Topic: Remove red trust, it is nothing but noise. Getting sickening to watch. - page 2. (Read 1118 times)

Oh please. Its obviously cryptohunter, refreshed from their "vacation."

The constant posting in Meta and Reputation.
The obvious dislike of Lauda, TMAN and suchmoon.
The 6th grader nicknames.
The long-winded spiels about the trust system and forum injustices.

Though I am happy they haven't tried to shit down my neck thus far let's not pretend this might not be cryptohunter.

As for the subject at hand: red trust has already been removed. Its now orange trust.

Can't remove the negative sign. Can't get people to always leave negatives only for scammers.

I think the recent Default Trust changes are a good idea, however I do think the merit requirements for voting need to be upped at a rate proportional to that being introduced into the system.

OK trust or dare, I've said all I need to say. I won't be negging you just as I didn't neg PN7. Have at it so long as you can remain un-cunty.

How would a member go about determining the exact probability of a someone who was willing to try such a ruthless extortion attempt, a very dirty looking escrow, and scamming, not trying something similar in the future?
How do repeat offenders suddenly become trustworthy to the point where the wider community benefits from warnings being removed?


How could a warning being removed for such a member ever be in the best interests of honest members of this forum?

How do you explain the improbable change of heart of both you and lauda after years at exactly the same time?

Do you and primenumber7 actually believe that people here don't notice how the red trust removal bartering and redacted pill and extortion thread adaprions went down?

This cryptohunter / tooa point is irrelevant. It is being used as some kind of deflection by those that feel uncomfortable being placed under scrutiny. Don't focus on this point here. Create your own thread if those members are of interest to you.

There can be little doubt that your desperation to preserve your sig on PN7 has forced you to sellout to a scammer/ extortionist,  that you know posed a financial risk to this forum and continues to do so.

It is good to see that since owlcatz told you to try to influence OGnasty to remove his red tags, in another red trust Removal trade that OGnasty has not been willing to sell out as you have done. Presumably this is due to OGnasty not being desperate to be permitted into the sig spamming crew by those that control those positions.

Well, I actually have a pretty strong suspicion, but I will keep that to myself now. I don't think many people are in a position to notice a chance in a thread that has not been posted in for 3 months.

If someone is likely to repeat the attempt, a warning would remain appropriate. If there is good reason to believe they won't try again, I don't see a good reason to continue branding the person.

I don't think he is CH. But I also didn't initially think TOAA was CH but I turned out to be wrong about that. Maybe theymos will eventually have to say something to the effect of:

Petty squabbles would not reach to scamming, attempted extortion, and such behaviors. These types of behaviors should not be buried for the sake of more cordial relationships between members that have been adamant for years and standing behind their evidence presented to the board.

The red trust removal bartering is disturbing.

The specific individuals prior scamming actions are not as concerning as the trust system being used as a tool for leverage and manipulation, to prevent and discourage people speaking out.

Red tags serve no additional purpose. They are the Achilles heel of this forum going forward. Let's get them removed.

Members still appear to be approaching this from a what-is-best-for-red-trusted-scammers pov. We should be approaching this from the what is best for protecting honest members from financially dangerous individuals.

If they were not serious, as you are suggesting, and were using the trust system for their own personal vendettas then again they were abusing the trust system, devaluing and misleading honest members. This is yet another reason to remove the subjectivity that permits this abuse and leverage / manipulation.

Having looked at both sets of claims. Both seem compelling but quickseller's actions look far less dangerous and ruthless. Of course now that he is willing to sweep this under the carpet for his own selfish gain, the margin between them had narrowed.

Either way this is dishonest, self serving and dangerous for honest members. Red trust should be removed immediately. Only those that enjoy having this abusive weapon are pushing to retain it.

There is no member producing a valid reason to retain Red tagging now that we have the flags, so let's have it removed.

So, you could have said "I had already spent the coin, TF said I could keep it but we said I returned it to keep Vod quiet.   Sorry, but I am changing."

Instead you are propagating your lie.    

I wish your actions spoke louder than your empty words.

I wouldn't go as far to say it's ruining the forum and their are bigger issues here than beefs, but isn't it then better that people are trying to put their petty squabbling behind them? I only hope more people will put their disagreements aside and move on. People should have never been using the feedback system to wage these battles in the first place though but I still think people should be able to use the feedback system to comment on trustworthiness but neutrals are often much better unless there is strong suspicion or evidence of bad behaviour.


I think there's a fair few similarities but obviously too early to tell right now and could just be coincidences. I think if CH/TOAA was going to re-appear on a new account though he'd likely try hide the fact as best as he could.


It's pretty obvious that's what they were fueled by. It's hard to look objectively at this when the people involved really disliked each other and were just looking for things to try drag the other party down and that's what this was but I'm glad they've called a truce. Threads like this though just seem to be trying to stoke up more drama for something that should just be buried.

He is clearly referring to subjective and personal opinions when leaving trust ratings, not general discussion.

All my opions (sic) are subjective and personal. Anything else would compromise my morality. If you don't agree with me, then you can use discussion to attempt to change my opinion, or just put me on ignore. I agree that trust shouldn't be a weapon, but most of those weaponising it seem to be those wielding broken swords, after they have been exposed.

Yes the one that CH is driving, you are in the shotgun and all of CH's alts are in the backseat. I have heard its a shitty ride to be honest, with all that Bukkake action in the back seat the back of your head must be covered in spunk.

anyway to OP why not just post from your main account? unless you want us all to believe you are a newbie who has scanned the forum for years and already decided what is best for this place?

AKA the clown car, and the sad children's party magician Vod strategy.

ARE you curious? I would speculate perhaps those that pay attention, and don't like to see members retract/redact evidence of purported financially dangerous behaviors in return for their own red tags being removed.

Please be specific. Are you claiming that because an extortion attempt or scam fails and there are no persons to financially reimburse that no warning should be applied to their account if they remove a warning they have placed on your account(s) ?

That the entire purpose of the trust system is not to provide warning and increase the safety of the wider community against scammers, rather it is to ensure that those with red tags get along working nicely with one another and have more fun?

What incentive is there for senior accounts not to scam if a period of good behavior will result in a clean sheet. Or if you can simply act as a group to throw red around until you force others to remove their red on you?

What incentive is there to speak the truth or present evidence of wrong doing if I will have my account flagged red for doing so.  Then I may have to react it all and pretend it was all a big mistake and I promise never to do it again.

Do you perhaps have a good argument to retain red tags? or should we move to a fully objective system like the flags? best ask lauda first to check what you are permitted to say. I don't wish to see redacted posts here or suffer more of you begging forgiveness and promises not to repeat telling the truth ever again.

If someone does not have victims to repay (or has repaid their victims), and have not repeated previous mistakes, why brand them for life? If branded for life, what incentives do they have to not repeat previous mistakes, or to further escalate a dispute with a person?


Perhaps some of what you describe was petty fighting among all involved, and some was involving things that happened long enough ago that it is appropriate to forgive past transgressions.

I am curious how many people would be aware of these types of changes to a thread, and out of those who would be aware, who would want to complain about something like this.

The first valuable reply by eddie13.

The specific cases I am refering to fall clearly into the first category. There is a long and detailed history of these members demonstrating both their sure belief the other is a dangerous scammer, and objective evidence that presents a strong case to support their assertions. There are long detailed history of quickseller stating lauda has attempted to extort, conducted dishonest escrowing on a large scale, and lauda has been certain quickseller is a dangerous self escrowing scammer, and claims he could not trust him as far as he could throw him.  Owlcatz has said the same for years. The same with owlcatz has been certain OGnasty is a scammer and visa versa. Now requesting OGnasty remove his red tags because he has decided to forgive OGnasty for being a dangerous scammer.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cult-of-lauda-an-historic-peace-romes-treaty-with-carthage-5224240

If you start the time with Lauda giving PN7 a red tag on the speculation that is quickseller's alt. Then all of a sudden quickseller retracting the pill accusation against lauda. Redacting a selection of his extortion case thread and removing the names of owlcatz after years. Then lauda suddenly forgiving PN7 and removing his red tags from quickseller and quickseller do the same for lauda. Then owlcatz doing the same and then asking quickseller to ask OGnasty to remove his red tags?

This is clear trust bartering and years of claiming they have solid evidence each other are dangerous scammers mutually just vanish.

This is not in the best interest of this forum. It is in the mutual best interests of those people playing around with the holes in the red tagging system.

Those certain for years each other are scammers and it is in the best interests of the forum to place a warning on their accounts suddenly forgive if they get something in return or request it.

Remove red tagging and rely on flags alone.
There is no benefit to red tags. The only persons here attempting to detail with off topic speculation are those that want to continue to enjoy the power the broken subjective red tagging system provides.

I will be reporting all off topic posts that seek to derail my threads in the future. If your post does not address the specific points I have detailed in my opening post then you are off topic.

Removing long standing red tags in trade (I remove, you remove) does seem like a bit of an admission that the tags were probably just personal bullshit the entire time..

On the other hand, if a user has reformed from their past ways that warranted a warning, changing them to neutral or removing them could just be a sign that the user is no longer as high risk as he previously was..

Lot of attacks on the messenger and not the message here..

Any real scammer would be eligible for a flag.
I don't agree with the accuracy of your analogy at all.

A better one would be not relying on a court of law because mob justice has previously taken care of plenty of criminals. Also killed a lot of innocent people along the way.

Objective evidence of scamming or attempted scamming and setting up a scam. Allowing other subjective data is crushing the value of the trust system to prevent scammers and creating a myriad of other issues.

The threat to free speech here is another huge consideration.

Delete it or present a sensible and credible case to keep it.

The number of actual scammers tagged isn't a valid metric of useful effects. It needs to be taken in the context of how many innocent users are abused using it, driving legitimate people away and increasing the con artist to legitimate user ratio. After all scammers simply return in seconds with a bought account. Legitimate users that spend the time to build a reputation just to have it be destroyed over petty shit simply leave and never come back.

No system is perfect because there will always be people who are not happy about it. If the trust system was to be removed to day, very many scammers who were previously red tagged would be let lose and you don't want to see that happen.

Yes there are a few instances where it's being missed used because of personal egos and disagreements but you are ignoring the countless thousands of real scammers where the trust has correctly been used.
It's like suggesting scrapping the prison/jail system and releasing all the prisoners just because there was one case where someone was falsely convicted.

Many off topic posts preventing discussion of the specific points that my opening post seeks to address.

I am waiting for a member to present a credible opposition to my request. Sensible support is welcome.

Off topic speculation and personal attacks are to be reported and deleted from here onwards.

Funny you should mention that, since it's the first thing I thought of upon reading OP's post.  Sounds very much like him, and we definitely don't need more of that drama, no matter what new account may be sparking it. 

I will immediately put OP on ignore just as a prophylactic measure--and I just read Lauda's peace treaty with Quickseller a few minutes ago.  For some reason I'd avoided opening that thread, but I'm glad they buried the hatchet.  I'm sure we're not all going to be on the same page about everything and there are going to be feuds, but trying to minimize those and patching old wounds is a good thing.  We'll see how it goes, I guess.

Yep, and I bet you that if OP keeps posting, those posts will keep getting longer and longer until it becomes obvious that CH/TOAA didn't go very far after all.

The posting style looks like cryptohunter /toaa.
This text walls that we dont have missed.
And Yeah suchmoon is right about for just a few hours registered and complaining about the trust system the same as Ch and toaa has done.