Topic: Please tell me honestly, what's wrong with my feedbacks? (Read 273 times)

I would qualify some of what you say but I have to tell you that I am a little touched by it, because it is the first time I see a criticism of me in this forum that sounds 100% sincere to me. I will think about what you say.

Personally, I think you were a better member and contributor to the forum, but since you gained popularity after the lighlord saga, you somehow gained some trust of the DT members and got into the DT, the real poker player who was very active on important discussions became more like a hunt dog creating topics every week on the reputation board and bumping old topics (sometime I think you do this for Sig post count because your argument sound the same). If in doubt, use the neutral tag, however I saw you don't know when to apply either.

Changing your tag from negative to neutral everyweek is not a good sign, it proves once again that your judgement can't be trusted.

I believe you would be better off not being a DT member; the majority of your recent tags constitute a threat to the system. You might want to calm down a little and concentrate more on how to assist newbies and return to being the old Poker player.

DT status is not a weapon against the weak.

This is my unbiased opinion on you my friend Poker.

Lol, it's always deflection with you.  Emotional or rational, does the argument makes sense?

If you want the trust system to work properly, it needs to be verifiable.  We're all here because of bitcoin, a verifiable and irrefutable medium for the transfer of wealth.  People are going to make mistakes with a structure like that.  Most of us are used to being coddled by our financial institutions, but it's not our job to prevent those mistakes.  Some are going to learn the easy way, from the experiences of others.  Some of us more stubborn and need to learn our lessons the harder way.  You're not going to prevent all, nor a small fraction of that.  

Sure, it's great to expose those who've proven themselves to be untrustworthy, but that's not likely to prevent someone from falling victim to their own greed anyway.


I don't have the exact quote but at one point theymos said something to the affect of we would be surprised to learn how many high-ranking accounts have been purchased over the years.  So, I'll have to disagree with that statement.  The truth is there are many cases we'll never know if the member we're dealing with is the same one who created the account.  If the account in question is only vying for a position on a signature campaign, and isn't attempting to gain the community's trust, what does it matter?  The shady ones will be found out simply because they're up to shady shit.  The rest of them may go on forever and never be detected.  Just because the majority of purchased accounts that are detected are up to shady shit, doesn't mean the majority of purchased accounts are up to shady shit.

After somebody starts to really spend time on this forum, it won't be long until he/she will notice the trust "numbers" tend to change now and then. Then the next step is to see how good or bad it actually is.
I think that it's OK if people have different views in certain cases, it would be utterly boring if we would all think the same.


And while I don't agree with some of the views/decisions/feedbacks Poker Player has made, I do agree that somebody who has bought account is shady. And in the last 5+ years this was made clear in many occasions.

On the other hand, maybe it would be the time to educate people that higher ranked accounts are not necessarily better, that even an account with positive feedback can be bought and scam, to basically trust nobody but math. Then maybe, after a while, I would get to agree with DireWolfM14 that such tags are wasted time. Just, sadly, I don't think that this is feasible (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong).

I don't know to what extent your argument is becoming more emotional than rational, because


Having alts, it depends. If it is a scammer's alt, to leave a red tag is stupid shit as well?
Shitposting. You made me look at my feedbacks because I don't remember tagging anyone for it. If you see negative feedback from me just for that tell me and I will delete it.
Purchased account. Here, as I have already said, not everyone has the same opinion.

But I get what you mean, at least partially.

Your claim to @rby, based on this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62486489, Of course there are more than 20 members commenting on the thread, it's actually easy for you to consider, negative trust for @rby, you can judge the direction of the conversation there, the accusations against @rby are heavier in conviction, doubtful or not at all.

If you believe @rby has been sold or bought, of course you are not too bothered to think about it, you paint it red based on conviction and some evidence and accusations based on the arguments in the thread. form you act on the evidence of the thread, if there is no such thread, of course you don't act.

The negative trust that @rby got, not only from you, there are several other DTs who do the same thing, if you want an opinion of course DT/1/2/3 and others, must comment here and make a decision, trust remains, neutral or delete, decisions must be taken together, not just your or don't get involved from the start, but now you are part of it, decisions must be considered together.

---

Looks like you've made up your mind.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=239997

There are no rules against that, but obviously you insist on being part of the problem you complain about.



It seems you are unclear about the concept of public perception.  If the perception is that a bunch of rouge DT members are handing out red-tags based on their own biases, then the perception is the trust system is fucked.

Go on, keep red-tagging people for stupid shit like

• Having alts
• Shitposting
• Purchased account

The only action on that list that is against forum rules is shitposting, but unless theymos asks you to be a moderator it's not your job to punish shitposting, and it's not a function of the trust system.  If you insist on continuing the way you are, don't be surprised when you see members in signature campaigns despite having been red-tagged by you.

I left you feedback before the allegation you make that it was one account managed by many people, which sounds to me rather like an argument made against the way my brain works recently, which turned out to be false.


I am going to think it over.

Edited: I have changed the feedback temporarily to neutral (it could stay permanently like this).


As I see it, the trust system is useless if you have to have irrefutable evidence, because by then it will be too late. We are not talking about murder cases.


It seems to me that you are unclear about the difference in the weight of evidence to be had between criminal cases and civil cases. For criminal cases, the evidence asked for is much higher than for civil cases, and to me the cases we deal with here are more like civil cases.

What is the Standard of Guilt in Civil Cases?


When I red tag someone, I assign a probability (which I recognize is subjective) of at least 90%, higher than in civil cases.

Interesting that you complain about negative feedback losing it's meaning, yet you are among those who are so eager to dish it out without concrete, hard evidence.  Don't you see how your actions are contributing to the lack of value given to red-tags these days?

If you want your reviews held in high-regard, don't emulate one of the most egregious trust-abusers on the forum.  Instead, consider how you would want to be treated by a jury of peers when and if an allegation is made against you.  Do you want people's opinions of you to the final judgement, or would you rather be treated as innocent unless proven guilty without a reasonable doubt?  If the trust system is to be trusted, red-tags have to be irrefutable.

Poker player, it is fine you opened this thread for the community to evaluate your feedback. I wanted to open a similar thread, but I restrained because of too much drama going on these few days. If I opened such a thread, it would have heated up the whole situation and you know what happens when ego begins to rumble. It also takes intelligence to be open in discussions before arriving at conclusion. I would say that you acted so fast in living tag in my profile. 
Opening this thread while you already red tagged my account simply means you have already sentenced me as a judge before bringing my matter to the jury. But I am consoled by the reason that feedback can be deleted.

Let me trust your statement here and continue.
From the above you should know that rby account was used by many people but was the duty of only one person to update the thread and social media handles(which was not me).

See this:

You agreed that you cannot tag an account for an event that happened 9 years ago that you do not have information to evaluate. But then, JG tagged me for that... A mere allegation by a competitor then who wanted to bring the project down. Funny enough we didn't notice him and no single member of the forum responded to the allegation, not even JG himself.

There is a gross contraction in the feedbacks given. There was no;

• Wallet connections
• No change of local board, as I always see people use as a yardstick
• There is no denial or whatever
• This account woke up since 3yrs ago and has been active and contributing to the forum

Why the hasty painting of a profile, that is old enough to receive an accolade from the community  , rather some people just want to destroy it.

PP, can you delete your feedback now?

I am open to changing any of my feedbacks and I wanted to open this thread because of what I have had to read about the last one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=239997



As far as I know, there are two types of cases where DTs disagree.

1. That of the newbies who ask for a loan in the lending section without offering collateral.
2. That of purchased accounts.

So I understand that, although not all DTs have the same opinion, it is legitimate to leave a negative tag for an account that has obviously changed hands.

Well, I had to read this today:


Happy? I find it pretty boring, actually.

This is coming from a person who had the same reaction in this case:

martyins

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1114408


This forum is full of people who break the rules, who buy accounts that make ban evasion, who have alts in the same campaign, of which surely we do not discover even half, and when we discover someone and they are left red tags, as in the case of martyins and this one you have to come out with conspiracies that even you don't believe.

All this when negative feedback means less than ever as we can see nowadays quite a few cases of people with negative feedback participating in paid signature campaigns.

Let this thread serve to question my feedbacks, I will not hesitate to change them if I see weighty arguments or a consensus of DTs to say they are wrong.