Topic: Marketplace trust - page 6. (Read 83249 times)

I do not see any negative feedback on your account and it seems alright since it was neutral and has no feedback about it. I do not think also that a DT user will give you red trust because of your Bad English grammar construction. If it do then probably you must be PM first advise not to post in english sections to avoid becoming a shit poster because of using english with bad grammar construction.

I have a couple of questions about this, considering the changes made to the trust system over the years:

I've recently left positive trust to OgNasty because he returned the 500 BTC he was holding as treasurer. I entered BTC500 as risked amount without thinking too much about it to be honest.
Being stricter I now see "Risked BTC" is how much I could have lost, and since I personally wouldn't have lost anything in this case it seems I was wrong about that. Is that right?

However, I think that's not important at all. And that takes me to the next point, which I think is no longer valid and needs to be updated:

AFAIK, this is no longer true since a long time. Trust is now calculated in a different way, without taking the risked amount into account at all. Therefore "Risked BTC" is much less important than before.
@theymos, please correct me if I'm wrong, or update OP if this point is no longer valid.

I'm posting this because of Vod's negative counter feedback left on OgNasty's profile: "Just a friendly counter to the 1,500 BTC that three members did not risk with OG, based on Theymos' comments in the reference link. 'Each 50btc risked will count as an additional rating' " with a risked amount of BTC1,500.

I've seen other trust actions taken (or at least justified) based on "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating". This thread is a reference and I think it's very important to keep it up to date.


Update:
Note all the previous posts of this thread are more than one year old. Most probably you don't want to quote or reply to any of them, like jademaxsuy did.

 I think that's a really cool idea. It's like post count 2.0.

I have done nothing for which I could leshit doery! how do I get it back now?

Call it as you like. Tagging negative is a form of punishment with which only a couple of members are installed.


I like your comparison of the trust system with scam. For which it in the present situation is used.


That's easy talk from your comfortable position. Accounts of members who did nothing wrong are pointlessly destroyed and they are treated in a very respectless manner. Often a lot of time and efford have been spent in such accounts. I have spoken with members on Telegram who actually cried for it. They were positively engaged in normal forum activity and they did nothing wrong. I really can't understand how so many members support such harsh abuse and destruction.

I'm in absolute disagreement. Why should I have to sit through someone posting shit and getting rewarded for it, because someone who is too lazy to properly do their job decided that they should be allowed to do so? Why should the other people that disagree with this, just sit around and let it happen? Because someone being paid by a some ICO has ultimate authority?

Extremely poor English is not subjective. Anyone that is a speaker of any decent capacity of a language can tell good or bad interpretation of it. Empty, useless posts are also objectively bad. Rehashing the same empty words such as:
"$ 20,000 is a good price. I can not stand to observe the growth rate of bitcoin. Every price increase of $ 1000 can result in a drop of $ 2,000 in the future. I constantly catch myself thinking that I don't want bitcoin to go up. But it seems to me that bitcoin is already so dispersed that no one will stop until it will fall."
Cannot possibly be seen as a decent post by anyone. Any chimp with a typewriter can write drivel such as that, and these people deserve to be paid for such, because some lazy campaign manager says so?

Trust moderation doesn't exist, by design.

Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you cannot scam people. There are no 'trust instructions', there are guidelines. Guidelines that were written in a time where spam wasn't such a big of an issue. Guidelines that are just advice, not rules.

I can absolutely agree that tagging isn't the best way to do it, and I hope that these taggings will decrease as the merit system finds it's feet. However, when left with no other option, the worst one sometimes becomes the best.

The trust moderation is a shitshow. Nowhere in forum rules or even trust instructions is negative tagging related to post quality. It has nothing to do with trustability. Such taggings are abuse.

It is not upon anyone else but the project management to decide about the pay worthiness of a post. This has nothing to do with trust anymore but everything with destroying people's accounts just for subjective morbid reasons.

Most bounty campaign managers do nothing other than pay for this spam... that's if they even have a manager at all and most of the alt coin campaigns don't. They accept anyone and pay for anything and that's why the forum is such the shitshow that it is.


Some members have had enough of the wall-to-wall shitposts and decided to do something about it. I'm glad they did because this system was now meant to prevent people feeling the need to do that and using the feedback system to police poor posters will likely stop in favour of the merit system.

Just because a campaign manager can decide upon someone's post quality doesn't mean that they do. If campaign managers could be trusted to do their jobs then this forum wouldn't have had anywhere near as bad of a spam problem, however (in some cases) they cannot.

By the way an absolutely ridiculous reason again by The Pharmacist to destory your account: "This user doesn't know English and should not be paid to post on bitcointalk." As if the bounty manager of this user cannot decide upon that. Really disgusting behaviour again.

I guess you need to experience it to believe it. Unless you're one of the abusers. Then you know it, practise it and deny it.

"DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR POSTS"
I received negative trust for bad English. What's it? My opinion is abuse. Why are some members arrogated to themselves the right of moderation? I can see it becoming a mass phenomenon. Why there is no appeal mechanism?

The possibility to participate in bounty campaigns may be a privilage in the present forum situation, but not by definition. A privilage is a possibility for only a few. But participating in bounty campaigns is not a logical or ethical possibility for only a few. On top of that the privilage of participating in bounty campaigns (not being tagged with red trust points) is determined by a few privilaged. Thus privilage is built on privilage. And unfortunately those latter privilaged do not have a very ethical disposition, to word it carefully. That is the exact problem I'm adressing here and elsewhere.

No! How could you make a joke like that to our lord and savior satoshi nakamoto?!!!!11 It's not about freakin' fastfoodchain!!!!!!!1!!1!!11

It's better than this one:


It's called a joke, which was in response to a moronic question. You shitposters need to get a sense of humour.

Your trust score literally does not change how you post or what you post. If you are referring to signature campaigns, then you have to realize that they are a privilege, not a right.

And red trust regarding spam shouldn't affect anything that you do on the forum apart from that. You can still remain an active participant in discussions. You can still frequent the Marketplace and Bitcoin Discussion sections.

Then if the trust system is all about subjectivity it should stay like that and not result in objective scores that exclude people from using the forum to the full. Either you use a subjective rating (no rules no consequences) or an objective rating (rules with consequences), but not a subjective rating with objective results (in the case of a few chosen ones)!

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. The trust system cannot be "anchored in clear rules, equalized for all", because it is as it sounds "trust"; you cannot force someone to trust you, and you cannot control those that do not trust you. You're not going to get someone removed from DT by disagreeing with their ratings, because in all feasibility those ratings are at least partly the reason they are on DT to begin with; these people will only be removed if those that put them there feel they are no longer, trustworthy. The Trust system will not be removed, because that would cause chaos unless it is simultaneously replaced by something better or at least equally bad.

Your reasoning for Lauda not being tagged by actmyname is weak.
Do you believe Lauda is a shitposting spammer? They do their job better than you do yours and yours is much easier.

Lauda was not tagged by actmyname for being a shitposting spammer, because they are not a shitposting spammer. There is no fear or exploitation, you are digging. Instead of flailing like a toddler during a tantrum, analyse yourself and get your rating removed. This is an option in front of you, improve your posting quality; do not be angry that your terrible posting quality is not satisfactory.

They are not judging you simply on the quality of your posts, if I were to take a guess at their reasoning or justification I would probably arrive at the fact that you guys are maliciously posting in this manner in an attempt to farm signature campaign income. This is not how the forum is intended to be used and therefore they feel you are abusing the forum, tearing it to pieces, lowering it's value and making it impossible to find a post worth reading. You are putting obstacles in the way of everyone else enjoying the forum as it is intended to be enjoyed for your own financial gain. You are willing to harm everyone else, while not reading threads, ignoring rules and guidelines, posting disingenuous questions and everything else that comes along with it simply to make a quick, unsustainable, buck.

I agree with these ratings, if you at least followed the guidelines and rules you wouldn't receive these ratings. The quality of the post is not necessarily the problem, it is (among other things) the intention behind it, the frequency and how it affects the experience of other users.


I was unaware that BTC Risked counted as an additional rating until I reread theymos' post about trust just last night; I've got to agree, because it was obviously intended that the greater the amount scammed/risked the greater the trust-factor. It doesn't do us very much good if the threshold is such that it will not commonly be reached, and in such a way that it will be insignificantly incremental. At the point where this would be activated the additional trust rating would be irrelevant.

Ah, I just bumped into another trust system abuser: actmyname.

Just look here where he spoiled Notin2's profile only because in a thread where forum rankings are discussed Notin2 mentioned he was waiting to get promoted to Sr Member. It's really ridiculous to spoil a member's profile like that.

But like I stated above: Trust system abuse is epidemic. And it should therefore be anchored in clear principal rules, equalized for all, or otherwise be fully removed.