Topic: Requesting CryptoDevil to be removed from DefaultTrust for partial judgement (Read 3254 times)

Dooglus has been involved in multiple multi-million dollar scams that were perpetrated with the assistance of dooglus's positive trust ratings, and no one in their right mind would have trust those who were behind the scams if it were not for dooglus's positive ratings and endorsements. Add giving out reputation loans and extortion to the mix in addition to the fact that dooglus personally profited from each of the multi-million dollar scams to the tune of 35 BTC from each scam and you have someone who is a much worse candidate to be on Default Trust then CITM ever was. At least Fred Cat had a long history of doing business honestly....the scammers that were possible because of dooglus did not even have accounts that reached full member status...

If this is not enough to get theymos to remove dooglus from default trust then I can't imagine what would.

Yes. You are right. The warning should come before they run away. But, there is a catch. How do you decide a Ponzi? When you or your descendents are marking someone as a Ponzi, there must be some criteria that they are not satisfying and hence they are marked as a Ponzi. But, when the same criteria is not met by others, if you either turn them a blind eye or give them a benefit of doubt, you are not justifying your position in DefaultTrust. This is how you are simply allowing some business (possible Ponzis) to suck more while clearing their competition (possible Ponzis).

Please note that, previously CITM was also removed from DT for doing such partiality. It took time and a massive million dollar scam by his beloved FriedCat, but it did happen. Now, I see him crying on reddit that this forum is a BS etc. I do respect you for your contribution in this forum or as in bitcoin and I do seriously hope, you give a second thought to your judgement procedure.

There is no point leaving negative feedback only after the Ponzi has run off with the money.

The time for warnings is before they run off, when the warning can actually do some good.

My opinion is that one shouldn't be marked -ve right away if in case they are promoting an obvious ponzi scam. They might not know what they are promoting though, so giving them -ve straight would be too rude and too judgmental. The case would be different if the user in question would promote the thread annoyingly and suspiciously, that's when they should receive -ve trust.

A ponzi scam is a scam from the beginning, they don't "suddenly scam" when they can't pay. Their model is designed to scam from the start.


Read the description of the trust options:



Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

Because DefaultTrust people are supposed to hand out judgement that would be seen by the rest of the forum by default. So, from natural logic, it needs to be handed to everyone doing the same thing, in the same way. Ponzis in disguise only turn out to scam, when they fail. When you are labelling a running program as Ponzi, relying on your "strong believe" and NOT labelling another one because of "no evidence", then you are acrually showing discriminatory nature, which is not supposed to be coming from people on DefaultTrust.

Because it is believed to be untrustworthy, not proven. Right now, you can leave any feedback, because you are not on DT. But, once you'll be on DT, you need to revise those feedback and be sure that you are not being partial to anyone, i.e. giving -ve to one but not to another for the same thing, which is the case in this thread, as I "strongly believe".

I don't understand what you are saying really. If I see a scheme being touted on here which makes me "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" then leaving negative trust is appropriate. Why should that person's trust rating, Default or otherwise, affect that decision? 


I can't speak for Theymos and his reasoning.
Neutral trust is what it says: neutral comment. Why should I or anyone leave a neutral comment on someone whose actions are believed to be untrustworthy?

I beg to disagree with you, though I disagree with OP as well. Probable Ponzis or their promoters, i.e. when the Ponzi has not yet fallen, should not be marked -ve, because this only give advantage to the Ponzis having hold of DefaultTrust (level 1 & 2) accounts. Theymos has introduced neutral trust for this and that should be used for probable Ponzis or their promoters. Otherwise, the whole concept of neutral trust become falacy.

Long ago a few accounts (most probably owned by the same person) were promoting AM hash in CMW's thread. Me and a few others opposed this. Most of us who did it aggressively was tagged as shill by one of those accounts. As that account was not in DefaultTrust, I did not bother. Now, this DefaultTrust guy has left me the same feedback copying from that report. This is rediculous. There is absolutely no proof to support this shilling allegation.

The whole premise of OP's argument is faulty.
It's just an extension of the standard Ponzi promoter's argument that any critics are shills for the "competition".

let's talk about the trust. it's not about your signature, but about your shilling if I understand it correctly.


^ is that correct? It's one thing to get paid for a signature but a complete negative turn if you come up with socks to promote the ponzi.

It seems thread owner has updated the situation in opening post and you are involved in it.

OP updated with dispute details.

I expect the outcome will be that OP makes new sockpuppet accounts and it'll be business as usual.

Would be interested in the ultimate outcome of this thread. Has the issue been resolved or it is still pending ?

No one asked person A or his DT sponsor to judge "everybody" either.

As long as person A or his DT sponsor leave -ve to those pointed out by person B, there is nothing wrong. But, when they flat out denies it, this is definitely wrong. It only means that they are making the path clear for one business by negating the other using the DT advantage.

Person B already pointed out to that someone else, but person A and his DT sponsor denies any responsibility to leave -ve to them. Even after pointing out the same thing is being done by others, when person A and his DT sponsor deny to hand out the same judgement, they are not expected to sit in the DT either.

Well being on the trust list and having a bit of positive score I have always taken that into consideration when leaving feedback. I think with the current system (not perfect, but not too bad) we have a responsibility when leaving either positive or negative feedback. Posting a public dispute here in meta is definitely the best action you can take if you feel you got shafted. When you look at the number of ratings that happen per day and the amount of issues - the system works fairly well. OP you need to explain in detail the dispute or there is no way we can give you an opinion.

There's no requirement for anyone to "judge" everybody. If I leave negative feedback for you but don't leave any feedback for someone doing the exact same thing as you, is that wrong somehow? Maybe I just didn't happen upon the someone else yet. I can't be expected to label everyone - there are just too many of them.

Sounds like the dadice discussion to me.


Yes, but the answer is - again - depends. It depends on the details and you try to provide none in order to make this a general discussion. This is especially true because its as you say a "dicey" rating in the first place. It might very well boil down to a gut feeling.

If we e.g. take the "dadice does not provide a signed cold storrage address" issue and the negative feedback I left them for it. If the understanding of my feedback is that they are scamming because they dont provide a cold storrage address you got it wrong and there is no reason to neg rep others on this ground. The common example for this is PrimeDice. Dadice did not get a negative rating from me strictly because the did not sign a cold storrage address, but because of the way they handled the question why they did not. You also cant compare it do PrimeDice because PD does not target investors. I know this is an example and you dont want to discuss an example, but as you can see a rating is often more complex than the single sentence that represents it. I also dont want this thread to derail into that discussion again. So please understand it as an example that a rating that appears simple might not be.


Towards eachother? That is to be expected and IMHO its one of the healthy aspects of the system. Different people do different ratings because they see things differently. The trust system provides you as the one using it do judge whether you want to engage with a user or not with a multitude of different opinions about said user (or not because they dont have any ratings). If there would be just a single opinion it would not be as helpful as several opinions are.


Point out what? How do you expect to get an answer if you dont say what you are refering to. This whole discussion is pointless if you keep an example in your head and want to just dictate how things are to be seen. No two cases are the same and pointing towards someone else who "does it also" is never a good argument in a defense. Its a pittyful attempt off a distraction. Even if we assume that there are two identical cases and one gets a negative rating while the other does not, the default trust list is no ones police force. If there is a thread in the proper section with proper evidence Im sure more than enough people will read about it and consider a rating. There is no need for A to do it all alone, if its such a clear case there should not be an issue. Whether or not there was such a thread for B does not matter either, some things come up and get noticed others need a thread.


Whatever thats supposed to mean.

This why I stated in OP - Person B points out that the reason he is entitled with -ve trust is also owned up by others. Person A flat out denies to leave -ve trust to anyone else.

There was no scam accusation thread against Person B either.

The reason Person A calling out something a scam, is in fact dicey. According to person B - someone is not providing some proof does not make it a scam. According to person A, it is a scam. But, even when Person B is pointing out that others are not providing proof either, Person A is denying to leave them -ve feedback.

I am neither calling the activity in question as sane nor a scam as it is debatable. My issue is the discripancy that some DT members are enjoying. I repeat, it is not possible for any DT member to find out and negate all the scam. But, even after pointing out, why they are shying away ? That means they are not strong on their ground when the opponent is powerful.