Topic: DT1 and DT2 members who have negative feedback (or are banned) - page 32. (Read 17754 times)

I believe threads like this have helped turn the Default Trust experiment into a complete failure.

Admin should now understand that even some of the most experienced "veteran" members of this forum are not ready for a decentralized diverse form of meritocracy, and prefer a Red China style singular echo chamber instead where opinions deviating from the mainstream are quickly silenced and excluded, no matter how substantial or valuable they may be:


Number 1 & 2 have already been happening for years, that's why there is at least 20 threads in Reputation with the tag "Trust Abuse"...

The whole point of having 100+ DT members is to have a plurality of cultures and ideologies gaining representation in a forum that attempts to be libertarian in ideology, and it's the sign of a natural and free world that some of these members disagree with or even dislike each other.

Hundreds of very valuable and intelligent members have spoken up against bad practices by some deeply entrenched default trust members; if you try to motivate people into excluding them so that your precious friends can keep their trust sheets artificially clean, you are effectively devaluing the entire trust system of BTT, and that's why most people have stopped paying any attention to trust ratings because they understand in the vast majority of cases they are more based on political favoritism than justice or meritocracy.

I strongly urge future Bounty Campaigns to take a note of "safe echo-chamber formation" threads like this and stop giving a rat's ass about trust ratings on this forum, the Trust System has no meaningful purpose except for maybe warning the greenest of rookies about the most obvious of scams...

If you have an example of me using red trust inappropriately I'll review it. If you don't that's fine too.

It's not about you or your neutral ratings - I couldn't care less about that.

... Wait... you *want* me to ask you to review something???

Here comes another Neutral Trust Feedback on your wall that you're about to squeal about:


Want me to slap you down again?  Click quote or reply over yonder ---> ...

I read enough of that shit, fact that you all couldn't see I admited I would do something and never made a actual threat after countless times repeating it is a different thing.
Your circlejerk is obvious and so are your claims which are just pukable.

Please read the trust rating again and try to understand what it's for.


I won't. Pulling shit out of context and pretending to not understand jokes/sarcasm reflects poorly on you, not me. I'm sure I have said even more outrageous things so feel free to dig some more up.


I never said I don't give out red trust. I don't give out red trust for opinions, personal squabbles, being dumb, etc and I strongly suggest others refrain from doing so. Nice try twisting it into yet another pretzel. If you have an actual example of me using red trust inappropriately please let me know and I'll review it.

Hypocrite.

Next you'll be squealing about the neutral feedback left on your trust feedback wall:


Lead by example instead of slapping others with negative/DT distrust so you claim the martyr card that you don't give out red feedback trust.

Says the one that claims 180 days isn't enough ban over few drunk words.
Then contacting people to distrust me, negative rate and remove old positive ratings. (not saying you done this one yourself but you all one for me.)

Look at your buddy TMAN, hasn't touched the forum in two weeks out of butthurtness.

That's like seeing unicorns and world peace. KYC on Bitcointalk is more likely!

That's #2 already.

5. The user(s) who left the negative feedback WITHOUT proof and\or fictitious accusation ( like TMAN and LFC_Bitcoin ) should be excluded

0. Everyone grows the fuck up and stops using red trust in their pillow fights. I reckon that would fix about 1/3 of this list.

This user is mysterious. He was either doing everything as he planned or he really is in any kind of real life trouble. If it's the first one then this is very sad and if there is any real life trouble then I hope he comes back again and make things right again.

Good job in the OP. I will review some of the users from the list.

I've added your quote, it was indeed not my intention to treat all users the same way. Some are obvious, but most are a bit of a gray area.

You can't really hide from https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx

I've added your quote too. That too was my intention, and indeed, having red trust doesn't necessarily mean someone's ratings are bad.
Example: theyoungmillionaire was totally fine, until he disappeared with a loan.

If you say any other option than


You should probably look into the difference between someone's trust feedback and their trust score.

Thanks Loyce, informative as always.

I made some overdue changes to my trust list based on these findings -- not necessarily based on just somebody having negative trust, but a lot of things:

- do I agree with their ratings in large?
- do they even leave ratings?
- have they been active at all this year?
- who is in their inclusions list?

Not going to name names, but there's a significant amount of members both new and old that seem to be using the trust system to pad their scores or place on DT. I fully expect some reciprocal exclusions to take place shortly, but to be honest I don't blame people that do that, as I don't trust people that actively distrust my judgment either.

I think in many cases its a matter of education and experience -- as mentioned earlier in this thread a lot of people just don't understand how the trust system works.

If you were allowing us to pick options in a poll I'd go with option three - having said that from time to time a user's negative against me has made its way to DT2/1 but then have slid down the slippery pole and their trust feed back as gone again.  Some of those negatives are Butt Hurt ™ members giving other butt hurt members negatives... (Naturally, there's couple of accounts I wouldn't like to see go)


Satoshi doesn't qualify for DT1 unless s/he were to post in the first couple of days of the month...  

*edit* Have just spotted you were looking at Untrusted feedback - here is the trusted stuff: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3;dt

satoshi actually has negative trust feedback.
I was also surprised. I was reading some old posts and I noticed that. Interesting enough I've even seen it red/orange (because one of the guys leaving the negative was trusted by somebody in DT or my trust list).

I think if you do option 1 or 2, there will be many user who get excluded from DT-member

Usually I saw many user get negative trust when he left negative trust from that's user.  For me, if he have many contribution for this forum and positive feedback ... that user's should not get excluded.

Better to exclude DT Member if he is scamming people, trolling, and do something stupid.


Yeah I agree with you, maybe there is a someone in this forum who hate satoshi 

Indeed. The way to go is to read the feedback, decide for yourself, maybe distrust this and that member in your own settings.

The problem is that newbies can get puzzled by all this.. and I don't have a solution (other than let them learn they have to make their own decisions).

As easy as it is to get into the DT lottery I think we could start seeing more and more users having neg trust. This person hates this guy, that guy scammed this guy, this dude pissed in the wind.

Seems like almost everyone has someone out there that doesn't like them. I would def not say of the 4 options you posted, none of them classify every situation. Would need to be on a case by case basis IMO.

I will say DogeDigital needs removed due to his moneypot fiasco that's still unresolved.

As an addition to my Complete overview of users on DT1 and DT2 and their ratings in Meta, in which I sometimes highlight suspicious users on DT, I came up with this idea after Ratimov highlighted another DT-user with negative feedback:

The list of DT-members who have negative feedback (or are banned)
    1. 15728: TECSHARE (Trust: +48 / =5 / -1) (DT1! (0) 777 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    2. 18321: OgNasty (Trust: +84 / =3 / -3) (DT1! (8) 787 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    3. 30747: Vod (Trust: +27 / =2 / -4) (DT1! (17) 1478 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    4. 31931: Anduck (Trust: +20 / =2 / -1) (DT1! (4) 68 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    5. 81995: peloso (Trust: +3 / =3 / -2) (DT1! (0) 133 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    6. 224980: cryptodevil (Trust: +8 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (15) 176 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    7. 313016: owlcatz (Trust: +46 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (19) 306 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    8. 1018510: Blacknavy (Trust: +7 / =1 / -1) (DT1! (0) 884 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    9. 1668017: anonymousminer (Trust: +33 / =0 / -1) (DT1! (6) 651 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   10. 13746: Technomage (Trust: +3 / =1 / -2) (48 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   11. 23324: Balthazar (Trust: +4 / =1 / -1) (305 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   12. 38894: SaltySpitoon (Trust: +20 / =1 / -1) (1004 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   13. 40976: DeaDTerra (Trust: +3 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   14. 44611: silverfuture (Trust: +1 / =0 / -1) (8 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   15. 52185: LouReed (Trust: +3 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   16. 54113: BCB (Trust: +4 / =0 / -1) (2 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   17. 65317: bigtimespaghetti (Trust: +24 / =0 / -1) (53 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   18. 98986: TMAN (Trust: +28 / =1 / -3) (1302 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   19. 136592: devthedev (Trust: +27 / =1 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   20. 138940: minifrij (Trust: +13 / =0 / -1) (214 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   21. 315650: Dogedigital (Trust: +10 / =1 / -2) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   22. 316604: CryptoImperator (Trust: +30 / =1 / -4) (203 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   23. 520313: Lutpin (Trust: +32 / =1 / -1) (820 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   24. 552507: BTCC_Official (Trust: +10 / =2 / -1) (34 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   25. 787736: marlboroza (Trust: +12 / =1 / -1) (1387 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   26. 795961: cryptoheadd (Trust: +18 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   27. 982157: tayfundeniz Banned! (Trust:  neutral) (46 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   28. 982288: Vispilio (Trust: +6 / =1 / -3) (862 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   29. 1016855: JollyGood (Trust: +9 / =1 / -1) (565 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
   30. 1831671: ugurum15 Banned! (Trust:  neutral) (22 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
(sorting: first DT1-members, then oldest accounts first)

Note that there are usually several possibilities to improve the situation

• The user with negative feedback should be excluded
• The user(s) who left the negative feedback should be excluded
• Both of the above
• None of the above

Pick wisely :D
Further reading: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

Updates
I'll post weekly updates.

Limitations
Not all data is realtime, Trust scores for instance are scraped around 2 days before theymos' Trust data dump (which happens on Saturday morning).

No spam
Self-moderated, but usually I don't delete posts too easily. If it does happen, see loyce.club/archive/topics/523/5235038.html for deleted posts (before editing).
Feel free to discuss cases here.

---

---

See [overview] LoyceV's useful data on Bitcointalk for more of my forum-related topics