Topic: Message to DT members. Stop abusing your powers. (And regular members) - page 3. (Read 2271 times)

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Now that's a first

i agree with this. cryptodevil leave my old account with neg trust for just saying opinion about gambling. i didnt do anything against the rule but he give me neg trust for that. he is certified spammer but some DT give him their trust. im asking for help of Vod but he say i must sorry to cryptodevil to remove the neg trust. wow they are like a boss with that thing. i didnt do anything to them but they act like i scam with him.. hahahha. just saying my opinion about that trust. because anyone can give neg feedback by DT even though do nothing.

Let me say this:  I don't care about default trust.  I deleted it and don't want to be on it.  And most importantly:  people sgould not be on default trust simply for scam-busting.   So my negging of account sellers is for me and from my principles.  I'm not on a crusade to get on DT.  I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

If everyone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust (and a "WARNING: trade with extreme caution" tag), then it will not come as a surprise when someone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust. If someone often trades with people who sell MSDN accounts, and the comments on their negative trust always say "this guy is scammin Macrosoft becuz of TOS", which they do not care about, nor do they think is a valid reason to conclude they are a scammer), then it becomes pointless to read the trust comments because they all say the same thing.

The same thing is true for those who participate in ponzs (who run ponzis), who deal in accounts, and who do anything that a select few members simply do not like.

A trust score is necessary to measure how many people have had positive financial interactions with the person whose ability to be trusted is being measured. If only one or two people have had a positive trading experience with someone then, all else being equal, they are less likely to be trustworthy then someone who has had positive trading experiences with 30 people (who are in your trust network). One rationale behind this is that the positive trust rating that the one or two people left might be inaccurate, another rationale is that someone might be willing to walk away from a trade (scamming their trading partner) if something goes wrong, and the one or two people who traded with someone just might have been able to avoid anything from going wrong in their trades.

One other reason why trust ratings are important is because they help people measure differences in trust levels at any point in time. For example, if you decide to trust someone today because you have read someone's trust comments extensively, and otherwise researched and determined that is it safe to trust them, and subsequently have a positive trading experience, then a month from now, if a similar trade were to be proposed to you again, and the person you dealt with all of a sudden has negative trust (when they previously had positive trust), then you might want to look into their ability to be trusted again, but if their trust level has not changed, then it might not be necessary to research their ability to be trusted a second time.

Hey cryptodevil, is there any reason why you didn't answer my last question? I find it funny how you probably don't have a life outside of this forum so you spend your life pressing refresh on the "Show new replies to your posts" waiting to give out some negatives.

QS has never argued from facts.  Anyone who takes the time to read through his many attack posts (I don't really recommend it) will quickly find the weasel-words, the emotional appeal, and the convoluted structure.  In short, he drops walls of text which at first glance seems like an argument, until you actually unpack it and realize it's mountains of unsubstantiated claims with a few walletexplorer links thrown in.  What's funny to me about this thread is that the OP's actual complaint is connected to this QS directly.  I don't know about the pharmacist and I don't spend anywhere near as much time on here as I used to, but QS was on of the main people doing exactly that sort of trust-spamming trust-echoing in an effort to get onto Default Trust.  Presumably, he would have eventually pulled some sort of giant exit scam, but he was caught doing some minor stealing of escrow fees and lying about his identity and so he was removed and since then we just have bitter QS who throws random claims at dooglus once a month.

All I'm saying is that the OP's complaint of people abusing the trust system, and people jockeying to be the next one on default trust does exist.  I'm not saying that cryptodevil or the pharmacist are guilty of it.

If someone is using someone else's identity (i.e., bought an account) to participate in a signature campaign, then that person is defrauding the runner of that signature campaign by not providing him/her with what he/she's paying for. Campaign runners don't ask for non-negative trust members just for the fun of it -- they want someone that the community "trusts". If someone bought an account, then that person is not the same person who the community has come to -- for lack of a more appropriate word -- trust. That's the scamming part there. They're scamming the campaign.

I never said that the person who purchases an account to participate in a signature campaign is trustworthy, i just said that not all people that buy accounts are out to scam other members.
Probably not many really care too much if the site they are advertising in their signature space is some sort of ponzi scam or not.
I once took down an old sig i had the day i seen someone had been scammed, think that one was crypto VPN or something similar.

If the accounts is being sold with old private keys then its almost a 100% certainly it will be used to scam.

:facepalm:

Which part of pretending you are someone else in order to make other people believe that the service you are advertising in your signature is more legitimate than they otherwise would, makes you an honest and trustworthy person?

I wouldn't say that the only reason accounts are being sold here is so the buyer can scam, i would have thought that most accounts purchased are for the buyer to try profit a little bitcoin from being part of a sig campaign, that's why you see lots of accounts being sold stating that such account is already enrolled in a signature campaign.

On the other hand the high ranking accounts sometimes being sold with green trust and private keys included are almost certainly going to be used in a scam attempt, i think we seen this with a old trusted escrow provider not so long ago.

Was the "old scammer tag" added by forum mods when that was around
Also was it know to be abused in anyway by the people with power to add it?

Oh QS, the already-proven scammer, constantly pulls this bullshit claim out of his ass.

Let's see which sounds more likely:

1) A forum member is considering the post content made by another member and notices they have red text under their user name. They click through to the trust and read why this member is not trusted. They decide for themselves how the rating may, or may not, be applicable to the evaluation they are making of that member's post.
OR
2) A forum member is considering the post content made by another member and notices they have red text under their user name. They decide to ignore it and just trust the content of the post and/or the legitimacy of the link in their signature because they have seen other members with red text under their user name so, you know, it doesn't mean anything, right?

[EDIT]
Actually this is far more likely to be a genuine issue than QS's nonsense claim.

...those who didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

Well there is not much anyone can do about that.



I am wondering if this trust score is necessary. The people I actually consider trustworthy usually have lower "numbers" than the ones I don't much. Number of feedbacks is overemphasized.
The existence of trust score is undermining the importance of actually reading those trust feedbacks.


Edited.

LOL. "People who buy and sell bitcointalk forum accounts provide the means for scammers to scam. They know this, therefore people who buy and sell bitcointalk forum accounts should not be trusted as they clearly do not care where or how they make their satoshis."

PLEASE explain how an account with TWO posts can be used to scam? Clear evidence of your abuse.

Awesome comeback there, kiddo, you sure showed me.

Thanks for drawing my attention to your account sale business, btw. Appreciated.

P.s.
Yeah, making a thread to complain about a negative left for another member who buys and sells accounts pretty much points to you being a sock-puppet of that same member. Just a little pro-tip for you.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend. Where are you from?
Maybe you could teach me how to be a dicksucker and get on the DT list.

Oh man I am on a ROLL ! Two bitch-fest threads in my honour in quick succession! #blessed



Here's the thing, this forum has rules, those rules are for everybody and are, on the whole, pretty relaxed. The community is trusted to not be completely selfish assholes hell-bent on grabbing bitcoins from wherever and whomever they can. Unfortunately many people suffer from inherent neurological dysfunction as a result of a combination of nature/nurture and have become human beings who mistakenly believe that their autonomy, and only their autonomy, is sacrosanct and must never be challenged or inhibited. This leads to them not only being dishonest and untrustworthy but actively believing that their dishonest and untrustworthy behaviour is also sacrosanct and must never be challenged or inhibited.

They also appear to mistake a community action which merely serves to inform the wider populace of their untrustworthy nature as one which unfairly prevents them from conducting themselves as they please. This is simply untrue, although, seeing as dishonesty is the basis for much of their personae it isn't surprising that they are frequently driven to create threads solely for the purpose of whining about being publicly held to account by the community for the fact they are shitty human beings and not to be trusted.

tl;dr: Negative ratings don't actually prevent you from doing anything. They aren't for you, they are for everybody else to be informed as to the type of person you have proven yourself to be on this forum. What other users choose to do with that information is their decision but if it serves to help reduce the likelihood of people in this community being fucked over then your complaints about it are irrelevant and simply more self-serving dishonesty.

1 - trust ratings are not for marketplace deals. If you do something in another section of the forum (or even off site) that either shows that you can or cannot (should not) be trusted, or scammed (or attempted to scam), then it would be appropriate to leave trust ratings accordingly. It is also not a requirement to trade with someone personally in order to leave a trust rating as this would allow scammers to simply scam users without existing reputation and be able to maintain their existing reputation.

With the above being said, yes there are many people in the DT network that are leaving trust for no reason other then they do not like the person and/or they do not like what the person is doing. This negative trust is often justified with some comment that is factually accurate, however it would be an understatement to say that it is a stretch to link the comment to the person being an actual scammer.

The heart of the problem is dooglus, as he is the direct reason why two of the biggest offender, cryptodevil and Vod are in the Default Trust network. When dooglus is asked to address concerns about negative ratings left by those who receive unjust negative ratings, dooglus often will make vague comments as to why the negative rating is justified, or says that he does not agree with the negative rating, but does nothing to attempt to hold the person leaving the negative rating accountable. This is in addition to the multiple successful extortion attempts, being involved in, including directly promoting, multiple multi-million dollar scams (1, 2, 3), as well as the glaring conflict of interest in the negative ratings that he often leaves his competitors. Excluding dooglus from the Default Trust network would solve almost all of the issues the DT network currently has.

Another issue is that there are many people attempting to make a name for themselves with unclear motives. This is not a problem with the DT system necessarily, however people often brush off trust ratings from these people as "meaningless" when the recipient of such trust attempts to resolve the issue. The problem with brushing this negative trust off as "meaningless" is that some of these people are in some people's trust list, so it does have meaning.

It used to be that the forum administration played a more active role in "moderating" the DT network, however now for some reason it appears that the administration's stance on the DT network is "IDGAF what happens or what trust is left by those in the DT network"

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to continue to scam even with negative ratings because it is expected for some people to have negative trust when they have certain types of businesses. 

Quick note: I'm posting this not to get hated on or start a debate, just want to say some things.

The Pharmacist has been receiving tons of feedback like OP has posted. Let's just accept that The Pharmacist has a lot of time to spend to put a negative trust to whoever creates a topic or replies to a topic that is about buying/selling an account. There's a thread in here where people have agreed on The Pharmacist's reason why he puts negative trust on people.

Anyway, I understand OP's point. Imagine doing good stuffs in here and just because of The Pharmacist's feedback on you, you're account loses it's value. People only see that shining red trust (DT or non-DT, they don't care).

I also understand The Pharmacist's point but beside the Negative box in the trust summary, there's "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." I think The Pharmacist wasn't scammed by those people that he tagged. And also you can't accuse someone is a scammer just because he is selling/buying an account for some reasons.

As for cryptodevil, I think the red trusts that he had given to ponzi promoters are valid as we all know that ponzi sites are scam sites (They might be paying now but they surely will eventually become a scam site).

---

---

On a side note, I agree that some DT member are overusing their power in here. I once woke up with negative trusts from 2 DT members. I'm not going to mention their names because what they did is foolish. Someone made a new account and said that I scammed him. There's no proof or something, just saying that I scammed him.

These 2 DT members quickly put a negative trust on me when they can just inform me about it by PMing me. I was kicked out of the signature campaign (but got in once the issue was resolved) because of their negative trust that only says to respond on the accusation thread. It's funny because I don't even deserve a neutral trust because I didn't do anything. Someone was just trolling.

I had to somewhat agree on this. The Pharmasist left me a feedback because of the last time I tried to bid on an account up for auction. That was back on April when he left me a feedback just this June. He dugged up my account just to tag me his negative. lol. That was shitty for me really, I hate seeing unnecessary feedbacks specially if I know I didn't do anything wrong and I still see that f*cked up feedback on my trust  Not a biggie tho. I learnt to ignore it because I know for myself I am not doing anything shady unlike what he is accusing me of. Trust isn't moderated so let them be asshole for what they are doing and live your own life.

I do understand them tho. Most account specially high rank accounts with positive trusts are being used to scam other people. I can not disagree that they should left a feedback but I think the red feedback is necessarry for some accounts.  A neutral should be enough to act as a referrence if an account is bought or not.
The ones who deserves to be tagged are those people selling their trust. Those accounts on DT or have a light green trust being sold on the marketplace.

Edit:
as for what you said about them trying to get on DT. Yea, I saw them doing the same stuff, acting so bossy trying to bust everyone even nothin really is bustable just so tey can gain other people trust and twy will get a positive feedback for being so busy on hunting all people and soon you will just see them wearing that shiny dark green.

Trust here is f*cked up. Basically just don't trust anyone.

I'm not trying to get on DT.  That is the furthest thing from my mind.   The trust ratings are for myself and you know why I don't trust account dealers and buyers.   That's how this here trust system works, like it or not.