Topic: [LIST] of user that "abuse" positive and negative trust feedback. (Read 664 times)

Send negative feedback randomly, without even waiting for the discussion to end.  Then delete its (possible) posts and remove the negative feedback. Trust abuse.

Sure. Would you explain to me why you don't mention the feedback you made on cabalism13? I'm curious

I already did, you just have to find it.

Sure. Would you explain to me why you don't mention the feedback you made on cabalism13? I'm curious

I can not find it...

Well, I'm glad you've acknowledge that my review is accurate (or "not wrong,") but are you in agreement that your actions were wrong?

I think DadyD has his panties in a bunch because you didn't do the investigation work yourself.  In his opinion you're piggybacking on the work of others to elevate your own value in the "trust-network." 

What now, you said it is abuse and posted screenshot of accounts I tagged and then you said it is great work 

Let me point few things, maybe you will better understand them:

https://i.imgur.com/IIEEhYb.png



Let me point some other things:

https://i.imgur.com/ON17mpg.png
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/updated-prison-break-full-list-of-users-who-lost-their-dt-red-trust-from-lauda-5045649

If you need anything else, let me know.

---

Don't forget to add marcotheminer to positive trust abuser list who deleted positive trust.

If you need anything else, let me know.

You did a greet work reporting bizzilion ponzinarians...You didnt do a good work copying reagannn post and report the users that he found with hard work ( Or at least, it took time to find adress ecc ) If some of the bizzilion ponzinarians are included in the feedback I'm talking about it's a mere coincidence.

Ok, I see some updates, but:
...I am really having hard time to follow you. Reagannn exposed some cheaters in spectre's campaign and I used that work to tag bizzilion ponzinarians?

You sent me the first negative feedback, and I don't think it's wrong.

Ok, I see some updates, but:
...I am really having hard time to follow you. Reagannn exposed some cheaters in spectre's campaign and I used that work to tag bizzilion ponzinarians?

Your proof of trust abuse is me tagging people who knowingly advertised ponzi in signature?

You got me, guilty as charged.

---

Speaking of topic, can you include account marcotheminer to your positive trust abusers list?

https://i.imgur.com/bNShPPV.png

His feedback is trust abuse because he was aware by that date that you borrowed money for only purpose to gain trust, therefore he shouldn't have left you one  

The screenshot that you posted is in no way, shape or form related to Craige288 and his findings. Accounts tagged by marlboroza were promoting at that time a blatant scam / ponzi scheme in their signatures - Bizzilion.

Since when tagging rule-breakers, scammers, ponzi promoters and trust farmers is considered useless feedback? The only thing you can gain/expect when you send -ve feedback is backlash and retaliation. I think that's pretty obvious considering this topic and its purpose.

Ahahahahaahahah.

> get neg rep
> created self moderated topic about trust abiuse
> include all who neg rep you in this list
.
.
.
Profit 


for honest, sometime i really think that some users don't understand how to use trust feedback, but OP, it's not your case.


Don't be an idiot, greentrust someone for 0.0015 BTC it's creepy shit. In our local board we have people who didn't get feedbacks for 5000+ dollars of succesful trades. Why 0.0015?  Why so much? I think start sum for feedback must be 500 satoshi.

How come I didn't make your list?  I was the first to "abuse" you, so I'm really feeling neglected.   
And don't forget, "D" comes before "Y" and "M" in the alphabet...

---

Your "table" is making my eyes bleed.  It's disorganized and really hard to follow.  So, I fixed it for you.  Feel free to copy it from the code box and paste it into your post.  I promise I won't report you for plagiarism.

You posted that feedback after he repeatedly stated that he's farming trust.

? Loan was successful, transaction was good, trust is deserved according to me. What he did following that was following that.

? Loan was successful, transaction was good, trust is deserved according to me. What he did following that was following that.

|| User: marlboroza
|| List of feedback abused: http://prntscr.com/ph3den - ...more precisely: Point 1 and 2 - He used the work of Craige288 as a means to send negative
||                                                                                                                           (Useless) feedback, with the sole purpose of increasing
||                                                                                                                           turst indirectly. http://archive.is/8MfoO#selection

Your proof of trust abuse is me tagging people who knowingly advertised ponzi in signature?

You got me, guilty as charged.

---

Speaking of topic, can you include account marcotheminer to your positive trust abusers list?



His feedback is trust abuse because he was aware by that date that you borrowed money for only purpose to gain trust, therefore he shouldn't have left you one 

http://prntscr.com/ph4rvn - Which of the three is your case? If you need help with your issue, i can help you.

False? Are you accusing me of telling a lie?

In a trust system without rules and moderation by upper third parties, whatever the reason for my complaint, it cannot be FALSE.

There is no law that forbids my feedback to be present OR NO in my wall. Which is why, since I do not go against my interests anyway, I believe that the next 2 feedbacks have been sent without reason. The first 2 feedbacks have sufficiently made the idea of what "type" of person you think I am.

Please don't accuse me of certain things anymore. And I strongly believe that we have talked enough about going off topic. Please refrain from answering further, if you really can't, you will not receive any reply.

Thank you much for bringing more visibility towards my profile.  
Please can you make sure that I remain #1 on your thread ? Would much appreciate.
My username starts with a "y", and generally when ordering alphabetically, I am at a disadvantage.

Thanks so much for bringing some justice among the mandatory concept of alphabetical sorting.
Such heresy.

Trust ratings should reflect why trading with you is high-risk (or why you're unlikely to scam anyone - on case of a positive trust rating), not what others did or said. If Alice, Bob, and Carol think that you're untrustworthy - it doesn't mean that Ted shouldn't be allowed to say that you're untrustworthy, or that Ted should count the ratings and do something different based on that number. Irrelevant to the purpose of the trust system.

There is a reason and it's quite clearly stated in your ratings. I don't think it helps your case to say things that are obviously false ("no reason"). It would be more accurate to say that you don't like the reason, which is not surprising but doesn't matter.

I'm working on it. I am considering various criteria and if they are not met it is pointless to point out their work.

And just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they look at the number of feedback from others?

I'm not here to complain about the negative feedback I received, but the number of users who sent feedback for no reason.

You should change maybe the Thread title or take some effort for that list you written in there , or is just for your Account!
For now i just see one User in there and that looks like is just recounter for that he has tagged you for something that looks like you abuse the trust to get positive Feedback .
Where is the whole list or is it in work ?

I'm not planning to trade with you. I appreciate the quick overview that the trust score gives me. And if I find that "-3" is not appropriate I can exclude from my trust list one or more users who posted such unjust ratings. That's how the system is supposed to work.

I dont want to trade with you...useless information...If you appreciate the vision of your trust score ... what is the vision you want to have with the confidence of each user? We are discussing irrelevant things.


There is no abuse. What I'm saying is that those users used the system correctly. If one of them copy-pasted the same rating 5 times on your trust wall - that would be abuse. If they demanded payment from you - that would be abuse.

In a system without moderation and rules, nothing is abuse. It is a question of fair, my friend ... If it is good of you that it is used in this way, it is okay, everyone is pleased.


Their opinions are expressed in their ratings and those opinions seem to match with the "high risk" verbiage on the trust page. I don't see why those ratings should be neutral. They consider trading with you to be "high risk" because you're farming trust.

Just to give you an example in real life ..
If I met you and slapped you with the excuse "You are not an angel, surely you have done something bad to deserve it", how would you react? E.g "You betrayed your girlfriend and she slapped you, I do the same. The way you think it is a fair thing apparently ...The words "high risk" can also be used in neutral feedback to describe the subject's action.


Your lack of self awareness is mind-boggling but that's what got you in trouble to begin with, isn't it.

You have avoided answering ... I will not be aware of me (Even if I openly confess that I asked for loan to gain trust, but oky!) But at least I see this small line that exists between the farm, confessed, by the indirect farm as your colleagues do.


I have no idea what that means but it sounds like whataboutism/strawman. It would probably make more sense to discuss your own problem and why you're considered untrustworthy.

I'm not going to talk about the reason for my negative feedback. I understand that the trust farm is badly seen, so I would see it too. I'm not here to complain about the negative feedback I received, but the number of users who sent feedback for no reason.

You could also see 0 0 0 but the fact remains that you check both lists before making the trade...I think more then 2 copy pasted feedback are useless, even to avoid your problem of seeing orange or grey.

It does not seem to me that I have criticized the system of trust but its abuse, they are two distinct things. And if you think the opposite then the word "trust abuser" is just a taboo.

TRUE! But, at least, have the decency to express an opinion before sending a negative feedback or copying one, don't you think? I think everyone should have their own opinion, but if NOT DIRECTLY interested, their opinion should (or at least most of the time) be neutral (preferably refrain if there are already other equal feedbacks.)

And just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they look at the number of feedback from others? it is obvious that a copy paste is a method of gaining "experience" in the field of feedback. "Trust farm" (Indirectly)

And as I think of it, for this reason there should be neutral feedback where negative feedback is not needed. To mitigate the total score .. otherwise see user with 30 positive feedbacks and in the last 3 days he cheated 5 users (hypothetical example), all of use can change! Or be hacked..
"He has 30 positive feedbacks, I trust without checking" - Cit.

It's not pointless. It affects trust scores too. For example I see an orange "-3" on your account and it's far more informative than "0" would be if only one person posted negative trust for you and that person happened to be not in my trust list.

You have no case. The trust system works exactly as expected here.

When users post feedback ratings they shouldn't be looking how many others did that etc. They should be posting their own assessment.

Multiple users consider your behavior untrustworthy. That's reflected in your feedback.

That is neither here nor there. If you didn't want red trust, you shouldn't have engaged in untrustworthy behavior.

As I explained above, several ratings referencing the same incidence are not only permissible, but desirable.

...more precisely:

Quote
1) Without a valid intervention in the discussion concerning the feedback.
2) Without a valid contribution to unmask / find the scammer."

If i have 4 negative feedback by 4 different users regaring the same mistake, i could not be elegible for events/contest becouse they count numbers of negative feedback and not numbers of mistake

In any case, in my opinion, even 3 feedbacks copied and pasted concerning the same error are too many

Regarding your example, as already mentioned before, I bet you whatever you want, before to deal with someone you check both list..So its pointless posting more copy paste feedback...

Trust isn't moderated. Anyone is free to leave a negative rating to any other user. If you don't agree with their feedback, then exclude them from your trust list. Also, there is absolutely no prerequisite or requirement saying you must have been involved in a discussion with the user prior to leaving them feedback.

Why someone should read this list?
Only one reason. The trust system in the forum is not very moderate, too free. People do what they like, with very few repercussions for those who overwhelm them. My intent is to reduce their numbers and increase their quality. I don't want trust system to be a question of numbers, but of trust. So if you want you can take a look at this list before to deal with someone.

Absolutely incorrect.

Let's say I see user X, who I promoting a Ponzi and therefore a scammer. I leave them a negative rating. User Y comes along, and also sees user X promoting this Ponzi. I am not on user Y's trust list, and so to them, user X has a trust score of 0. User Y then also leave them a negative rating for their own benefit. This can be repeated several times. If you are using the Default Trust settings, and myself and user Y are both on default trust, then you will see both of our ratings. Conversely, if you have neither myself or user Y in your trust list, you won't see either rating. Duplication of trust ratings is intended, even more so now that the default trust list changes on a monthly basis, to prevent scammers from suddenly going back to a score of 0 if a particular user falls off of default trust.

If you don't agree with a user's ratings, exclude them from your trust list.

Duplication of trust ratings is intended, even more so now that the default trust list changes on a monthly basis, to prevent scammers from suddenly going back to a score of 0 if a particular user falls off of default trust.

I suggest you do a bit more reading regarding the trust system, because you don't seem to understand its design. Pay particular attention to the last point below:

If the interested party leaves a negative or positive feedback, it is useless to leave others copied and pasted with the same opinion only for the purpose of increasing or decreasing truth count.

Q: What is Trust and how does it work?
A: Trust is Bitcointalk's feedback based on trust (hence the name). The Trust system is made up of 2 components: the Trust list and left feedback.

The Trust list is where you select the users whose feedback on other users you trust and how deep is this trust. You can either trust just their feedback (select the Trust depth as 0), theirs and their trusted users feedback (Trust depth 1), and so on (up until Trust depth 3). Trusted feedback will be counted when displayed as numbers to the left of a users post in trade boards such as Marketplace or Goods. If a you don't set up your own trust list, a default one is used (info on how it is generated can be found here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/defaulttrust-changes-5095156).

The feedback page is where you can leave feedback on other users or see a detailed view of a users feedback. Trusted feedback will be shown first and untrusted feedback will be hidden by default. You can view it by clicking the link "Show ratings". Last of all, you can see all the feedback the user has left on others.

This covers the basics of the Trust system. If you want a more in depth description of the Trust system and details I probably missed, go here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/marketplace-trust-211858.

Q: What are Trust flags and how do they work?
A: While Trust feedback is meant for trade-related endorsements or accusations, which other forum members can read through to get a general idea of a user's trade history, Trust flags are meant to serve as a more serious equivalent of a negative Trust feedback. There are 3 types of flags:

1. Warning to guests / newbie users that "anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money". Anyone can create this type of flag, even if they weren't impacted by the actions of the user they are flagging.
2. Violation of "a casual or implied agreement". This type of flag should only be created by a member who was directly damaged by the actions of the user they are flagging (e.g. got scammed out of goods or services).
3. Violation of "a written contract". Same as the type 2 flag, but the victim had to have had a written contract with the user they are flagging.

When a flag is created, other forum members can support or oppose it. When calculating if a flag has more supporters or opposition, it uses the same Trust list mechanics as the Trust feedback system (only counts votes of users you "trust"; see previous question for more info about how "trusting" users works). For logged out users (a.k.a. guests), a default Trust list (with the default depth) is used (see previous question for info on how it is generated). A type 1 flag is active if it has more supporters than opposition. For a type 2 or type 3 flag, the flag has to have 3 more supporters than opposition for it to be active.

Active flags are displayed on the flagged user's Trust feedback page (above the trusted feedback list), as warnings on threads they've started (shown only to guests and newbies for type 1 flags and to all users for types 2 and 3) and on their Trust score on their profile page and beside their posts (shown as # symbol for type 1 flags and as a more verbose warning for type 2 and 3 flags). Inactive flags are only shown on the flagged user's inactive flag page (the link to which can be found on the flagged user's Trust feedback page under the "Inactive flags" section).

For a more in depth and detailed explanation, see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trust-flags-5153344.

Q: Why is there a warning displayed on my thread / topic?
A: Either you've been flagged (see previous question) or you have more negative pre-flag (before the flag system was introduced) Trust feedback than positive. The pre-flag feedback (both positive and negative) that is included in the calculation is determined by the thread viewer's Trust list and Trust list depth.

Q: Why isn't trust moderated?
A: Feedback isn't moderated (except for obvious cases such as pure advertising, hundreds of identical empty/gibberish reports on one user) for the same reason as scams - too much room for abuse.

To me it sounds like a dystopian community that knows who I trust and punishes me if I gain too much experience.   :/

Nobody is asking you to be aggressive. You asked for examples of clear trust abuse given to people that have no instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past right??

Use the information as you choose. This information is 100% related to the systems of control  - both merit and trust.

You have a good one too.

1) Without a valid intervention in the discussion concerning the feedback.
2) Without a valid contribution to unmask / find the scammer.

Thanks for your interest.

But what I'm trying to do is closely related to the trust system. Furthermore, I think your way of doing things is too aggressive, which I don't like when trying to give explanations in which someone should listen to you and "follow" you in your intent. Have a good one.

I would start here there are many documented trust abusers here that are also PROVEN SCAMMERS themselves.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-the-official-dirty-turds-poll-which-dt-needs-flushing-first-5170789

Meta board is a wealth of information especially posts from cryptohunter and ourselves.

DT is infested with PROVEN scammers that trust abuse other members that have ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their past.

Meta is more fun, go there to discuss and debate.

Sounds bizarre coming a self-admitted trust farmer but hey, free speech, knock yourself out. Your English has improved considerably, so... congratulations?

This is something you build through the years, and not making fake trades and getting loans.

I'm trying to get some loan to incrase my trust