Topic: Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT - page 5. (Read 2769 times)

Here again a poor explanation as proof which he just invented.

If you guys really want to uphold the forum rules i would ask you to start with suchmoon who has completly no proof of his claims.
He just made it to defame me on the whole board because its about his friends.

@suchmoon i never attacked theymos ever.Thats again another poor claim which you can't proof again.
You just put assumptions and nothing more to defame


SHOW A SINGLE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS!!!!
How many innocent people have you abused this way ?

You're the only one out of 2.5 million Bitcointalk users using the same vocabulary and attacking the same people as a red-trusted account trader. These odds are good enough for me to tag a worthless newbie account whose first post was this. But if you're not happy about it please start a thread in Reputation and state your case. This is not the place for that.

I can't see this red because he is exclude on my trust list due to not wishing to have untrustworthy persons on there.

What is the reason for his red trust?

fake negativ rating

If you are consequent to your terms please add a negativ tag to suchmoon who admitted that he tagged me based on poor assumptions

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49341080



Also i disagree on




Account sales / purchase / taking an account as collateral (If you want to tag this as scam first change the rule that its not allowed.
On the public rule from mrep is clearly stated that buying accounts is allowed)

Offering escrow without a track record (Why is that a scam ?Who are you to say someone when he is allowed to open an escrow ?Are you playing plan business aka banks which is the opposite of crypto ?

Late loan repayments / loan defaults (Thats not a scam.Life has diffrent points and having a late loan is nothing to be called a scammer)

Enrolling multiple accounts into signature/bounty campaigns (Thats the decission of bounty starter)

Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"  (You would need to tag all big old lenders)


Inherently risky business practices - PayPal and other reversible payments, discouraging escrow use, autobuy sites, locked sales threads etc.
Why is that a scam?If there are two parties who agree on these terms how can you call this a scam ?Plan Business gain ?

Unrealistic loan applications (Thats not scam or fraud)

An attempt to scam is a crime in most counties. Alerts and discussion prevents people getting scammed. A lot of people go blindly into crypto and fall prey to many scams. While it may be considered baby proofing by some other don't want to stand by and do nothing. Having discussions about what constitutes a clear violation makes it easier for people to understand the ethical values of the forum. It allows them to avoid getting into trouble in the first place and it demonstrates what conduct the majority of people expect.

If it doesn't take a detective, why do we need dozens of them to tell us what is obvious? Are you not seeing the gap in your logic here? Oh its obvious its a scam! Well sure, then its obvious to people who are doing ANY sort of even superficial due diligence isn't it?

In that case all it is serving to do is create even more conflict trying to be some kind of Barney Fife Tom Cruise hybrid pre-crime forum police. People who aren't doing any due diligence will ALWAYS BE FUCKED no matter how many nannies want to run around any try to baby proof everything. Respond with a negative after evidence is presented of a crime, not before. If not stick to neutrals and posts in the appropriate reputation and scam accusation areas.

Harassing a DT ??

That would need some serious criteria set and enforced.

If there is clear observable evidence the DT has acted in an unfair or untrustworthy manner then they should be removed at once and blacklisted.

Let's devise some rules for DT's first then set up the rules of what THEY think is a reason to dole out the red trust.

You can not allow self regulated controllers to manifest themselves here that are clearly motivated to act selfishly and in an untrustworthy manner.......then allow them to impose what rules they like on others.

First define a mandate and criteria for the system controllers behaviour and actions..... then let them operate within those before they start talking about not being allowed to "harass them"

Seems like saying we can do what we like to further our own interests and nobody can say shit about it.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It doesn't take a detective to see that an ICO or project launched with a whitepaper that is entirely plagiarized or a team made up of fictitious, non-existent people isn't exactly a trustworthy project. Similarly, you don't need to actually be scammed by someone offering a return on investment of 100% a week to know that it is a scam. These kinds of things are obvious to people who have been involved in crypto for more than a few months, but newbies can and do regularly get fooled by these kind of scams.

No, giving all these scams red trust won't protect every newbie and some will get scammed, but not reaching 100% safety isn't a reason to trash the system altogether.

I don't think DT voting should work as it would rather make a less dynamic decision as only some people would be putting there views in.

I too think a forum endorsed set of rules is a very simple solution to apply and it would just not make any drama about the rules as anyone here could just suggest the forum administration, not go against it.


I found your case very interesting after reading your whole story! very motivating either.

I vouched for that too (see re:Should trust be moderated? (Poll)). In my opinion, there should either be a forum created and/or endorsed set of guidelines, or a DT1 (at least) consensus on them if not. Creating a list of guidelines, and them voting on them one by one by DT1 (*) could be a thing, but the voting would need to take place elsewhere, since the forum polls cannot be delimited to a selected set of users.

Having said that, I would rather much have the guidelines being forum endorsed, and even forum led, in order for the criteria to be above all shadow of doubt (if they were to be created by current/any DT1, likely many would not like it either).

Note: yes, being on a potential nuke list was a strange find for me at the time. It’s not in my nature to spam or alike, but I did join a (very) few bounties at the beginning to see what the hell it was all about, only to find them rather belittling. I have never delete any of the posts, since I don’t believe they should be deleted, and should remain to show a track (I do believe though that people should be able to delete their digital footprint if they wish to, but that’s an other matter).

@TECHSHARE I would rather support your thought of making official rules for red-tag and it is pretty much necessary to control the miss-use of the current trust system. @LoyceV has already noticed increase in the negative trust rating and me too. Some people just tend to live the forum in some cases if they are tagged for unwilling things. This makes a big part of community to loose interest in forum engagement but rather that people can become a very interesting and helping part of the community later if they are given a chance to adjust here.

You could put @DdmrDdmr as an example. He was going to be nuked once for taking part in shaddy bounty. More details about it can be found in this post. But now he is one of the most merited person on the forum.

Just a official set of rules to red-tag would be a better option for this situation for now. Hope @theymos consider this.

No one said you were not free to do so, the question is should you? I mean this forum is one of the very few places on the net where some of these freedoms are allowed. Having an army of self promoting trust police is counterproductive. Victims of theft and fraud tend to be very vocal about being ripped off, focusing on that would be better. To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

I never said it wasn't a deterrent, just that it doesn't amount to dictating to others. It is a warning - if you wish to ignore said warning and trade/invest/whatever anyway, you are free to do so.

Here are some reason one shouldn't leave a negative feedback I highlighted on my post on the Beginners & Help board

If marking people negative isn't a deterrent, then what is the point? If it is then you are punishing them frivolously. If it isn't then what is the point? What is being accomplished that could not be done with a neutral?

I mean, I agree with you here, but that isn't what Default Trust does. If we were banning these users and deleting their threads, then you would have a completely valid point, but I disagree that simply putting the words "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" under someone's avatar amounts to dictating to other users.

This is a perfect example of busybody 3rd parties inserting themselves into transactions where they need not be. If a user wants to start an escrow service they should be able to without a rectal inspection by a dozen 2 bit wanna be forum cops. At the end of the day lazy or careless people are going to lose their money no matter what you do. More importantly it is not up to 3rd parties to dictate to the rest of the forum what their acceptable level of risk is. This forum shouldn't be a "nanny state".

They could have a previous reliable trading record. Sales that have generated a reliable record of happy buyers.

Es-crowing is really utilizing an established and trusted person with a history of handling funds.

The amount of $ involved would also be relevant.

This is something people often define as "concern trolling", and as I said it is very transparent as one of the direct beneficiaries of the Barney Fife system of raising your influence around here, you are simply using this as a convenient method of attempting to discredit my opinions and derail the discussion by injecting old bullshit in a very lame attempt at pretending you don't know what happened. You aren't fooling anyone.

Speaking of Master-P, who was it that got him to return about half of the stolen funds using words alone? I forgot...

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZGcjrN7X7Rc

YES Gary... yes...

I assume you mean grudge against you?  While it's true I think you're an arrogant prick with some serious anger issues, I happen to trust you as far as your business goes and would have no thoughts that you were going to scam me.  You also made a recent point that I thought had some validity, which I think was the idea that "transaction trust" is different than "accurate feedback trust", though I don't think Theymos is going to modify the trust system to separate those two things.

I don't think it was scamming that got you removed from DT, so I'm just asking what the reason was.  This isn't a question designed to ensnare you, and I could probably find the answer with enough searching but I figure there's a Legendary member reading this who might know off the top of his head.  If it gets ignored and no one answers it, no prob.  

For the new DT members I do think it would be useful to educate them as to how former members of the old DT system got removed.  Master-P got booted because he pulled a huge scam.  Escrow.ms was removed because he'd spent time in jail on some credit card scam, QS because of the 'self-escrow' thing.  There are more, but I can't think of them--and those ones I mentioned happened since 2015 when I first registered on bitcointalk.  You got booted before that if I'm remembering correctly, though it could have been in my early days and I may not have noticed it.

Edit:
No clue, I only vaguely remember that whole drama except that I'd donated some bitcoin to yahoo62278 for a sort of relief fund, which he eventually returned.  I wasn't aware any of those funds had been returned.

I'll check your post history to see if I can figure out why you got booted off DT.  I'm not looking to start drama here, as it's not the thread for that.  I'll leave the question for someone else to answer since you won't.  I thought I'd a thread about the reason, but I can't remember the details.

Edit again:  After some searching, I did find the thread where TECSHARE got removed, but aside from that it makes for very interesting reading, given how old the thread is and how we're still asking the same questions today:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tecshare-maliciously-abused-the-bitcointalk-trust-system-846683