Topic: DT trust ABUSE by people here. Needs attention at once before goes out of hand - page 3. (Read 1904 times)

Not to drag this topic off topic, but your case is one of those 99 to 1 rare scenarios I was talking about where one guy says its not a problem, and 99 say it is. I'll agree with you the Warning! Trade with extreme caution! text isn't to my liking. I'd rather there be no text at all, and no numerical score, so people would just read all of someone's feedback before trading with them. But again, its not worth neglecting a rating that the majority of people will want to know about, just because of that.

I'm not going to respond to anymore directly relation questions to that in this thread, the only reason I addressed it here was because it does explain what I meant when talking about % of people viewing a situation.

I think it's the lesser of two (or more) evils at this time. No trust system at all would be quite bad - very difficult to gauge anyone's trustworthiness. No Default Trust and no substitute for it - most newbies would have no clue that the system exists. A small improvement could be to have some prominent message for everyone who hasn't done so to encourage them to set up custom lists. There is still a problem for new users though - how would they know whom to add? If you're interested there is a thread on the trust system improvement ideas: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48500915

Your actions contradict what you say. You've rated me this: "User does not honor their auctions, and self bids to get out of having to sell an item at a price they don't like."

This feedback is misleading and untrue. I've honored all my auctions perfectly. I've done a vendor bid (self-bid) once ~3 years ago in a reserve auction I held, which is probably what your fresh rating talks about.

It's a different thing to leave such poor feedback when it shows in "trusted" feedback compared to "untrusted" feedback. It's hard to ignore the "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" red text and ?? score. You're just a power tripper, that's all. (Although you probably mean good, just blinded.)

When you put 1000 people to look into something, I am sure some of them will see dishonesty and injustice in whatever case. It's just so sad when they happen to be in a position of power. Some of the cases get highlighted and get randomers like you to present their incompetent opinion. Most of the cases go totally unseen by those 1000 people, maybe just 10 see them.

I've been using the term subjectively accurate meaning that its a reasonable statement. One could follow the train of thought that lead someone to make their claim, even if they don't necessarily agree. Everyone is going to see a situation differently, but as long as a real good faith effort is put into leaving feedback, I don't see any problem with it.

If someone was harassing me for example, at what point is it harassment, and at what point is it just annoying, a joke, or all in good fun? If 99% of people think its all in good fun, and I'm taking it as harassment, its likely that I'm overreacting and negative feedback wouldn't be appropriate. Switch that to 99% think its harassment and 1% think its a joke, its probably justified for a negative as harassment. The times where its 99% one way and 1% the other way, there isn't a need for discussion, it is what it is. That is the exception though, you don't see a thread often about a confirmed scammer disputing their negative feedback, or someone who got negative feedback out of nowhere. When opinion may be split 50/50, I don't think its worth suppressing information that 50% may want to know before deciding to trade with someone.

My point is that if someone leaves feedback because they strongly believe that something is wrong, I don't think thats abuse. Thats what feedback is for. As long as the feedback is not misleading, its up for individuals to judge its validity. The 50% who disagree with the claim and the proof provided are free to ignore it.

*edit* And again, I haven't looked at the claim against you, I'm just speaking generally how I think feedback should be handled on subjective topics.

This is not a just now. There are lots of abuses taking in this forum and that include merit system. Take a look on shitpost that got merits. Besides, it is so.hard to rank up now especially if you will just randomly make a reply with your little knowledge on the topic. Reaearching it will be always an advise. However, it.is still that difficult so it might gone to the part where a user might buy a merits.

would still be better than no source of gauging at all




this is for my own perspective on others, but it does not work the other way around. if i get a negative for trolling, others will still see it regardless of my custom list. if i was selling something for example, i would worry more about the look of my profile than the look of other's profile, so custom list would be completely useless for one's personal trust page.


I agree 100% that people should  evaluate trust feedback, but if we were to make a survey asking members whether they even consider engaging in a trade with someone who has a red trust from DT member, I will bet the horse that the vast majority will stay away the moment they see that scary red " WARNING !" before even looking at who gave it and why, therefore we are being unfair to someone who may be very decent and honest with his trades but he got a negative simply for saying something that a mighty DT member does not like.

Typically you wouldn't be adding someone like cryptohunter, who has not sent a single trust feedback. You would be adding someone like marlboroza, who is an active participant of the system. Or not adding, if you don't trust marlboroza's ratings.

And yes, that might be laborious, which is why a lot of users don't do it. There is no quick way around it though. You have to get to know the forum and the users before you can make a decision whom to trust.


So again, you probably wouldn't be adding someone who posts such ratings to your list. And you would probably ignore such ratings when you're trading with someone and trying to gauge their trustworthiness.


#1 is reasonable but it's hard to enforce. The link could be meaningless. You still have to look at all the facts to properly gauge the value of the feedback.
#2 would be solved by custom lists. If you don't want people to be red for trolling - don't add users who tag for trolling.
#3 same thing. Some prefer the ratings to have a preventative meaning, not just an alert of a scam that already happened.

In the end, DT or custom list affects just the warning in a thread and on the main profile page. All (trusted and untrusted) ratings are still visible on user's trust details page and you should probably review all those before engaging in a trade with someone you don't know.

You make some good points, but it's all up to Theymos.  I wouldn't mind seeing some changes in the trust system here, and I've always said it was broken.  Any trust system that allows anyone to leave feedback for anybody for any reason is broken from the start, especially when some feedbacks are weighted more heavily than others.  Ebay's feedback system used to be essentially the same as bitcointalk's is now, but they quickly figured out how prone it is to abuse (they eventually made it worse, where sellers can no longer leave buyers a negative, but that's another story).

That's not to say the trust system here is useless, though.  DT members negging scammers is a good thing, for example, even if the DT member wasn't the one who got scammed.  I think Theymos is indeed considering some changes, and I'm hoping he doesn't make it even more complicated and fucked up than it already is.

and how exactly does one go about creating a custom trust list when in many cases i see contradicting feedback on the same user. look at the OP profile now. he got +1 from a DT member and a  -1 from another one. for me to put the OP in my custom list I will have to spend a few hours reading about the story or misunderstanding that went between him marlboroza.

I do dig deep in trust pages just for fun sometimes, and to be honest the DT trust system is not bad at all, the only bad thing about it is the "use-case". people get positive feedback for being " nice and helpful" others get negatives for "not being nice". how is that relevant to TRUST ?  i am not sure if i am making myself clear but I hope everybody does understand that being trust worthy has differently nothing to do with one being nice or an asshole.

i skimmed through your feed backs and i think you are doing a great job, but this is not the case with all others.

look at this



nice of you to stand up for that guy, but really how can a DT member tag someone simply for saying things he doesn't like ?  who whould have traded with that guy when trust page was painted in red and saying " Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" .

you see the word TRADE ? that means the trust system is only related to TRADE.  if trolling was a valid reason then the warning should be "Warning: a troll ahead"  


that's why there should  be a set of rules at least to be applied for DT members " as it would be hard to monitor everybody else". those rules need to specific and straight forward. for example


1-DT members have to reference every feedback.
2-you CAN NOT red tag someone for being a troll.
3-all negative feedback has to refer to scam activities or account sales.

So lots of quite realistic assumptions about you based upon your frantic panic of being revealed as number 1 most concentrated circle jerk beneficiary? and constant bringing it up even now over and over.  I mean based on that observable behaviour and only human emotion at being revealed as the most concentrated merit circle beneficiary and logical and reasonable opinion it is me that has brought this to the attention of the board you want to take some reasonable revenge.

Right so I see based on the observable data and sensible corroborating observations mentioned above ie you keep bringing merit up and believing for some reason I want your merit removed and that I should contact theymos and have them removed. Then its not exactly a stretch to see that these are reasonable assumptions. I mean I can not get into your mind and read it but I mean it is called motive ...yes you had observably have real motive.

Now opportunity ...well you are DT and by the lemon threshold there is never not an opportunity. FUCK THE LEMONS sorry about that salty no disrespect.  You took some opportunity but I crushed your old suchmoon story.

Well can you point out any statements made that you believe can not be reasonably assumed on that basis.

I mean you do realise this is not two equal people debating here and one wins on the basis of overwhelming observable evidence in support.

You are now the apparently the judge ..... You are not my equal here you are in a position to punish. Therefore you must provide evidence to the contrary to prove I am making unreasonable statements I mean you should need to prove I am lying to give punishment.

So do you have some REAL reason to justify a red trust or is this list of quite reasonable and well just pick one that is not and bring it forth.

I mean thats like me saying I am jealous of merit holders with more. I say false Red trust.  I mean you can see this is pathetic and worthy of you getting kicked off DT right.

State your precise reason and make it clear. You do have a reason right?

So a lot of your reasons for red trust were reasons you picked off this thread? fox time machine?

So you changed your reason for red trust now???

Or hedging your bets?

Oh no i see the link it is actually your incorrect assumption of what I was referring too that cause you to give incorrect negative trust.

Remove now debunked and you have the you can clearly see I was refering to your actual quote not a boxed that obviously i made because you pressed quote.

The problem with DT is not solved by making custom trust list. The problem is that DT exists. It's used poorly, in a way that encourages people to specifically not make custom trust list. They contribute significantly in portraying DT as an universal "super trusted users" list, which is only an illusion. There have been (and still are) scammers and dishonest people in current DT.
DT should only be a ramp-up "people who are unlikely to scam" list of users, and it should require absolutely nothing else to be on DT.

Anyway, there should be no such DT thing at all, IMO. More about possible solutions, presented by theymos. My thoughts about DT are also in that thread in here.

About the trust system: Trust system itself is not working very well, but it's quite hard to make it much better.

You think theymos has time for all these non-senses coming out from you? LOL What it is special about you except looking to harm people by giving the essence that you are helping the community. Sure, you have done some good works by tagging some legit scammers but recent days most of your tags are biased and manipulated which reflects personal agenda. You are making the trust system very cheap.

Anyway...
Butt burning?

Here is are some tips which may help you to stop your butt burning...
- Tweak your daily food menu. Add very little spicy foods. Also, you can add fiber supplement with psyllium. This will help you not to have the burning poop
- Always keep your butt clean. Keep it clean and dry as much as possible. Using mild soap & a little warm water helps. Applying some soothing cream will help as well.

That's all I can give you for the time being. If faucets were profitable these days then I would launch a faucet site for you so that you could earn some sats.

What you mean is probably Default Trust, which is pretty much guaranteed to upset some users due to its one-size-fits-all nature.

The trust system itself is fine. You can create a custom trust list if you don't like Default Trust. The problem is how to encourage/coerce/force more users to do that.

I agree with the part of giving negatives for owning multiple accounts/farming because that's most of the time a clear sign for someone with suspicious behavior and tendency for scamming, but I do not see how trolling or even being racist have any sort of impact on the person being trust worthy or not. English is not my mother tongue but the way I understand the word trust is simply just TRUST. I had deals with people who don't start their messages with a greeting or ending with a thanks or goodbye and I personally think such people are assholes ! yet since they kept their end of the deal I left a positive feedback.

just imagine you had to buy something on this forum, you went first and the guy still delivered the goods as promised but trolled you the next day , what type of trust feedback would you give him? positive for being genuine or negative for trolling ?

I am a new member here, i know non of these gentlemen what so ever, i just think this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with before the whole trust system becomes useless.

I guess everyone has his own ultimate opinion on what the trust system should be about. I tried searching the forum for some sort of rules related and had no luck. I think maybe theymos should make a set of rules related to this.

Yeah good question.

I guess I found out about a guy a noob who was being bullied around a bit harshly by some of this same group. Although later some did kind of get more fair. Strangely marlboroza was one that turned out quite fair (ha destroying my own case now) anyway so then I found started examining what is this DT list and....well I never realised in all the years happy and content on alt discussion and the ANN section how this board was kind of controlled. I assumed theymos and some mods. Actually I still love this board and believe it is a great place even now due to how fair the moderation has been over the years. The mods made it great... you can say anything have any opinion (nearly) so long as you can provide valid argument for it and a good case. It has been great over the years and I usually lurked just reading and watching some real masters argue and debate all kinds of things not just tech stuff. I mean you are a very early adopter so perhaps it was even better then. But some really great posters have come and perhaps will return. I worry some have cashed out and will not return. But I hope they will.

Anyway yeah then I started realising sadly there is a group (perhaps well meaning really) but they are quite closed together and there a few that stick together and if you disagree with something or present something they don't like then they all swarm out on you with creepy persistence where ever you post one will be there then they all come along. If you disagree with one you disagree with all. I mean that is good they have reached some kind of collective consensus and they do work hard and do very good work for the board in some ways. However they are not right about everything so they can end up forcing their opinions on others because if you do not align no merits and then if you get really out of line with them and ask to many questions or question their criteria for taking this kind of self righteous high horse attitude and forget bothering with any kind of logical debate it just become a pack of wolves all sniping and shouting unsubstantiated nonsense and strange logic and unlikely verging on ludicrous theories or explanations of actions taken. Then if one gets a little annoyed you they may find some way to make it appear you just stepped out of line and into the threshold for neg trust. That threshold needs some criteria really. I mean I like salty he is cool  but I think the criteria should not allow lemon hate to clog the system you have to id real scammers.

If left unchecked and they get used to acting with impunity and nobody questions this then it will get worse.

I mean i notice these high merit members are mostly all DT listed too? and getting nominated for next mods.

It think it will be okay but there needs to be some limits they need to abide by and if they can not abide by these fair limits and rules they need to be removed. The community needs to speak up if they notice unfairness and not be scared because DT negs can be reversed or deleted if they are proven to be an error on their part.

You got me...

Ponzi promoter 

auction scammer 

escrow scammer 

It's a game for people with nothing better to do. Why people play it? Some play it because they genuinely think they're doing something good. Some play it, because they want attention (to their opinions). Some play it, because it's kind of a strategy game. (I.e. be friends with the correct people, do not piss on the wrong people, and you'll do fine.) All sorts of cliques. Players trying to reason and wiggle stories up and around to justify any kind of behavior, which in reality is often being out of all proportions. It can be compared to some other forums meta level struggles, but here in Bitcointalk people seem to think they're more advanced or more correct, while in reality it's more like an alternative reality, like you mentioned. Leading to a significantly worse outcome.

It's no surprise that a huge amount of old-time users have left and are never coming back. Additionally, deep toxicity is growing and already beyond ridiculous levels. I would argue that increased BTC/USD has a lot to do with all this...

Why do I care to post this? Because it would make me more happy if I got to see some people realize what a shit show this is.

How is something subjectively accurate? I mean you seem an okay guy that is serious question not me taking the piss. How do you confirm it is accurate if it is subjective? I mean what criteria is there. I mean that leaves this open to anything really and reduces its value to zero if we all exercised it to the max without it being abuse.

For example take the lemons thing. What if i am really offended by people that do not talk about lemons in every post? so I just spam negs on everyone over and over as a DT member. Then someone is offended by not mentioning oranges. I mean it is true i think someone should love them and mention oranges in every post or negative DT. The system willl be ruined it is therefore abuse because it is not designed to be ruined  like this. Are you saying people need to scan thousands of lemons oranges pears until they find a real scam accusation?

This is absurd and again you seem nice but this meta board is like an alternative reality where things that would usually be considered ludicrous and mad are now the normal and sensible way of things in meta. But logical reasonable things outside of meta are nonsense, conspiracies, lies and stupidity. The people with all the anti logic and that see no need to abide by any generally accepted conversation or debating rules or usual structure are the

Between suchmoon, foxy and the time machine, loyce the AI in progress, the lemons and TP's even stranger variant of logic and laudas ever present darkness lurking over everything pulling string and you can't help speculating you mention his neg trust you get one right after ....is malborozo connected to this king pin?

wow meta is a freaky place....

Malboroza get my red trust off asap and I let it slide this time. You messed up you assumed incorrectly and insanely that i was trying to deny that I had just posted something you had already box quoted and had in front of my face in public on the same page. Over drawing a sensible conclusion that I am denying the other quote that I did not say that was similar to something I did say that fitted the description  of the quote I described to you.

Remove it or be removed or bring into question every DT that does not push you out. It is disgraceful.

The way BitcoinTalk trust system is going - some day people won't bother much about a tagged account. It's already happening. Some day we will see members are leaving the forum because they feel they are being bullied by members like malboroza.

This proves that when they are out of options, they use their DT power in their advantage.

---

By the way, what else we could expect from a guy who joined the forum to shill for cheap faucets  
Refer to some of the very early posts:
http://archive.is/3x8aI
http://archive.is/BXXxB

Just before you got red trust I ate a stale donut. That doesn't mean your red trust is the result of that.

All I have to go on is the reference link and it quite clearly leads to your accusation of misquoting. There is nothing merit-related in it, or in the feedback text itself.

So how about we wait to find out what marlboroza will say instead of making any more assumptions.