Topic: Regulation of undeserved negative trust - page 2. (Read 1923 times)

The troll spammed my trust as well. Nothing to do about it.

Not really talking behind your back when I posted it in public for you to see. Was only a matter of time before you had your input anyway so consider it a preemptive comment.


You portray yourself as paranoid and the only person who is damaging your reputation is yourself by acting like a child and making up conspiracies like every other kid does here when something happens that they don't like. THE MODS MOVED MY THREAD ABOUT THE PRICE OF BITCOIN INTO SPECULATION! THIS IS CLEAR CENSORSHIP AND THEY'RE PROTECTING THEIR INVESTMENT blah blah blah. Literally saw someone use that argument before. It gets tired.


You seem to be confusing the trust list with feedback. Were you not aware that people were added and removed from the default trust list before? Of course you were. How do you think it works? Your only gripe is that you were removed from it (and that boys club you apparently despise) and now you cannot use it to your advantage and to get your own way when needed. If I left you feedback for annoying me would you not expect me to be removed? Of course you would and then you would be championing the system as it worked as it should.


No, but people need to know that the list isn't full of power-hungry irrational crybabies who will abuse the position of power to get people to shut up when someone say's something they don't like. This would be terrible if we just give 'old-timers' or 'trusted' users carte blanche power to ruin any newer accounts they didn't like the look of (without good evidence). Then that would be a boys club and you were apart of it, but not anymore because of your own attitude. If you would've just looked at this from the perspective of practically anyone else you would've just calmed your ego down and rationally responded and removed the feedback, but you wanted it done on your own terms and were steadfast in that and it cost you. It's clear you're the type of person that wouldn't ever admit their mistakes or where they could've handled something better as you're going to go on about this until the end of time rather than just say, yeah, I could've been the better man and removed the feedback and not allowed myself to be baited.


This is why you're paranoid and I don't take you seriously anymore. You're just making up conspiracy to suit your agenda. How does the trust system help the staff's paychecks? I think you being on the trust list certainly benefited your paychecks though because I think one of the main reasons you're very pissed is because no one will likely buy your overprice stuff anymore for the trusted positive feedback (and how very dare someone point out you can get the same thing you're selling elsewhere for cheaper! What was he thinking speaking out against a trusted member which is clearly out of line and not allowed! /sarcasm). And the staff also didn't moderate the trust or the trust you left, but you forced them to act to remove you from the trusted list. Your feedback is still there and always will be so what's the problem? The problem is you can't get your own way and people wont trade with you for the trust anymore. I must say I think it's funny how you don't want staff to moderate things but yet you wanted Armis' posts removed that you didn't like even though they weren't against the rules. You're a hypocrite and a classic case of only liking something until that same privilege comes back to bite them or (slightly) inconveniences them in some way. It's like the people who champion their right to free speech but yet don't like it when someone says something they don't like and then they immediately want them silenced.


Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Since you have decided to talk about me behind my back and not to my face in this thread here I will oblige you. Portraying me as "paranoid" and slandering me only demonstrates your lack of a defensible stance on this issue. You are right, it is complete lunacy to think a group of individuals in power here might abuse that authority to keep themselves in complete control of a trading system which makes or breaks the trading activity of every user here. There certainly aren't a plethora of monetary motives for doing so either.

This thread is a perfect example of what I explained would happen if you cater to people complaining about unjust ratings. Supposedly the trust is unmoderated, yet the staff pick and choose who they decide to moderate the trust ratings for if the default trust is involved. Now that the trolls, scammers, and con artists see that the staff have implemented a policy of appeasement, allowing a mob mentality witch hunt on long time contributing members of this forum for the slightest of technical infractions, they will use this wedge that the staff have provided to destroy this community from the inside out with a series of baiting, harassing, receiving deserved negatives, then complaining when it happens and using the incident as a form of retribution on any trusted member of the community. In this manner these scum get the staff to dance for them and destroy the community so they can continue to scam, harass, and con people free from interference, because the staff have now handed them a way to take retribution on trusted members of this community on a silver platter.

The staff have NO INTEREST in seeing restorative justice done. They have NO BUSINESS moderating trust for ANY REASON. Their ONLY INTEREST is protecting their influence over the system, and their paychecks. Seeing that users get justice is not even considered. In my case involving Armis, I was removed from default trust and he still has red on his name. If the staff didn't force their involvement, I would have been able to have the slander against me removed in my sales threads, and Armis would have a clean trust rating, because I would have deleted it after he removed his slanderous posts in my marketplace threads. Of course the staff encouraged him and he incorrectly assumed that slandering me and getting me removed from the default trust would fix his negative rating, he had ZERO INCENTIVE to work the issue out with me because in his mind he was getting what he wanted anyway, and WE BOTH suffered. This is what happens when disinterested third parties force their involvement in trust ratings. Now that these parasites have found a way to take retribution against the people who really hold this community together and ACTUALLY protect it from scammers, there will be no end to the inquisitions and accusations against trusted members of this forum. The real irony is they are getting the staff to rip the community apart for them with their own hands.




OP: I would suggest to you that if you don't like getting negative ratings, you should refrain from your "scambusting" type activities and limit your ratings to individuals you have personal involvement with. There are already far too many people on this forum searching for anyone to tag so they can outwardly appear to be helping the community, but the standard of evidence for leaving negatives has become so extremely low that it is now considered ok to leave someone a negative rating just because people SUSPECT THEY MIGHT be a scammer. This is catching up innocent/ignorant users and pissing off a lot of people, and as a result they join the ranks of scammers, harassers, and trolls.

In short the community doesn't enforce any kind of reasonable standards for leaving negatives, and these "scambusting" type of activities are becoming almost trendy, and I get the feeling a lot of users do it for their own personal satisfaction rather than trying to help the community. It is also convenient that "scambusting" gives these users an opportunity to throw personal enemies into the fray and just pretend as if it was just another scammer.  Instead of addressing this REAL problem with trust abuse, the staff would rather have a series of inquisitions against trusted members of this community while people who engage in this "scambusting" type of activity tagging people with little or zero evidence get a free pass when they are the true drivers of malcontent over abuse of the trust system.

And when people that other people value their opinions start to give illegitimate feedback the people who value such opinions will no longer value such opinions.

I have noticed that there has been a noticeable uptick in the threads complaining about unjust feedback being given/received since armis was able to successfully get TECHshare removed from default trust list.

Your trust appears to me as 6: -0 / +5(5) . His appears as 9: -1 / +6(6). I realise getting unjust negative can be annoying but I think if you can't work it out with the person who left you it (or get the person(s) who put him on the trust list to remove him) there's nothing that can be really done about it. Of course it is unfair receiving unjust feedback but trust moderation would only cause many more problems than it solved and and people would then start complaining that staff were abusing their power or abusing the system *waits for Techshare to chime in with some paranoid bs that we already are*.

I've got plenty of negative trust. I'll start caring when there is a valid claim and its from a member whos opinions I give a damn about. And luckily, the people who's opinions I give a damn about didn't get to where they are by giving people false trust. So it seems unless I do something wrong I'm in the clear 

I can definitely see how that power could be open to abuse 

You're right. I really shouldn't care too much. I guess it was the initial shock of having my first negative trust. I always look at references/multiple profiles of people with negative trust to see the full situation before trading with them. Hopefully, others are doing the same.

first we need defaulyt trust to be updated thats main thing needed.

And the issue solves itself rather than giving an obscene amout of power to one potential totalitarian 

If someone's feedback against you isn't valid, who cares? Most people are bright enough to read feedback and see why it is you were given negative feedback before trading with you. "D00D's a jerk, scammed me out of 21 Million BTC" probably isn't going to be held with much esteem.

This was the case


I was definitely mistaken. I had too many people on my trust list it looks like. Now, he falls under untrusted  Not as bothered now.


Thank you! It's been amended and looks much better 

Check here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Make sure you only have "DefaultTrust" in the box and Trust depth is set to 2. This is the default.

You show as: 6: -0 / +5(5) for me

Then YOU have modified who YOU trust.  He does not have any influence in default trust.  I have the default and don't see the negative.

Don't sweat untrusted feedback - take a look at mine.  

You possibly trust someone that trusts him. I see no orange except on him. I have tons of crap feedback, goes with the territory I suppose.

It doesn't carry weight but at the same time the user has some depth in DefaultTrust. Now, I see an orange -1 next to my trust, and it bothers me.

I understand that trust isn't moderated and most likely this situation is trivial to admins but there have to be other users that are bothered by unfair negative trust.


He's not? I see his feedback under my trusted section.

I already messaged him and explained that I have been on this site for over a year with hundreds of trades and never had any issues. I even try to help newbies from being scammed. His response was that he didn't care and that I had been having business with someone accused of a scam. I agree my trust to him was overboard but I was pissed.  

Yep, there is simple system, if the player is trusted only then he/she is able to give you negative trust, thank you.

I don't think this would be a good idea. It would be impossible for anyone to get all of the facts/evidence in a case to determine if negative trust is warranted or not. It is also not possible for anyone to determine the accuracy of such evidence.

If someone is leaving negative trust feedback that is not warranted and the person is not willing to remove the feedback then a public discussion is likely warranted (maybe open a trust dispute subsection within scam accusations) to try to get the community aware of both sides of the story. If the community as a whole decides the feedback is not warranted then it will not rely on such feedback and the person leaving such feedback will lose credibility

Just explain the situation with more detail and hopefully either the person who left you negative trust will remove it or others will negative trust him back.

He's not on defaulttrust anyway so his doesn't even count. You have to click "unconfirmed feedback" to even see it.

Spamming his trust back btw isn't helping. Leave him one that explains the situation and links back to a thread with more detail. You'll have more effect that way.

Looks like his feedback carries no weight.
Edit: Trust is not moderated so I would think you'd be out of luck. With a some high ranking members using it as their personal spring board, well.........there is little to no hope of any help.

One of the frequent topics I've seen discussed on this board is the Trust system and the members that make up the DefaultTrust. I didn't really pay too much interest to the situation until recently where I was given negative trust by a random member for having a business transaction with another member that had been accused of a scam. Even though I have never had any relation to a scam, I now have a red mark on my trust from an idiot, and it annoys me more than it should.

Is it possible to hire a trusted staff member (Badbear/Hilarious) or even trusted member (Tomatocage) to review cases of whether negative trust was warranted? I'm ready to throw some BTC monthly for payment for these services and I'm sure others are as well.