Topic: Recommendations for additions to Default Trust - page 2. (Read 2123 times)

I saw members accusing competitors without evidence in the past. But didn't see you giving negative feedback to yours, so I also think, that you are a good choice for default trust.

Well.. I *might* be sadist but only when it comes to the people that really deserve it.

There is no need to attack such legitimate members at this point. They've long realized that such actions are wrong, and have moved on.

I concur. It's just a bullshit excuse from those that got caught doing something.

Not necessarily.  I think Yahoo62278 has sold an account or two, but everything else he's done merits his inclusion on DT.  If you're trying to get me to agree that across-the-board negging of account sellers is deserved, without taking into consideration any other factors, I'm not going for it.  There is a big difference between some scuntbag who's an account farmer and constantly has auctions running and someone who's sold one account and never did it again (that we know of).  As I said, I have removed negs if and when I've seen the member give decent proof that he's not a menace to bitcointalk.  It's rare but does happen.

Every case is different, plus I could probably spend a year straight going back through all the threads where accounts have been sold.  Not going to happen.  People who whine about unequal rule enforcement drive me insane.  If you got tagged and someone else didn't, suck it the fuck up.  Cops don't chase down every speeder on the highway.  The argument falls upon deaf ears, my man.

Would you agree that anyone caught buying/selling forum accounts should not be on Default Trust?

Personally, I think anyone caught trading accounts should receive a negative trust. If only some account traders receive negative trust and others don't, it suggests there are unequal standards and favoritism being enforced.

If people really do believe that "Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming" then it should be enforced across the board.

Let me just say this:  I have tagged some particularly egregious shitposters, and I have seen them come back and apply for campaigns that I've applied to.  It is not my intention to neg them as a means of securing myself a spot in any campaign--and most of the time, they're newbies who wouldn't be competing for Hero+ spots anyway.  I'm aware that it could look like there's a conflict of interest, but every neg that I've left was not left with the thought that I would be on DT2 someday and would gain from it personally.  They were all left with good intentions, so to speak.

I work in a field where second chances are the norm.  However, this isn't real life and I can't judge people's intentions, just their actions.  It's very clear there are scumbags here who see absolutely nothing wrong with scamming or ruining a great forum for personal gain.  Those people who beg hilariousandco (or Vod,Lauda, and everyone else) for second chances somehow never seem to demonstrate that they understand where they went wrong--it's just juvenile pleading, like you'd hear from a 5 year old who got caught pulling flowers from the garden.  I have seen some people I've given negatives to be relatively good members, like Josephdd1.  If people stop buying & selling accounts and haven't gotten any more negs, I've been known to remove feedback.  But I have to go with evidence and gut instinct when the request is made, and frankly I'm comfortable leaving a rating in place.

Thank you all for the kind words.

I've already got this today:
And though he deleted his retaliatory negative trust, I do believe he was totally spamming my trust page with a whole bunch of bullshit at one point.  If there's an archive of it, I'd love to see it again.  And I mean he left many feedbacks on my page over the course of a few months.  Plus he's dealt in accounts more than once, and that's a feedback that I'm not inclined to remove.

i honestly expected him to have already been added when i came back to the forum a few months ago, surprised its only just now happening. i think it's a pretty good move though.

i dont think being a regular participant in sig campaigns would lead to a conflict of interest in the context of leaving reliable ratings; DT members just leave ratings as part of their contribution to the forum, this doesn't at all tie into just making some pocket change off of posting regularly.

Fucking sadist  .

I would also support the recommendation of The Pharmarcist, I have seen his comments on issues and the way he handles such. Although, not on everything I agree with him, but I am sure he has the wherewithal to call someone bluff and tell it to their face.


Thats a testimony that whatever you doing, someone is watching...

My advice since you asked for it is to be more receptive for reviews. I have seen some people get tagged while some people clearly deserves it, others learnt from their mistake and ready to comply by rules. For example, a newbie asking for a non-collateral loan and the tagged will the there even after he is  a full member mind you, he never even got the loan he asked for.

Yeah agree but that is why i think it would be a good idea to get active people that tag and report there.

If we really want to change the way the forum works we should go the whole length and that includes the shitcoin sub. 

If you can't objectively asses and handle your own conflicts of interest, that doesn't mean that others can. Therefore, this suggestion is bullshit and similar to "women quotas" in companies. The people that are best qualified should get the relevant position, and similarly for DT, the people that are active, properly tagging people and have valid stances should be put there.

The problem is a lack of reports. Nobody can patrol that huge cesspool anyways.

I would recommend also members, who are not too often participants in signature campaigns to avoid conflicts of interest (although there are many honorable members, who are also active in signature campaigns.).

Oh boy, prepare your butt for a lot of tears and drama.   


I think The Pharmacist is a good choice and it would also be nice if we would get some active people for the altcoin section to tag people there.

Any ETA for the first addition? I'd like to see the impact that it would have and analyze his left ratings/amount of butthurt that will happen.

I'll PM you if I see something that I disagree with as I usually do that with pretty much any DT member.

I'm open to suggestions.  I realize I've gone crazy with the reddening agent, but I'll listen to advice.

*Awwwww...consider my cockles warmed.* 

Recommend deleting Lauda / Bad Kitty  from DT.

Bad Kitty negative rates others like she is a retard with a paint brush.

He controls the account hilariousandco, though.

+1

---

Wait, isn't hilariousetc on DT2 so adding accounts on hilaiousetc would make them DT3?

Yep, I too would have to agree. Though for sure there will be a shitload of drama surrounding him because of all the accounts he's tagged so far that have no DT2 negative trust yet.

I'm on board for The Pharmacist as well. Straight shooter and def has no problems with having broad shoulders

I think it would be good to have someone that felted a lot of people who are involved in shady practices with accounts. It would serve as a reminder and a deterrent to prospective traders.