Topic: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system - page 3. (Read 13679 times)

You don't seriously think "those 5" can be compared to "those 4", do you? Why are you focussing on only the negative feedback, and not on the (incorrect) feedback I mentioned?

If that's not enough, let's see what DT1-members think about them. Out of "the 5", only one user is on DT2, with Strength (0). Meanwhile, all of "the 4" are on DT2, with Strengths going from (10) to (20).

I'm catching up with posts from when I was on vacation or a couple of weeks and the above was in a locked thread, so my response is here:


Four is okay, but five isn't?

Got it.

(Even @theymos doesn't trust one/some of the users on your list)

Naim027 wiped his Trust list, so it's not just you.

While we're on the subject of correct use, I think you can improve on this:
Scumbag
Google describes it as: "a dirty or despicable person". I'd say that's not really a reason to give someone negative feedback. Your Reference link explains it, but it's better to explain it accurately in the Comments.

After my tag to Royse777 I was expecting that some of those who have me in their trust list would remove me from theirs and maybe some of those who don't have me would switch to distrust me.

I keep an excel with the monthly budget, one column for the planned expenses and another for what I am spending as the month progresses.

I had foreseen that there were going to be changes in the trust list with respect to me in a similar way, as the box of the utilities payment. Something that was going to happen. Although in this case I don't keep an excel with trust issues, but just so you understand the analogy: I did what I thought I should do and assumed that it would have an inevitable cost in terms of trust.

In the end, the only one who has removed me is Naim027, which was about time, and logical after the one-word feedback I left him.

Seeing that there have been no changes from trusted members in this regard I understand that many people who may have more empathy towards Royse777, although perhaps not entirely agree, do not see my tag as a reason to remove me from their trust list/distrust me.

Correct.

I disagree. I answer Trust abuse with neutral feedback, and by excluding the user from my Trust list.

As long as you don't vote for the same users, I don't consider it sockpuppeting as far as DT1-voting is concerned. An easier solution may be to just use DefaultTrust on your alt account.

Ok LoyceV I think it is the most appropriate. The only thing I want to say about it is that I'm probably not going to get into lenghty discussions about it.

Since we are talking about the correct use of the trust system, whoever thinks that I have made an incorrect use can distrust me, or if they think that somehow I have done a trust abuse or something can leave a negative feedback on my profile. I am not the least bit concerned about these two possible consequences for doing something that the voice of my conscience tells me is the right thing to do.

Leaving this aside, I wanted to ask you about sockpuppet voting for DT1 because I don't think I understand it well. If I were to create an alt and build up the account, I guess I would end up creating a trust list. If the trust list is the same as the other, I guess it would not make sense to have it because it would be like voting twice for the same people, that I understand. Suppose that for some reason such as with one I write controversial posts on the P&S board and with the other I don't, I don't want to reveal that they are two alts of mine. And let's also suppose that one is in the Best Change signature campaign and the other in a campaign with high posting requirements in the gambling section. So they interact in different parts of the forum with different people and as a result end up having a trust list with some common members but different ones (both for trust and distrust). Would that be considered sockpuppet voting?

I suggest to move lengthy discussion about specific cases to a dedicated topic on the Reputation board.

It fits in the overall picture, it's not just an isolated fact.

Let's recap and I'll explain why I'm going to leave him a negative tag after careful consideration.

Royse777 was a person with a great reputation on the forum, unimpeachable until a few months ago. He started promoting Bitlucy casino, which at the beginning was advertised as Bitlucy777 in which he announced that he was going to be a partner.

There began to be problems with withdrawals with what I smelled that it was going to be a scam. When we saw the problem, DireWolfM and I were the first to give Royse777 a red tag and igehh and I were the first to support Solosanz's flag in this regard.

In the end, the worst suspicions were confirmed, Bitlucy was an exit scam. This in normal conditions would have meant a total destruction of Royse777's reputation if it were not for the fact that he was a person who has distributed a lot of money in signature campaigns and for wearing his avatars. In this, another DT and I have agreed talking about it by PM.

When Royse777 gave explanations, many people who had red tagged or supported the flag started to withdraw the support, forgiving him because we understood that somehow he had been involved in the problem without bad intentions.

But, and here comes the important part, what evidence do we have that Royse777 did not play a major role in Bitlucy(777)? Only two: his word and that of AnotherAlt, that is, that of naim027, Dic3L0v3r and Crypt0S0ul. Someone who has shown that he would sell his son to the devil in order to get money, who has cheated in every possible way.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60500779


And then it turns out that not only does Royse777 keep it a secret that this guy is ban evading but he includes him in his project to raise 7 Bitcoin on the forum?

Sorry, if you cover up for someone we can't trust and hire him for a big project with money involved, you can't be trusted.

I do not trust Royse777 for deals or $0.01, let alone for projects where he wants to raise 7 Bitcoin.

He wiped his entire Trust list, I assume because I called him out on DT1 sockpuppet voting.

Hello,

I'm not sure if I post this here but I just noticed the issue about Naim027 and I can't comment on any of his locked threads. I am putting it here because of what I commented in a previous post, and it is somewhat related to the trust system.

It turns out that today when I go to check my trust list, I see that AnotherAlt had removed me from his trust list, when I didn't realize that he had included me.

When I saw in his ban appeal thread in meta that he said that a casino had scammed him by not paying him for being a moderator, I remember thinking: "this guy is in trouble for everything he is involved in".

Now I see his confession, after having been caught, and I am stunned.

I think theymos is not in favor of it, but I think the alts should be controlled in some way. It is good to have a couple of alts as many of you have, or even create another to say controversial things that someone wants to say without being recognized, but this to be able to create infinite alts that go building trust despite being a recognized cheaters or also create alts everywhere to question the reputation of forum members I think it should be put some limit.

By the way, I have not even read what he says in his confession. He has no credibility whatsoever.

Edit: After rereading the threads well, I think there is a second derivative of this, which yahoo62278 has brought to my attention.

Royse777 knew that the person behind AnotherAlt was Naim027, who was ban evading.

That at the very least is going to get him a neutral tag of negative spirit from me. And I think it's more likely to be a negative tag, and I don't care about those of you who hold Royse777 in high esteem.
  

Next time I'll have to read the fine print more carefully


I'll have a second look at my trust list and make some changes where needed.

Thanks Loyce for the heads-up  !

He's on DT2, but that shouldn't really matter to use the Trust system correctly.

Nope. Theymos knows it exists, if he wants it to be a factoid, he doesn't need me to ask him.

Maybe offtopic since I can't see Rizzrack in the DT member list.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a list of people who are in DT2 but have never left any feedback? If I'm correct, I have seen at least one DT2 member who has never sent any feedback. Would appreciate this.

And have you ever asked theymos to put this thread in factoids? I think this should be promoted to make sure everyone knows the practice of the forum trust system.

I noticed these new Trust inclusions:
I'm highlighting this example because it comes from a member of Cryptios. The last user on the list created a forum patch, but doesn't have a custom Trust list and never left any feedback. He's smart, and a valued member, but none of that has anything to do with the requirements to add someone to your Trust list:

It's clear already.

I was simply amused that someone who confesses to being an alt, distrusts JollyGood and has on his trust list those clearly opposed to him, which raised some questions that have now been clarified.


I'm looking forward to hearing about this new project, JJG.

Oh?  I was confused about being able to see my IP addresses from the last 30 days from the link that you provided, and initially I was thinking that when you posted that link, you were able to see the contents of the page that I saw when I clicked on the link (which was my IP addresses of the last 30 days)..   Then I realize that it was merely a link for each person to see their own IP addresses for the last 30 days and you could not see my IP addresses..  

Thanks for that.  I did not realize that I could see that information about myself.

What's going on? Why am I called so many times 🤣?

Nice try but unfortunately this is ignored by many DT power seekers.

I am trying to imagine how big is this big lol then I will understand the half 🤣

A question which part was the drama?
JollyGood an his feedback

It was not meant to create drama or I would not PM him first then wait 6 days. It was meant to be finished if he was responding the PM to satisfy me with his answer. He is running away because he does not have any answer.

Click the link

It's meant to check if your account is compromised: compromised accounts have been used to scam through PM, without changing the password so without drawing any attention to it being compromised.
See theymos' post about it.

I will have to ponder on this whole topic a bit more.  I would only be starting by adding one at a time, and then if at some point there might be more than one person helping me out, then at that point I might want to consider whether it would be feasible for them to share the same account that had been established for that, or if a new account might be in order.  I think that some of it will become more clear once I write out my OP in regards to why I created such an account and the thread that I intend to create that would end up being the work of such account (and hopefully would grow and evolve with the passage of time).. I don't know how much of a teaser I should give, but it has to do with figuring out how to fund projects and then to subdivide various accounts that would be used to fund such projects.

By the way, how do you find the IP addresses?  I would have thought that ONLY admins would have been able to see that kind of information... any member can find that kind of information?

If they can post from the account, you don't control it
If they make their own account, you can leave neutral (or if you trust them even positive) feedback stating the relationship. If they quit, you remove (or update) the feedback.

Sharing accounts also means disclosing IP addresses of all users.

I assume you'll need to keep track of your agents anyway. This way, at least you can distinguish who does what.