up your lines on what feedback is deserved for what actions.

Edit: Should you be interested I created a newbie warning flag given the events and that this was a newbie involved.

I'd stand by your feedback. I don't really like how the entire situation was handled. I don't know if OP of that thread had any intentions of scamming or is just plain stupid but the experienced members of bitcointalk should not be playing with someone's money even if it means punishing them. CSMaimai's intentions to keep the money for 2 days is just hilarious. At one point Op actually gave up on his 0.003 which I assume wouldn't have been returned if not for you and DarkStar.

It's a silly mistake though. Maybe you should watch them for a few weeks and then change the feedback? I'd be more open to having the feedback removed right now if CSMiami accepts their mistake. 

I was recently promoted to DT1.  I didn't ask for it, but I take the responsibility seriously.  If any of you believe my reviews, flags, inclusions, or exclusions are out of line, please feel free to discuss it here.

---

The reason I'm creating this thread right now is because I just left a negative rating for member Csmiami due to his handling of this situation.  I had originally left him a neutral review, but after consideration I decided a negative review is warranted.