Negative trust with no reason | Bitcointalksearch.org

Sweeet

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 501

Real Eyes, Realize, Real Lies.

Quote from: Vod on January 31, 2017, 03:48:51 PM

I thought about this overnight and I decided to change my negative to a neutral. The OP did paste the source code of his project and I believe he was just trying out his programming skills, as I do from time to time.

The reason the rating remains a neutral is because people should be aware this person has no problems writing malicious software.

I'm glad that you choose to reverse this one, I think you did the right thing here.

sbogovac

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1193

I don't believe in denial.

Quote from: Vod on January 31, 2017, 03:48:51 PM

I thought about this overnight and I decided to change my negative to a neutral. The OP did paste the source code of his project and I believe he was just trying out his programming skills, as I do from time to time.

The reason the rating remains a neutral is because people should be aware this person has no problems writing malicious software.

I can totally agree with that. Thanks for your feedback/time/explanation...

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

I thought about this overnight and I decided to change my negative to a neutral. The OP did paste the source code of his project and I believe he was just trying out his programming skills, as I do from time to time.

The reason the rating remains a neutral is because people should be aware this person has no problems writing malicious software.

Sweeet

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 501

Real Eyes, Realize, Real Lies.

Personally I don't believe that providing a keylogger shouldn't be looked upon as bad and further make you receive a negative. A keylogger could have many good uses, like for a manager to track a employee's office job on a computer. Although like drugs they could have better uses if people with worse intentions didn't ruin the good uses of it.

Looking through your post history I couldn't find any possible programs or anything malicious I think Vod should remove your negative and you delete your post. Keyloggers don't belong on this forum good or bad intentions.

I think first you should have PMed Vod and I believe he would have deleted his negative if you worked somethning out. It could be to late to change Vod's mind but I think it would be the right thing to do to reverse the negative regardless.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 01:46:47 PM

Maybe I'm missing something (and I would gladly be pointed towards that), but this really seems "over the top" (by Vod) to me... Roll Eyes

The OP had a chance (and maybe still does) to appeal this privately in in a calm and factual manner instead of being an asshole about it.

These threads about "unfair" trust really can't do much other than attract shitflies like QS. It's something that should be sorted out between two users unless it escalates to abuse of Default Trust, which this doesn't appear to be.

Vod doesn't trust the OP for the reason stated and it does sound like a plausible reason for someone not to trust another person, even if I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. If I think it's "over the top" I'll ignore it, otherwise I'll appreciate the warning. I don't expect the trust system to match my point of view 100%.

sbogovac

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1193

I don't believe in denial.

Quote from: Lauda on January 31, 2017, 02:10:10 PM

[...]

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 02:03:15 PM

E.g.: if on a deep-web marketplace someone is offering drugs or weapons for sale for BTC and he's got a "good" reputation - always delivering on time, as advertised and quality stuff - would you neg. trust him "just" for the offer... Huh

As I've previously said, I don't have a strong stance on this. This also raises the question whether we tag all/some people for doing something that is clearly illegal? I would say it depends on the particular case (as you're trying to point out?). However, someone who has been much longer in DT should be able to give you a better answer than me.

That (your stance) is obvious (and thank you for noting my point), but that's actually why I asked Vod... Tongue

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 02:03:15 PM

I would argue "the other way around"; because it is BTCT we should "stick together" and "understand" each other more.

I guess it depends on your level of optimism or should I say realism?

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 02:03:15 PM

E.g.: if on a deep-web marketplace someone is offering drugs or weapons for sale for BTC and he's got a "good" reputation - always delivering on time, as advertised and quality stuff - would you neg. trust him "just" for the offer... Huh

As I've previously said, I don't have a strong stance on this. This also raises the question whether we tag all/some people for doing something that is clearly illegal? I would say it depends on the particular case (as you're trying to point out?). However, someone who has been much longer in DT should be able to give you a better answer than me.

Update: Oops, my bad. Cheesy

sbogovac

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1193

I don't believe in denial.

Quote from: Lauda on January 31, 2017, 01:55:50 PM

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 01:46:47 PM

C'mon, this is BTCT and BTC we're talking about (so, no, certainly not church).

Therefore the odds of it being used for 'genuine' purposes is much lower. That was the conclusion that out of the initial assertion.

I would argue "the other way around"; because it is BTCT we should "stick together" and "understand" each other more.

E.g.: if on a deep-web marketplace someone is offering drugs or weapons for sale for BTC and he's got a "good" reputation - always delivering on time, as advertised and quality stuff - would you neg. trust him "just" for the offer... Huh

(And mind you, I live in a liberal country and definitely support recreational drug use [not abuse] and I love going to the shooting range and hunting...)

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 01:46:47 PM

Well, don't you think that a negative trust rating by a DT member is "a bit over the top" then... Huh

I don't have a particularly strong stance on this rating. Whilst I probably would not hand out one myself, I don't mind the one given out by Vod.

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 01:46:47 PM

C'mon, this is BTCT and BTC we're talking about (so, no, certainly not church).

Therefore the odds of it being used for 'genuine' purposes is much lower. That was the conclusion that out of the initial assertion.

sbogovac

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1193

I don't believe in denial.

Quote from: Lauda on January 31, 2017, 12:50:04 PM

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 12:33:54 PM

How do you "know" that, Lauda? [...] I personally don't like this "guilty 'till proven innocent" attitude... Lips sealed

Maybe if you shared it in a church, they'd be more people using it for 'genuine' purposes. I guess, we could also allow malware since it can be used to test your own system? Nobody has claimed that anyone is 'guilty' here. [...] There's no factually right stance on this either.

Well, don't you think that a negative trust rating by a DT member is "a bit over the top" then... Huh

C'mon, this is BTCT and BTC we're talking about (so, no, certainly not church).

Maybe I'm missing something (and I would gladly be pointed towards that), but this really seems "over the top" (by Vod) to me... Roll Eyes

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 12:33:54 PM

How do you "know" that, Lauda?

I personally don't like this "guilty 'till proven innocent" attitude... Lips sealed

Maybe if you shared it in a church, they'd be more people using it for 'genuine' purposes. I guess, we could also allow malware since it can be used to test your own system? Nobody has claimed that anyone is 'guilty' here.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 31, 2017, 12:40:01 PM

This is the mindset of Lauda. He always only looks at his own viewpoint without talking anything into consideration that would weaken his viewpoint.

People aren't allowed to state their opinions? Some people will be fine with it, others will not. There's no factually right stance on this either.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 12:33:54 PM

Quote from: Lauda on January 31, 2017, 11:15:26 AM

[...] We all know that this one won't be used for legal purposes.

How do you "know" that, Lauda?

I personally don't like this "guilty 'till proven innocent" attitude... Lips sealed

Quote from: Lauda on January 31, 2017, 11:15:26 AM

[...] There's no need to play the devil's advocate.

That need is always present...

This is the mindset of Lauda. He always only looks at his own viewpoint without talking anything into consideration that would weaken his viewpoint.

@OP your only recourse is to contact dooglus, HostFat and Cyrus about this rating. These people are those who are the reason that Vod's ratings are visible by default.

sbogovac

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1193

I don't believe in denial.

Quote from: Lauda on January 31, 2017, 11:15:26 AM

[...] We all know that this one won't be used for legal purposes.

How do you "know" that, Lauda?

I personally don't like this "guilty 'till proven innocent" attitude... Lips sealed

Quote from: Lauda on January 31, 2017, 11:15:26 AM

[...] There's no need to play the devil's advocate.

That need is always present...

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Boseda on January 31, 2017, 09:06:16 AM

- In general, I did nothing illegal

The trust system isn't based on illegal or legal actions though.

Quote from: Boseda on January 31, 2017, 09:06:16 AM

Thus your negative feedback is just absurd and should be punished by someone...

That is your opinion. If Vod doesn't trust you for faciliating software that is generally used for malicious purposes, then it is his choice whether to leave you feedback or not. Obviously, whilst in DT a user can't leave such ratings randomly.

Quote from: sbogovac on January 31, 2017, 09:43:02 AM

There are plenty of normal/legal uses for a keylogger (I have them installed f.i. on all my employee's company computers and they actually sign for it).

We all know that this one won't be used for legal purposes. There's no need to play the devil's advocate.

sbogovac

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1193

I don't believe in denial.

Quote from: Vod on January 30, 2017, 05:51:51 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on January 30, 2017, 04:57:53 PM

I think there is some dispute whether the keylogger is actually a virus or not.

I removed the "virus" part of the feedback.

Sorry Vod, but I have to ask (after reading https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/open-source-keylogger-1769689 too): what is wrong with someone writing a keylogger?

There are plenty of normal/legal uses for a keylogger (I have them installed f.i. on all my employee's company computers and they actually sign for it).

It's like saying "BTC is illegal/wrong"... I honestly don't understand why you gave a negative trust rating because of that... Huh

Boseda

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vod on January 30, 2017, 05:12:38 PM

Quote from: Boseda on January 30, 2017, 03:39:15 PM

The user "Vod" gave me a negative trust with no reason.

Lying about "no reason" shows you show no remorse for your actions. Undecided

I say "no reason" because:

- I did not steal money
- I did not scam people
- I did not blackmail people or similar...
- In general, I did nothing illegal

Thus your negative feedback is just absurd and should be punished by someone...

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2017, 07:13:37 PM

then it seems that Vod only selectively leaves negative trust when doing so will not jeopardize his power.

That's an incredibly naive statement. I am not able to investigate everything that goes on here. I don't leave negative feedback for thousands of potential scams, because I simply don't have time, and I'm not being paid to do so.

I could simply dig up a time you left feedback for a newbie asking for a no collateral loan, then dig up an account where you didn't. You are doing the exact same thing as me, leaving selective feedback.

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2017, 07:13:37 PM

Quote from: jackg on January 30, 2017, 06:59:02 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2017, 06:51:28 PM

Quote from: jackg on January 30, 2017, 06:45:01 PM

[...]
What do you mean the situations are identical? This and that one are identical or are you referencing something else that I've missed?

The OP wrote a program that can be used to steal passwords and other similar sensitive information.
Dooglus wrote/fixed a program that is designed to steal money from others.

The OP received a negative rating from Vod, Dooglus did not....hypocrite much?

That is quite strange though - but he is detecting scams now.

I am not sure what you mean by this? I see that dooglus has given negative trust to a small number of ponzi operators, which would imply that running a ponzi = scamming in his eyes. Or are you talking about Vod...if so, then it seems that Vod only selectively leaves negative trust when doing so will not jeopardize his power.

Both would be true.
I don't think VOD would want to lose his DT2 status on this forum. In both ways: 1. He feels he is helping the community and wants to keep it to warn other people about problems with users; or 2. He wants to keep the DT2 status to be more powerful.
You can't really do anything to jeopardize your power from this point - whereas vod will have quite a lot to lose if he jeopardizes his account.
But if dooglas is going to mark up ponzi scheme, he maybe shouldn't have started negging them before that point (unless you apply different ethics to ponzis that function "honestly" - but still lose money and could still disappear at any point).

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: jackg on January 30, 2017, 06:59:02 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2017, 06:51:28 PM

Quote from: jackg on January 30, 2017, 06:45:01 PM

[...]
What do you mean the situations are identical? This and that one are identical or are you referencing something else that I've missed?

The OP wrote a program that can be used to steal passwords and other similar sensitive information.
Dooglus wrote/fixed a program that is designed to steal money from others.

The OP received a negative rating from Vod, Dooglus did not....hypocrite much?

That is quite strange though - but he is detecting scams now.

I am not sure what you mean by this? I see that dooglus has given negative trust to a small number of ponzi operators, which would imply that running a ponzi = scamming in his eyes. Or are you talking about Vod...if so, then it seems that Vod only selectively leaves negative trust when doing so will not jeopardize his power.

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: Vod on January 30, 2017, 07:00:40 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2017, 06:51:28 PM

It appears that some people are selective about who they leave negative trust against, even when both situations are nearly identical Roll Eyes

Oh Quickseller, I don't think you want to start calling other people hypocrites. Roll Eyes

Evidence of him being a hypocrite? He used alt accounts to manipulate his trust but did he say he was against the use of alts catagorically?

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2017, 07:01:14 PM

Quote from: jackg on January 30, 2017, 06:59:02 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2017, 06:51:28 PM

Quote from: jackg on January 30, 2017, 06:45:01 PM

Quote from: Vod on January 30, 2017, 05:51:51 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on January 30, 2017, 04:57:53 PM

I think there is some dispute whether the keylogger is actually a virus or not.

I removed the "virus" part of the feedback.

Hahaha, the other three (words) still stand, that's good!

Quote from: Lauda on January 30, 2017, 05:22:38 PM

Distributing software that is solely intended for malicious purposes is considered 'no reason'?[ Roll Eyes

Apparently not. OP appears to only help scammers to scam not scam himself (a very weird ideology)

It appears that some people are selective about who they leave negative trust against, even when both situations are nearly identical Roll Eyes

The ponzi debate is definitely a strange one. Even the more honest can still end up taking your money because they eventually end so it's best just to stay away from them altogether.
What do you mean the situations are identical? This and that one are identical or are you referencing something else that I've missed?

The OP wrote a program that can be used to steal passwords and other similar sensitive information.
Dooglus wrote/fixed a program that is designed to steal money from others.

The OP received a negative rating from Vod, Dooglus did not....hypocrite much?

That is quite strange though - but he is detecting scams now.

Topic: Negative trust with no reason (Read 1452 times)