Topic: DT1 with zero or neutral trust - page 2. (Read 1042 times)

Theymos picks Staff members, and theymos trusts HostFat:

Agreed Vod is LIAR,everyone who supports this idiot is either part of lauda's gang or just stupid.I believe on theymo's decision.

Vod, even the admin admitted your behavior is disgusting. Then you leave me a trust rating trying to make it seem like the comment was about me. I’ll happily discuss this in person with you if you’d like it to remain off the forum.

Vod is a lying piece of shit that belongs nowhere near DT1. Anyone that supports him either has their head buried in the sand, or they aren’t motivated by an honest accurate trust network. There is no excuse that could justify trusting someone who acts like he does.

Without a shadow of doubt, user Hostfat (shows as Staff Legendary) has a questionable objective when it comes to supporting forum users (and known scammers) eliale and paci  - and anything related to protecting the Rock Trading scam exchange

Forum moderator Hostfat shows DT1 with strike through (as can be seen here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52211678) yet somehow he is still 'Staff Legendary'. What is all that about? Can anybody shed light on it please as I do not understand?

This link explains the issues that triggered the concerns surrounding Hostfat behaving in an aggressive manner to a victim of a scam and instead he protected those that provide his affiliate related source of income via Rock Trading scam exchange thus he has lost the opportunity to be called unbiased and neutral: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unacceptable-behaviour-by-forum-moderator-hostfat-rock-trading-owner-eliale-5126027

Actually I didn't purchase it (I've got it for free) and I didn't use it (it didn't work at first attempt and your feedback made me stop).
But I agree, the intention was there.
That's why I considered it only partly correct.

However, thanks for removing it. (I clearly didn't do that again.)


That would be the opposite of what you've done until now.
(And if you would start removing such ratings in such cases, sooner or later you'd clearly end up distrusted by everybody.)

Vod has never misbehaved.  Scammers try and call me a liar to reduce my trust impact, but time shows I am usually correct.


I have been removing a lot of old negative trust recently.   For example, yours was purchasing a hacked Microsoft key three years ago.  Such things can be forgiven if the actors do not do it again.  Someone also PMed me to remove a negative rating for leaving trust for payment.  Such acts show a foundational opposite of what I stand for and I won't remove those.

How about their activities on the forum especially their policing activities, have you considered that aspect?. Having spent majority of my time for the past few weeks on the scam accusation board, i recently updated my trust list and those would made the list were mostly those showing some policing contributions to the forum.

For my criteria, I combined, post quality, merit earned plus policing contributions. Dropped few old forum members, (no offense) then added new members who have proven themselves worthy, those I feel have hunger to search for scam like project to expose. Was kind of self-centered with my selections though since I'm an altcoin enthusiast and i need protection to some extent via the scam relate projects. Speaking of plagiarized whitepaper, fake teams etc. I don't have the right tools to spot this red flags so it's fair to have the guys who do on my CTL to alert me when I encounter such projects.

Heh, I have the same problem. It's a surprise for me (but not too big) to see them distrusted by theymos. Vod and TMAN are on my trust list because I've seen them clearly spotting and tagging accounts that deserved to be tagged.

Vod is controversial because of his way of handling the problems and because many of the tagged people are now holding a grudge.
I've got from him a neutral tag which is only partly correct. I guess that some got negative tags which were only partly correct. But I think that is intentions are good and a tag can be appealed in PM (even though with too small chance of success).

I think that one way to evaluate people is to see their tags. If those seem to be made incorrectly, for example for some interest, then they should clearly not be on your list.
Then you can see their posts. If their views contradict yours, there's a good chance that you may not agree with all their tags. This doesn't mean you should necessarily distrust them, but at least not trust them.
Of course, the theory looks better than what's to be actually done.

This topic is a discussion about people in DT1 with zero or neutral trust. This topic isn't about Vod or Vod's behaviour. They can fight all they want but there is no need to derail multiple topics with their childish arguements. Derailing topics, while there is an open topic about the subject, is actually considered as off-topic posting.


I have no idea how my post makes you think that I am supporting 'Vod's lies'. Understanding basic English is obviously hard for you so it might be too difficult for you to follow.

I try to keep away from the petty forum bitching, and I have no knowledge of any alleged mendacious behaviour by Vod.

Whats the point of supporting Vod's lies? theymos himself has distrust this idiot,isnt that enough ?you wanna join the distrusted list of the forum owner? you're not helping fag let them fight if they want ! its none of your business freak.

I've only just noticed that there seems to be a move against Vod. He is the first entry in my trust list, and I made the entry because I think he is an interesting character ( not sure about the avatar though ), and I felt that he had the interests of the forum at heart. It seems that others disagree with me, but my entry is based on my ( limited ) interaction with him. There seems to be a similar problem with TMAN, my instinct is that I could trust him with a £10,000 deal, but I haven't traded with him to base that on experience. It's this diversity of opinion that makes it difficult to make productive use of the trust system. It seems that active and outspoken members can attract negative opinions, and this is probably understandable, but in my opinion, the forum needs such members to maintain healthy discussions about Bitcoin and world affairs.

I'd like to give the system more support, but I'm still having difficulty in deciding how I should evaluate people. Obviously members who support or promote scam projects, or who defraud other members, should receive negative ratings. I don't approve of account trading, or the meriting of your own alts, but some members seem to think this is acceptable. However, all of those are negatives, so how do you evaluate the positive morality of members? Posting behaviour isn't really relevant, although post content can be an indication of low moral fibre.

What's the point of bringing up your opinion about Vod in every topic related to DT1? Your own topic is a perfect place to ventilate your frustration towards him. Derailing other topics is kinda getting old at this point.

OG, out of all the scammers I have busted, you seem to think the length of your scam entitles it to be forgotten.
  Not going to happen idiot - your only defense is been to call me a liar, when people can see I haven't.

To everyone else:  I am helping to build the strong leadership bitcoin needs.  Through transparency we will know who cheats on taxes, and who is just in it for themselves, like OG. 

Anyone who opposes the gang have been trolls,are you a troll now OgNasty? because i am being called a troll by telling the abuses of these police wannabe buttholes.

There was never supposed to be a forum policeman ranking...  Especially when people like Vod who are straight up liars are included in DT1.  I hope this forum can find it's way back to being more than a trollbox at some point.  It won't happen without strong leadership from honest people.

I am not getting any point why DT1 or DT2 should have positive feedback's in order to become part of DT network. If so then it will be like previous DT system. The  current voting system is almost fine and positive feedback's isn't required. If someone have 50 positive feedback's it doesn't mean he is more powerful DT. Even I am not enough trustworthy but my judgment could trustworthy. At this point anyone could be on DT network even they have no any positive feedback's. So feedback's just prove how a person trusted, it doesn't prove his judgment.

DT1 members select DT2 members, just like DT2 members select DT3 members.

All users can leave feedback, just not all of them are shown by default.

No. This is theymos' Trust list:
The users on DT1 are highlighted.

Correct. You should probably read DefaultTrust changes.

I saw some people with one or two positive trust mostly got them from loan activities.
Can I ask that which are differences between DT1, DT2 members? I ask because I saw both DT1 and DT2 members can leave negative feedbacks on users, so what's the difference between them, especially the net-effects of trust feedbacks eliminated with Trust Flag ?

I saw theymos' updated trust list every month, does it mean that DT1 members are users added in Trust list of theymos?
While DT2 members are users added in Trust list of at least one DT1 member?

In that case, the requirement shouldn't bee based on positive trust from other DT-members, but from members with a certain amount of Merit or Activity, kinda like the current DT1-voting.
Ideally it should be based on feedback from DT-members, but those are too volatile. That's why Merit or Activity could work. However, if you're basing DT-status on feedback earned, negative feedback should get a vote too. And that makes DT vulnerable for manipulation. So it's probably best not to change anything. It's up to the users to trust/include users without feedback and put them on DT1.