Topic: My philosophy to entrust and ~distrust members (Read 565 times)

My post in this thread about trust and settings was deleted, but can be read in this archive.

A breakdown of who is on my don't trust list can be viewed here and archived here.

May be some day I will start doing this so that if anyone is a victim of wrong judgement or deserves a benefit of the doubt then they get it. This is a good idea and thanks for that.

I already give some insights for some of the distrusted member of my list however...
I am thinking to write some the reasons (later) why I entrusted/entrusting the members in my trust settings. I am done with negativity.

There are two sides of looking at a half full glass.
1. Half empty
2. Another one is already said right before my last sentence.

Anyway, updated trust settings:

I like the one where the DT Trolls ^TM will say something like:


yet none of these DT Trolls ^TM have ever had the courage to say "Hey Timelord2067, I can't help but notice you got this wrong because ... (example) ..."

Yup, like that somehow makes it better. "Oh, we weren't actively trying to deceive anyone, we are just so incompetent we didn't know any better!"

The underlying issue is the same though. If you were scummy enough to plagiarize your whitepaper/website/ANN thread, or scummy enough to steal people's identity, or scummy enough to please ignorance about the whole thing (whether true or not), then who knows what else you are scummy enough to do. Exit scam? You bet.

That is always their scapegoat right there, they will always tell us that it is an isolated case that they were not aware of. Everytime they got tagged they will have some kind of damage control where they will replace/delete the whitepaper and go as far as creating a new team identity which are all red flags of a scam still trying to pursue their fake project.

---

There are also guys like this one:
Which are self-admitted criminals and they are claiming that what they are doing is not wrong. Of course these guys deserves a red tag right away with no questions ask.

Totally agree with you here. I'm more than willing to remove any red tags I have left for ICOs or other projects in the team in question can provide evidence that I was wrong. Most of the time they just disappear after being red tagged. The closest one got was to claim that a third party had written their plagiarized whitepaper for them, it wasn't their fault, and that they would sort it all out. They sorted it out by just deleting the whitepaper altogether and not having one at all.

I'm a new DT member here in the forum and I promise myself that every time I give a negative feedback I will always be on stand by in deleting them or changing it to neutral once my feedback is proven wrong, in scam coins I see various excuses for their plagiarized whitepaper and fake team and I only asked them to show their legitimacy of business and to show some live videos of their said fake team member or something that is compelling that will make me believe and the rest of the members here that its not the whole organization who had that mistake, so far the ones that I have tagged with haven't shown any proof so I haven't changed anything yet.

Sometimes it is necessary for a person to have information about that user with whom he intends to do any type of business. Whenever I see someone with a negative trust, I click to know for what reason he received that feedback. Even without any intention of doing any business with it. And there, in my opinion, comes the question of neutral feedback, in many situations a neutral feedback would be enough.

But Neutral FeedBack is not enough. Because it does not appear easily to anyone. I think it should be highlighted when any user receives any feedback. Be it neutral or from a person who is not a DT member. It could have much less prominence than the flashy colors of green and red. But enough for the person to read that feedback about that user.

For example, there was this case of a user pretending to be Brazilian. And with that, he participated in translation bounties. It took more than 7 months before he received a negative trust. And at that time, he continued to participate in translations. He clearly is not Brazilian, any Brazilian could see that. But the neutral tag he had received did not matter since no one read. Only now, with a negative tag, maybe the people who hire him read the topic about him and can decide if he's the right person for the job.

Negative feedback is not sort a punishment. It is more like a warning. In some situations they are removable while in other cases they are not. Those who received can resolve this by reaching the user who gave feedback and sort things out but instead most of them choose to not accept those mistakes and retaliate with every thing they can pick up to try to dent the reputation of user who negged him which worsens it more.

Some of DT members take here to level where they place a feedback when they are showing signs of untrustworthiness and I don't think they are doing a harm to the community by doing so.  I am also not sure about how one can be untrustworthy at some of the cases as you mentioned but every DT feedback has some point why they left it.

I can only hope you are joking. Lauda is a PROVEN liar and implicated in all kinds of shady crap. Please do your homework.

For example this http://archive.is/vQa6b and also read scam accusation. Deleting posts to avoid questions about service while users are reporting problems with cashout and similar is big no.
As I said I am not familiar with twitter followers trading. How they sell followers?
That is problem. You want to discuss certain things but you don't want to bring names together with links. As far as I know, "name" removed -ve because we don't tag people who quote posts/bad posts.
That is how you got scammed by pinkman. That is how conduras got scammed by warningsigns and everyone else who got scammed. Because people spread love to anonymous strangers who are nice.
Bold part is very very important.

Too many scammers trying to scam. Besides, newbie account can easily see what their mistake was and offer valid collateral, I am sure in such situation negative will be removed. Usually (in most cases), they move to new account and try to pull the same shit again.


I am looking at them.
[1] Ico scammers. Ico bump service. Scam promoters who don't give a fuck. Ponzi shills. Ponzi operators. Bounty cheaters defrauding companies. Loan scammers. Scam shills. Hacked forum accounts. Accounts spreading malicious files. Scam gambling sites. Criminal who sells documents. Scammers with "winning" gambling scripts. Scammers with fix matches. Hyip script sellers. Phishing scammers. Few merit beggars who spammed my PM.

I have also revised some feedback to neutral and some completely removed - but that is part you don't see.

[1]How can anyone help them to become good? They don't have little angel on shoulder or something?

[1]Eh, you see only numbers and color. You probably didn't read single reference link.

[1] Please point me exact account and I will recheck it. (except yours, I gave you benefit of doubt at first but tagged later. Will recheck maybe later this year, maybe)

it's true that a few DTs over use the power at their disposal, there is a huge number of feedback that are worthless to say the least, those ratings make the system less accurate. but for the most part of it, the forum is differently much better with DT than without it. it will take sometime for everyone to start using custom list so that ratings become more accurate based on everybody's own view.

Can you explain "depends" please? If anyone create a self moderated topic then they can delete any post if they want. That's why it's self moderated. Why will there be a question for tagging.

I read a discussion about this where members were were agreeing that this kind of service should be tagged. What's wrong here?


But I have seen the practice. I don't want to bring the name.


Again I do not want to bring the name.


Means I can bring some more incidence like this which is not necessary here. Point is we need to change the way we view things. Spread love, work together, help others to correct them, be forgivable, let other feel that you are not a threat but a friend.




Why? Can't you just warn him? If needed then talk to him. Explain him why it's bad. If you are willing to tag him then you should be willing to give him chances too so that he understand the right and wrong. Give him enough chance before giving the final warning which is the red tag.

Why it has to be for specific person? I have seen the practice of red tag in this kind of stuffs. Again you can work together here to correct the person instead of creating a mess. I am a victim for this? Think about my escrow offer things. By the way, I already said that it does not have to be for specific person. The practice is for in general.


Same answer here like the previous but not me as example. Point is - there are no need for example. We are practicing this and tagging people whenever we find a chance.



Again, do not need any specific example.

Look at the feedback left yourself. I am not going to justify all the feedback which is impossible but In general my question is that by leaving those red trust -
how many of them turned good?
Did you help any of them to become a good forum member?

You did not even give them a try (judging by the numbers). If you did then you would see that some of them would turned valuable asset for the community. Sure you can not chance everyone but it does not harm to give a try instead of red paint the profiles in first or second go. Give people enough chance to correct them.

PS: I have no personal agenda with you mate. I hope you take it easy.

Yes, people should feel very good when they trust farm feedback for worthless trades and even more good when someone else gets scammed down the road because of this very feedback.

1) Depends on what is in thread and what was deleted.
2) How one sells twitter followers? I am not familiar with this. Please explain.
3) No.
4) Who did this and what does "etc, etc" stands for? Can you at least show some example?
Yep.
Who and what was silly mistake?
Who, when, what was the mistake?
Who? Give us example.

Actually you can.

- Promote the positivity,
- Work with people who needs a little help to correct their mistakes. Give them enough chance to become a good forum member
- Trust people instead taking every word negatively,
- Be forgivable and nice to others
- Don't be selfish, work for the community.

Also
- Include the people in your trust list who has positive mind.
- If you find people who are actively looking for a chance to red tag others then ~distrust them
- If you are not sure about someone then don't trust or ~distrust them. Keep them away from the trust list unless you are 100% to pick a side (entrust or ~distrust) for them.

---

This is my trust setting so far: This is never a final one. I will add/remove/entrust/~distrust member regular basis.

Adjusting myself is the only solution or we can make some changes to the whole system to make it correct?

I can't change the system and no one can,other than admin.

Some of the experience I personally seen and experienced:

- Someone did great/good work for the community for ages
- He made a silly mistake
To the community he is a bad one now. Justified?

- A newbie came to the forum
- Asked for a loan (no collateral)
Without correcting him we are leaving red tag. Justified?

- Someone newbie quoted a whole post
- He may not know the use of the forum
We tagged them for bad poster. Justified?

- Someone selling twitter followers for marketing.
- Say very legit method.
We are thinking to tag them. Justified?

- Someone made a mistake in the past, long ago.
- We discovered it now but in the mean time the member contributed to the forum many ways.
We are waiting to leave a negative trust to ruin his reputation. Justified?

- Say you have good reputation in the forum
- Someone planned and claimed that another account is yours which has bad reputation.
Since there are no way to prove that the bad account is not yours you become an innocent victim. Justified?

We need to change our views to find negativity in everything.

You can't change the system, can you? When you know the undeserving ones are getting added up there and they're blindly painting accounts without relevant feedback, you should adjust your trust list instead of retaliating. It's much more mature, peaceful and logical that way.

If someone is not capable of giving valid trust  feedback they why they are in that place? So it means people also can become DT even when they don't understand how to leave feedback which is flaw of new system.