Topic: How do you guys feel about trust farming? - page 2. (Read 2575 times)

The problem is not you but them! They knew they will get positive feedback if they trade with you, You are not the problem right now, Their intentions are.

No, they haven't LITERALLY admitted that, in their posts I quote below. Fucking English, how does it work?

They were libeled/bullied into proxy bullying ME/micromanaging MY trust page - removing honest ratings in accordance with the feedback page's instruction that Positive="or had a successful trade". Well guess what? I'll change my freely-given ratings when the feedback page no longer instructs me to do so as-is status quo, and makes Neutral ratings for "had a successful trade", rather than Positive.

Account selling, as said before, is a whole other thing.


    When was this 'admission' ever made? I am currently using the email forwarding service every day for many, many emails.


Why would it be bothering you to the slightest degree?


Say what? "Signature campaigns"? I am pretty sure a user does not earn more if they have trust or not....

So there will be no action against the offenders? Their 'Apology' is enough? How many Account Sellers will get their red paint removed if they publicly apologized? I believe the answer is none. So in this case why are Atriz and Aventhe not getting their red paint? Just because they are managing a campaign is that the reason behind this? Or the DT/DT2 members have double standards? They have literally admitted that they bought the emails to gain trust. Why no red brushes are being painted? It's just annoying at this stage. Ahg! The way i see it is that these users will do anything to get their trust up, so that they can earn from Signature campaigns. This behavior is shady as hell and deserve negative trust right away.

no drama bud... people like QS attack a number of us constantly, so you will see that many of us will stick up for each other as we are all mates off the forum!

I wish my friends would do that some day for me 

Yeah i can understand that - it just wasnt obvious for me to see because based on my amount of trading here these two members were pretty unknown to me, hence i asked for other community members to look into them.

I once sent kebabs and burgers to Zepher to wake him up and I know Z has sent MJ Pizza... Trust is sometimes left based on multiple trades with "private joke" inserted...

I can half agree to that.
A thread with (possible) information on the trade is always better then a picture with a mantis eating pizza even though you cant be sure of the truth content of said thread.

(But before we might end up discussing off-topic i do understand it is probaly just a joke between friends)

I think that it doesn't really matter. Zepher obviously trusts minerjones and minerjones trusts Zepher as well. Apart from the "pizza" trust rating, zepher has gotten 5 other pos trusts from minerjones. So it really has no tangible affect of having or not having the "pizza" trust rating.

---

I personally think that it's fine to give trust, even for a trade like the email forward contract. Trust is all about opinion anyways. That's why you always have to look into what exactly a person did to get his trust, instead of relying on the score only. But i think that changing the trust to neutral may be more appropriate.

IMO it is not much different for leaving ratings for private trades. You can't really leave anything as a reference, can you?

Both of them are legitimate to the point where there is no need to doubt such a trade occurred.

Like i already replied to lauda: as long as there exist a good explanation this is all fine especially when longstanding members that traded with them do vouche that these are legit users (real names and addresses known).

I do not trade often myself here on the forums for various reason so i can really only check the trust page and references, but indeed that would be the exact case for every newbie starting trading here.
He can only check these two things.

If you were referencing 2 regular users i'd have a problem with the rating but MJ is pretty legit. No reason to doubt his rating even though it might look fishy. I'm sure he would explain the reference if absolutely necessary but I doubt it comes to that.

If this is the case it is fine.

Not knowing them seeing a pizza picture as reference for a 10 btc trade in 2017 was a pretty big red flag.

---

See the reference i quoted.
Having successful trades in the past is no guarantee. We had more then one of these mr. Long cons.
Maybe you are on drugs or just arent here long enough?


Of course there is the real world - but this is the internet and most people here dont know each other in real life. The only things they can check are the digital history and the reference i quoted without further information is a red flag - no buts here.

what drugs are you on?? many of us have traded $100K plus with both of these guys - they are on different continents and are both super trusted.. MJ holds physicals for me and on some occasions has shipped $50K plus deliveries on my behalf.

also - there is a world outside of this forum where many of us transact.... 

Your point being? If I successfully traded big amount of money with someone, I am not allowed to leave them a rating for each time?

It's an internal thing, and a very valid rating. I can't exactly remember what the deal was with that Pizza, but I do remember it.

No. These people are literally trading thousands, tens of thousands (USD) worth of coins every month.

I would rather have 5 trustful people on DT then 100 shady idiots.

Also looking at your trust page i get the strong feeling you just wanted green trust for your campaign management business  

Jesus kids this days...

Another trust thread.
It is always the same.
Bitcointalk.org priority:

1. Shitposters
2. Trust farmers
3. Bitcoin
4. Shitcoins


Btw can anyone explain me how different trust reports for user x from the same user y counts?

I was going through the "Zepher" account and saw that he is giving out 10 positives for the same guy even though it was on different occasions (he does that with several users).

Edit

Do "Zepher" and "minerjones" have some sort of connection? Like siblings parted at birth?  


The reference is a pizza picture...

Edit 2

It looks for me like a circlejerk of trust trading or maybe all these accounts are just owned by one guy - this is definitely fishy.

I hope some more ppl will check this out.

The new forum software's Github organization has a repository with the BitcoinTalk trust system (or something very similar) so it doesn't look like there are any plans to change it. If it is genuine, this script appears to tell more about how scores are calculated than any other source I could find.

---

edit: Here's a rundown of the algorithm, from my understanding of the script linked above:

The variable s is the trust score, and it starts at 0.
1. For every unique positive trusted feedback, add the age of the feedback in months (up to 10 months each) to s.
2. Round s down to the nearest whole number.
3. If n is positive, subtract 2ⁿ from s, where n is the number of unique negative trusted feedbacks.
4. If either s is negative or n is 0, skip to step 7 now.
5. Set s to the number of unique positive trusted feedbacks left since the time of the earliest negative trusted feedback minus the number of unique negative trusted feedbacks left since the time of the earliest negative trusted feedback.
6. If s is negative, in this scenario the trust score will display as "???" instead of a number. If s is not negative, keep going.
7. If s has 5 or more digits, then cap it out at either 9999 or -9999, depending on if it is positive or negative.

The trust scores are displayed as s: -n / +p, where p is the number of unique positive trusted feedbacks. If s is negative, then it is "red trust" and the "trade with extreme caution" tag appears. If s shows as ??? then it is "yellow trust". If s is at least 5, then it is "light green trust". If s is at least 15, then it is "dark green trust". If n is not zero, it will be bold, italic, and yellow, so that it is more visible.

I ran through the steps for a bunch of people in this thread and it all adds up right so far.

So, you understand it well enough to rarely use 1/3 of the steaming pile of useless shit. Why then, should the forum have any rating level other than negative?


With this much donated & ongoing transactional BTC at stake, why in the fuck would we want not only to keep Bitcointalk SMF's feedback system a steaming pile of useless shit because dev time is ostensibly focused on the new forum, but to also celebrate the release of the new forum with a similarly-steaming pile of useless shit for its feedback system?