Topic: Negative trust for no reason ? (Read 1933 times)

You can negotiate with them, IMO red trust can't be given by your behavior since you ain't scammer, for spamming issue, it occurs in every forum, not need to give red trust because of it. And give it red, it will encourage people create more alt accounts.

Thanks for giving me a positive trust, Shorena. However, it is not about the type of writing. It is about the password changing. I change password and Lauda claimed that my account was sold. LOL.

The account was sold, the previous users actions account for the future actions of the new owner?


Yeah, everyone could do better. I dont see you in tech support helping users either, doesnt mean you are spamming.


I have no issue with this, but I will continue these discussions.


Whatever that is refering to.


If you are not willing to change your mind its not a discussion, but just two people bitching at eachother.


Alright, thanks for your time.

1. How is that an evasion? How do I know the new user will spam? Based on his actions.
He can't even be bothered to at least join some discussions/contribute or share his ideas/or help someone out. Nope.

With an account made up entirely of bonus claims, he goes straight for paid signatures. Decent posts? Nah. Payment first.
Assumptions, you say? Fine.

2. I'm not really against a user having several accounts, as long as posts are quality, helpful, or contributes to the discussion then I don't particularly care.

3. 4. 5. Let's just agree to disagree. These discussions about feedback, trust, and which deserves what, have been going on long enough. Unless and until a solution or clear rules are implemented, it'll never end.

6. Welcome.?   Nah, I'm not concerned about that.

7. Very well.

---

@OP, why don't you just try to talk with Lauda? The way I see it, your feedback isn't too bad. It's simple, really.

Just talk with them and show them that this particular account wouldn't scam or spam. Forget about the sigs for now and
focus on improving your post history. Join the discussions and enjoy the forum. I don't think a review is impossible. It's all about your attitude.  
(That's just me by the way but, can't hurt to try.)

Besides, even without that -ve, I doubt you'd have any luck with the campaigns for now based on that post history.
(The great campaigns are really strict.  )

---

On a personal note:
*(I really hate getting pulled in on never-ending debates/arguments. I mean, what's the point? It's not like it'll accomplish anything. Change my mind,
change yours, prove a point? Have the last word?
There'll always be people who have dissenting opinions, different viewpoints. Always has, always will. )
**( More importantly, arguments are too tiring. I can barely string along a proper English sentence as it is. So..)

I'm outta here.     

You evaded the question. Again, can you see the future? No, stop jumping to conclusions or present research that backs this up. Quickseller has been the only account seller, I know of, to have published scam rates and IIRC it was <<5% of all accounts sold. Im currently in the process of determining the percentage of spammers of these accounts and will present the data once Im done.


No. Low quality posts are spam, its possible to write e.g. 400 posts a month (see Lauda) with it being spam. Spread them over several accounts and its still not spam. Join them in 5 separate campaigns and its still neither spam nor scam. You are jumping to conclusions. The account in question has not yet spammed, but instead of observing the account and report it to moderation once needed, they get a negative trust rating. Thats prejudice without reasonable grounds, based on opinion.


Another assumption. They make an ass out of u, not me in this case because Im not following it.


I dont, its grounds for a report to moderation. Which would currently not do anything, because there was no rule break, you just assume there might be one. Based on this anyone could give anyone a negative rating, just because there is a chance something might happen. This is not a trust system I will stand for.


If trust feedback from DT members boils down to this, it becomes worthless to me and I have to assume to others. Leave any shitty rating you want as long as you are not part of DT, no one gives a fuck. See my trust feedbacks for some laughs. Once you are part of the DT, get a grip and leave just ratings, not ratings based on possible future problems or mere opinions. I was contacted by several people and asked to review my ratings once I was put on DT by BadBear. I did, some I kept, some I removed, some I changed. DT ratings should adhere to a higher standard than opinions and "there is no rule against it". Theymos explicitly stated that ratings should not be left because of posting style.



Thanks for the reminder, feel free to check out my current trust setting and you will see that I understand how the system works.


I dont blame the system, I argue with those leaving these ratings and everyone else that comes up in their support.

Shut up. Because you do not have any evidence. Giving red trust and expect people to admit something they don't even know about is not what a staff member should do. Nonsense. bullshit. Why don't you give red trust to some trustworthy members  and see how he complain about that issue. This forum is spoiled by you

I don't think that even in 1% of the cases, of tagging for account trading, the people in question had admitted to their wrongdoing. Denying was the expected outcome. As mentioned above:

And the OP claims that he didn't try to sell his account. Had you left a reference on his trust rating. you could have avoided this whole thread.

That's a logical fallacy. There isn't a way to provide reference without revealing my method of discovery in some cases. Revealing it would make the method invalid. I have shown it to some DT members in the past, which can "testify" if needed.

I gave you enough input without wasting my time.

Are you making false statements on purpose or did you just not read this thread? The rating is self-explanatory due to its description, and I have even confirmed it one more time with my first response:

It is a sold account / account that was attempted to be sold.

Except that the offenders are not in most people's trust network because many people have the offenders in their trust list (actually very few people have the offenders in their trust list). The offenders are in most people's trust networks because a single person added the offenders to their trust list.

Even if some people exclude the offenders from their trust network (which does appear to be happening), the standard remains to be the Default Trust network.

The trust system was designed to work like a market based system, however the way it has been implemented has resulting in the trust system being far from market based.

I do not know who's right here or who's wrong but I feel OP!

Lauda, You didn't give me a red trust for spam, which I'm glad,  but you did made an unnecessary comment here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17395877. When asked to explain, you said that you don't have time to analyze each and every post.

I do believe when you are spoiling someone's reputation on this forum by giving them a red trust, you should find time to analyze their posts or use all the tools at your disposition to find out if the account is breaking rules. Not merely by looking at their recent activity and connecting everything to signature spam. You could be right, you could be wrong. All I'm saying is give enough thought before you spoil someone's reputation.

Even on this thread, you say that you don't have to explain why you gave a red trust just because of your rank. I'd call the abuse of power mate. Remember, you are in a responsible position.

Disclaimer - I have no relation with the OP, This is just a personal opinion.

I only suggested that because I rank everyone on this forum thesame way and use my own decision whether to deal with them. I'll check any feedback and if it is with the relavent links, I will happily accept it and know that it is accurate. If there are no links and is not with much detail then I'll regard it as either spammy/anomalous information and consider it invalid (No matter who it was given by).
Although, if the reference has now gone offline and there are no copies of the seclog then there's no way evidence can be added.


The trust system does seem a little strange but there is not really any way it can be improved that will be especially useful. There are trust/untrusted lists but I'm not sure many people use these here (unless there's a user that is especailly trusted to them - such as a friend maybe or colleague).

Yeah. IN the future, If i ever had a positive trust point, I would give negative trust point on you because I did not trust anyone who apply in a signature campaign. Does it sound fair ?
Prove that my account was sold. LOL. Only nonsense thought here.

1. Why buy another account? Either for scams or for signature farming. Then, wouldn't handling multiple accounts, whose sole goal are for earning in sig campaigns lead to spam?

Additionally, the 'new user' was likely in too much of hurry to start earning that, right after buying an account grown on games and round, he goes straight for a sig campaign. Expect decent posts? Unlikely.

2. Spam? Or a farmed account? Or a bought account for Sig Spam? Any of which I consider as grounds for a negative feedback.

Buying/Selling: Not moderated: They'll do what they will.
Trust: Not moderated: Same applies.
Feedback: Not moderated: Same applies.

---

Besides, aren't feedbacks just opinion?

If you trust someone (you add them on your trust network) then their 'opinions' will matter.
If you don't trust them(remove from your trust setting) and whatever 'opinion' they might have wouldn't matter.

Everyone are advised to do this, so the 'trust system' shouldn't be blamed if the users choose 'not' to change their trust settings.


 

The account was just very likely sold, my question is: How do you know the new user will spam?

Besides: if the posts until now have been spam[1], why isnt the user banned already? Moderation is slow, but not 8 months behind slow.

[1] They are what they are for the given threads, you dont post lengthy posts in a prediction thread.

LOL. Change password = account farming. You must be the genius here. No evidence. It seems like you want to destroy the whole forum with your trust point.
Lauda mindset about everything = account farming
Hey LAuda I have a question: what can I do to recover my default trust ? Shall I make another thread about this issue ?

I'm not going to do that. The password change is already no longer visible here, not that this is relevant to my methods of uncovering account sales.

That's pretty much the same story that I hear every week.

there will be no never ref link for this issue since this is my account LOL. The trust system is spoiled

As far as I know, you should be able to participate in most giveaways with negative trust. Just not be able to recieve vouches. Altough, if you ask the runner of those individual ampaigns, they may allow you to enter anyway even if the rules specify no negative trust.

@Lauda, could you also put some sort of reference link in the trust report just so it can be confirmed that the account was sold (I think trust seems more valid if it has an appropriate link of evidence attached to it - such as the sec-log data for both the change of password and email at the same time).

An account that's used exclusively for the games and round, with not a single post joining any other discussion?
I don't need to "see the future" to know that.

Besides, I don't consider spam as purely a concern for moderators or even DT. Everyone should, and can help. Either

by reporting it or leaving negative feedback.