Topic: Discussion about subjective behaviors that may result in a red tag. (Read 370 times)

LOL by widespread agreement he means agreement from the gang of merit cyclers and DT colluders and their ass kissers who are on DT after only a few months of being members here. ....  that is not widespread that is known as closed.

Don't worry I can sense more and more unrest here. The entire thing is going to boil over into one huge war between the abusers and abused (there will be more genuinely abused for subjective petty junk and actually presenting facts.. than abusers soon) until the entire board is aware that red trust from a DT means nothing and is practically an endorsement of trust worthy behaviour -- for example presenting facts regarding liars or scammers.

A facts based post in response to the incorrect statements of suchmoon.

Ratings should not be based on subjective behaviors. This could be enforced the same way we now enforce that it is not acceptable to rate people for their opinions, in retaliation, etc. We don't need Theymos and the staff to enforce it, we just need him to step up and make it a standard that negative ratings should be given only with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. The VAST majority of any other issues can be solved with neutral ratings, or reports to moderators in the case of violation of existing forum rules.

Just my two cents in this area, any case of extreme harassment that involves any kind of extortion or blackmailing must be awarded by a red tag. These kinds of harassment must be punish as it involves the attempt of acquiring personal gain from someone in distress by the harassing party. If its illegal in our laws why would we let it happen in the forum?

Extreme harassment in terms of a member annoying or giving empty threats to other members shouldn't be penalized by a negative feedback, if they have a personal beef against another member I don't think we should be involve with it as definitely they are just annoying one another and like what was previously mentioned we can easily ignore them.

In cases where a member annoys or give empty threats to a considerable amount of members here in the forum, or he is just plainly an annoying troll in the forum I think he/she deserves to receive a negative feedback. For one it simply violates the forum rules as well as these kinds of members really are up to no good on their purpose of just hanging around annoying members in the forum.

Yeah, yeah you can whine with your lies somewhere else. Nobody in their right mind would side with you anymore. The turth: Given the number/valid ratings ratio, mine are the most accurate ones.

Maybe he meant widespread agreement by scammers or trolls (such as the one he's quoting; or the ones that you've mentioned "cryptohunter, the buses-and-bicycles idiot").

Go to the original thread - fake ICOs was considered as deserving a red tag: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49306851

This thread lists only "debatable" stuff.


If there is widespread agreement then Lauda will be removed. For example there is widespread agreement that Quickseller, cryptohunter, the buses-and-bicycles idiot, etc should not be in DT and they are not in DT.

It is effectively impossible to get someone like Lauda removed from DT now (despite widespread agreement that he should not be on it), so he will not care what others think of his ratings. He will hand out as many ratings as he can without regard for their legitimacy, even going as far as handing out ratings for those who expose his criminal activity.

No discussion is necessary for lauda.

This kind of quality debate is why everyone has so much faith in your judgement.

I tag for everything that you've said no to (and will obviously continue to do so), especially ANN bumping services.

I agree with this approach the most. At the end of the day it will always be somewhat subjective and should be left this way.

I also like the idea of coming up with general rules of thumb, if only so there is less chances of retaliatory feedback.

OK so here's my votes:

Extreme harassment - no, except in cases where physical threats or other illegal activity is threatened toward the user

Asking for a no collateral loan - yes, but only for Newbies

ANN bumping - no, but yes for the provision of ANN bumping services

Colluding - yes, evidence needs to be supplied ("proof" is even better)

Leaving fake negative ratings - yes, evidence needs to be supplied

Loan defaults - yes, especially if the loan recipient refuses to make/adhere to plans for repayment

Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others - yes, evidence needs to be supplied

All trust ratings (positive or negative) should be properly referenced going forward.


I also have a question: what about members supporting fake ICOs? ICOs that clearly have:

a. fake team members
b. plagiarized white papers
c. characteristics associated with Ponzis or MLMs (fixed ROIs and extra heavy emphasis on affiliate programs)

I'd like to get a general consensus on these items as well.

just use the ignore function


should be judged diffenrtly depending on the user, most of the time, yes, as it's very possible  " a scam attempt"


this has nothing to do with trust, could be honest kid trying to make some extra money


scam/trade related? yes
other b.s ? no



no ,  distrust the user, make sure he is not on DT.



a big YES , 99% of feedbacks should be based on loss of funds/ scam / trade related subjects , 1% is for other "similar stuff"   0% of personal issues/feelings b.s

Extreme harassment
For continually stalking a specific user or making threats. - yes

Asking for a no collateral loan - yes
Yes, after a warning or very unrealistic cases, but should be removed after a period of time if the user can come to the understanding of why they shouldn't do that and admit they were wrong if they just didn't know, which I think is the norm.

ANN bumping
No - Theymos said not to tag spammers/shitposters but if this "thread bumping" is a service or otherwise against the rules then report it to the mods.
If a user offers thread bumping services or any other service against forum rules. - yes
A user that appears to be breaking the rules by posting in ANN threads. - no - report.

Colluding - no
Some collusion can be seen as positive and some collusion can be seen as negative.
You can however tag someone simply because you believe they are not trustworthy.
Tag: "I do not trust this user because they are colluding with proven scammers". - yes

Leaving fake negative ratings - Yes, as a warning to others not to trust their ratings.

Loan defaults - Yes, but it should be the lender's decision or at the lenders request.

Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others. - no
When you invest in anything you should understand the risk that the venture will fail.
Business activity that scammed or deceived - yes
Business activity that failed - no


This is just my opinion but anyone can tag anyone for any reason they want even if it is against the advice of Theymos, but you will have to live with the results of your decisions.
You can tag Vod for "licking his boob" if you want but he and the court of public opinion will probably crush you and remove you from DT. Others may also tag you for leaving bullshit feedback.

You should be able to explain why this is true:

From the respond I got trying to provide a possible guidelines on reason why or why not to leave a trust feedbacks on other users account. I came to a conclusion, the reason theymos haven't provide a guidelines for the leaving of trust feedbacks is because he wants each decision to be an individual one. The reason you don't trust anyone totally depends on you therefore I could give a Yes answer to some of the questions above meanwhile another will give a No answer.

But in conclusion I think trust feedbacks should be left only when a trade is involved.

Not sure what's up with that locked poll but I'll try to respond here.


I would define "extreme" as threatening with IRL actions such as violence, lawsuits, doxing for no other reason than to intimidate, etc.


I agree with what's stated in the OP.


Just make the case to the mods and get the bumps deleted and/or the thread locked. Let's not involve the trust system into enforcing forum rules. We know the Benevolent Dictator (trying to avoid triggering his notifications ) is not a fan of this either. Of course when there is something else involved - like paid bumping service - perhaps red trust might make sense.


Too nebulous to define properly (see Trump's "Russia thing" for a good example). Just ignore it.


I personally don't give much of a shit about that but since trust is generally not moderated I think some blatant cases might warrant red trust. Preferably from third parties otherwise it may seem retaliatory.


Sounds like a plain scam.


I think I may need an example to understand this. The way it's stated here it sounds like a scam unless it means some sort of indirect loss.

I don't really think there is a way to define any of these things one way or another definitively. We as humans examine each individual case on a case by case basis, and then make our own inferences based on our past personal experiences.

Lets take business activity that resulted in the loss of funds for example. We would think this one is a pretty easy case, but every little detail effects the outcome. Who was responsible for the loss, why, what did they do after the funds were lost, etc. We are more quick to forgive incompetence over malice, but sometimes incompetence is even more dangerous. We are accepting of bad luck if its reasonably outside of our control (reasonably is again subjective). A sincere person after the fact can make the difference. Attempting to rectify a situation is always better than not accepting responsibility.

Whats more forgivable, a person who made an accident that can't rectify their mistake, or a person who maliciously lost the funds and made an attempt to rectify the situation?


In the general most broad sense of the definitions with the choices given,
Harassment - Yes
Business activity that results in loss - Yes
Asking for a no collateral loan - Yes
ANN bumping - No, thats kind of in a moderator's wheelhouse, I can't establish a reasonable link between breaking forum anti clutter rules and trustworthiness. Maybe you can.
Loan defaults - Yes
Colluding - Too vague even for the most vague answer I can give
Fake negative ratings - Also very vague, I'll go with Yes, but we set a scenario with two or three words that'd change my answer to no.

I can easily create single sentence realistic scenarios for each example of what I answered above to flip my answer though.

Extreme harassment - this is certainly one that needs definition. A person falsely accusing or accusing but refusing to present evidence of their claims should be given at the very least neutral trust. I would suggest repeated false claims or unsubstantiated claims after a warning should get red trust in the current system. However really I would prefer a separate "other feedback" for anything non trade or scam related. It could then be noted in there.

Obviously harassment involving/threatening serious physical harm should get red trust with no warning under the current system.

The only others there that should have red are

Loan defaults (only if unpaid for an unreasonable amount of time) yes- may do it again.

Leaving fake negative ratings*sujective - yes because it renders the entire trust scoring useless.

Colluding - yes in some instances

Good idea for transparent poll

From this thread: Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

I'd like to have some discussion about some contentious subjective behaviors that could result in red tagging by some DT members.

Unacceptable behavior that could result in a red tag: