Topic: REMOVE NUBBINS FROM THE DEFAULT TRUST LIST FOR REPEATED TRUST ABUSE - page 11. (Read 15395 times)

IMHO, a Neutral would be good enough.

The comment on BadBear's negative trust is that he was giving fake customer reviews. Fake reviews is a scammy behavior.

Ok Badbear. For the sake of argument, lets assume that SodaWarz is an alt of WoodCollector's ( I believe this not to be true but for the sake of working this out logically...). So assuming he is an alt of WC's, is this itself evidence that he is a scammer? It seems to me your basis for leaving the negative rating is still consisting only of Nubbin's speculative accusations, and the whole business of him allegedly using an alt is secondary. Using an alt itself is not sufficient grounds for leaving negative trust alone, regardless of this supposed proof which you can not share. You wouldn't leave a negative for a user who is not scamming people simply for using an alt would you?

So then I ask, based on what evidence do you conclude WoodCollector is a scammer? Even if you have "proof" he is using an alt (I have seen staff here repeatedly say it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove alts), what is the basis upon which you declare that he is in fact a scammer? Surely revealing this will not jeopardize some super top secret method to bust scammers.  If there is no proof he is a scammer, all of these trust ratings are inaccurate and simply an attempt at slandering WC and anyone who supports his story.

I wasn't defending my feedback on that basis, I was defending it because it's how I felt (and still feel).

I was also, separately, pointing out that saying "nubs neg-rates people for personal gain" is incorrect and therefore slanderous.

I can see why you might conflate the two ("What if..."), but they're separate thoughts. My apologies for any confusion on this point.

I think BadBear's point is that you can't defend your original feedback on the basis of a feedback he left you afterwards. There's no forward causality.

I don't think you can expect any foaming unless you're acting in a highly scam-probable manner. Nobody's foamed at or mobbed me for trying to sell goods yet, but I heartily encourage people to ask hard questions if they feel something about the way I conduct business doesn't add up.

Why do people keep talking about mobs, anyway? I opened a thread, a bunch of people made conclusions and acted accordingly. You're making it seem like I went around knocking on doors trying to get people to join in.

What do I have to gain by calling scams?

What I have to gain is a marketplace where people can feel safe, which benefits me, as a seller.

If scams go unchecked, the forum turns into an unsafe place to do business, and I stop making money here.

If/when I pick on the wrong person, I'll eat my hat, like I said in relation to this whole WC fiasco.

And yet, when Vod negs me with the baseless accusation of my account being "possibly hacked" you don't exhibit the least bit of concern, much less remove his default trust.   

This kind of thing has me worried for future merchants more than anything, particularly me since I haven't even sold anything yet. Can I expect the same kind of foaming at the mouth back and forth responses from people who look at my work? While I think it's always good to keep an eye out for scammers and the vigilance of the majority of Bitcoin users is fantastic, letting a mob lynch anyone who sneezes funny is not only unfair on a lot of newbies also does set my paranoia off and makes me wonder what the people doing this have to gain?

Sure, you may get quite a few guys being dodgy fucks and get lucky, but what's going to happen when you pick on the wrong person? I hope Open Bazaar gets plenty of updates because I'm getting genuinely worried about this community, there's nothing worse than a violent mob that thinks they're infallible.

Furthermore, I fully expected that I would lose business in the future as a result of this fiasco, but called out WC's scam regardless. Now I've got a bunch of negative ratings and hate threads, as I expected would happen. Not much of a personal gain.

"Personal gain" is where the logic fails. I have nothing to personally gain by leaving TECSHARE a negative rating (he has purchased goods from me in the past!), nor do I have anything to personally gain by leaving negative ratings for socks and scammers. In fact, leaving negative ratings leaves one open to rating retaliation -- as has happened to me. I don't do it for kicks, and I don't do it to further my own dealings; this is why I take offence to the statement.

Agreed.


You're deflecting. That was a response to undeserved negative feedback, saying it's now deserved because of the response to it is a failure in logic.

What if they also slander you without evidence to back up their claims?

EDIT: This is just as serious an accusation as anything else being discussed here. I take my reputation seriously, and request you provide proof of me "demonstrating" willingness to abuse the forum for my personal gain. Without such proof, I'd like to ask the slanderous comment be removed.

IMO a neutral feedback is more appropriate. Poor judgement doesn't mean untrustworthy. Someone who has 'poor judgement', throws tantrums can be trustworthy if they honors all their deals and keeps their word.

Good lord, please stay on topic and stop discussing wood in here.

Trust here is indeed significantly different from the OTC web of trust, as I've realized.

I feel as though there are some unspoken rules floating around here regarding when it is appropriate to leave negative or neutral feedback. Perhaps it would be useful to have some form of guidance as to when each is appropriate?

WC is a great example -- TECSHARE still thinks I do not have the proof to leave a negative rating against WC, but I of course think that I do.

I would not leave neutral feedback for a scammer, because if everyone only freaks out about the red/green under avatars like it seems, neutral feedback will never be read by the noobs it's supposed to protect.

If I leave negative feedback to warn noobs (so they'll see without clicking the Trust link, something foreign and new to noobs), the trust link goes red and people start making meta threads about me.

Maybe the solution is to keep the trust LINK but hide the automatic display of the SCORE under people's avatars? That way, people can still easily check trust, without having their initial perceptions tainted by what may be only one negative rating.

It seems like people think I give negative trust to those who disagree with me, but in fact, I gave negative trust to those who seemed duplicitous or otherwise suspicious in their words and actions (like the guy who ignored 10 pages of arguing to say "nice work!", or all the socks).

I left TECSHARE negative feedback because I felt he was acting in a manner that called the accuracy of his judgment into question. Given the several witch hunt threads TECSHARE seems to be running, I don't think this is unfair of me, and would be interested to hear disagreement on this point.

Is this page really a problem big enough to warrant a prosecution?

You say that, yet you left nubbins this negative trust:
"Leaves inaccurate trust ratings (eg Bitspill), asbuses the trust system. "

I missed that, along with the other post it's obvious he doesn't understand it, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it abuse. I agree with koshgel.

It is apparent that Nubbins does not understand how the trust system works or it's intended uses.

It would probably even be a good idea to make people pass some kind of test/quiz before "officially" being on default trust

> "Shill or moron. Probably not a good idea to trust either way. Negative feedback left."

This isn't what negative feedback is for.

Exactly. Negative feedback is if you think someone is a scammer, or that they are likely to scam. Negative feedback is not for "Use caution when trusting this user's judgement".

TECHSHARE was removed from default trust months ago (he complains about it all the time - his signature is even about this incident). You are in default trust because CanaryInTheMine added your name to this page. TECHSHARE is off of default trust because everyone that had previously added him to their list on the above page has removed him.

It is possible for a scammer (or someone with negative trust) to still be on default trust, although it is very rare this will happen.