Topic: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust - page 3. (Read 15798 times)

MrTeal (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mrteal-52355), another AM hash sympathizer on the trust list of CanaryInTheMine, is doing the same thing on TeraBox's trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366902), what Mabshark (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mabsark-15707) was doing. I would like to know why CanaryInTheMine will not remove him from his list ?

Interestingly, neither of the proven scammers like Hashie, LTC gear or HashProfit has received -ve from this MrTeal or Mabshark !!!

No, that is not an accurate representation of the situation. Armis was harassing me, not pointing out anything "unfair". I was selling a gift card for face value, he decided that getting what I paid for for my gift card was unfair. I made it clear he was unwelcome and he continued to make posts including insults and other harassment. If he was just "calling me out" on something, why stick around to make insults?

I then reported his posts but the reports were ignored. At this point I left him a negative rating with the assumption that uninterested 3rd parties would not be forcing their involvement in the situation, so that we could BOTH be restored to our former states. The rating was left for his harassment, and that is exactly what the rating stated. I guess I should take the strategy of everyone else here and just lie about it, and say I think he is a scammer, and then it would magically be ok. After I left a rating for him he proceed to make slanderous posts on 5 more of my threads, demonstrating to me very clearly that his intent from his first post was harassment. At no point did Armis ever take responsibility for his participation in this conflict or even try to deescalate. Of course the staff are not interested in restorative justice, they are only interested in making sure the "default trust" maintains its "integrity" (HA!) so they can maintain their dominant influence over all traders on this forum and make sure their paychecks keep flowing.

 I do not leave negative trust flippantly, I have only left a handful of negatives over 3 years of trading. Other users on the default trust hand negative ratings out like candy for even the weakest of suspicious, and use "Scam busting" as a convenient cover for burning down a few personal enemies in the process and letting them get lost in the fray. Of course my single alleged misuse of a trust rating is unforgivable and negates my credibility. Sounds like uniform enforcement of policy to me.

Thank you theymos for keeping your word...


I hope, in future, u'll be vigilant like this. Merry Christmas

It is not a good start. CanaryInTheMine had previously indicated that he endorses Mabsark's actions. Removing him when faced with the threat of getting his Level 1 status taken away is a bad sign.

From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there.

Ah, you were removed from default trust then?  Will neg rep you back, my apologies.



Nice job, whoever's responsible.

You didn't ask nicely, you started spreading lies about the reasons I left that feedback after me specifically telling you that that wasn't the reason and telling you the actual reason. And given the shit going on with your account at the moment and the scam accusations against you, I see no reason to remove that feedback.


No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you.

Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.  I returned the favor, though have mixed feelings about it.

Let me get this straight. This person thought you were acting unfairly, he called you out on it, and you made it so his profile would be labeled as a scammer until he retracted his statements about you acting unfairly. Is this an accurate representation of what happened?

In other words, you want to be able to act unfairly and to allow no one to call you out on it.

If anything his trust rating should have been improved for calling out unfair business activity. What he was doing had nothing to do with him potentially scamming and therefore a negative trust rating is not warranted.

You seem to be complaining a lot about the fact that you were removed from default trust list, yet you fail to understand that your ratings given do not have anything to do with scamming or the ability to trust others and as a result are not accurate and should not be relied on

You know what I think is unfair? Users who come here and deal with scammers and trolls for years and whom treat everyone fairly getting punished for not obeying commands because of "justice warriors" who go around all day looking for "wrongs" to right and the trolls that incite them. My rating was completely accurate, he was harassing me and that is exactly what I said in the rating and why I left it. If staff hadn't have stuck their nose into it he might have removed his slanderous posts and I would have deleted his trust rating, but they have no interest in restorative justice, only protecting their income stream. Instead they attacked me openly and gave this user the impression that the staff would some how "fix" his negative rating, so he had no incentive to cooperate with me, because in his mind, he was going to get what he wanted anyway. As a result I am off of the default trust list and Armis now has a permanent negative rating. They got what they wanted, neither I nor Armis did. This serves only the staff.

Theymos has no interest in justice being served. He has interest in his bottom line being protected, IE some are allowed to abuse more than others. People like me who aren't part of the boys club get excommunicated for not following orders. Someone like VOD can get on the forum and throw around negative trust like candy for the flimsiest of reasons almost daily, but your right... that single "questionable" negative trust I left certainly is reason to remove years of work and negate everything I have given to this community.

First they claim the trust system is unmoderated, now suddenly theymos is messing with individual ratings and commanding people to be removed from trust at threat of their own removal. So I guess my simple question is.. Do you really feel the user I left negative feedback for has more to add to this community? If not then this policy only punishes the ACTUAL PEOPLE who build real trust here by making them subject to these inquisitions by trolls and sock puppets.

Theymos does have a vested interest in making sure that trade on here is safe. If trading is not safe then people will not trade on here, and if people do not trade then they will not visit as much, then ad revenue will decline. The feedback that you gave was not feedback that was reflective on the receiving person's potential to scam in the future and as a result your feedback should not be relied on by others. I cannot think of anything more fair then to have you removed from default trust list. It would be unfair to allow you to remain on default trust list as at least one innocent user would be negatively affected by your inaccurate feedback rating.

The same is true for Canary, but to a larger degree. He is allowing (and encouraging) someone to leave feedback that is unsubstantiated on his competition and is giving himself positive feedback making him appear to be more trustworthy

You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.

No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner. 

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

So what about mine I asked nicely and even apploigized when I made a mistake?

I think it shows that Canary should be at minimum moved down to level two of the trust tree so that his feedback left doesn't have as great an effect. As he uses it now for influencing how people on this forum are able to engage in business. I am sure if you look at the way he has used trust ratings you will see that he has used them in a manner that helps him profit and i think when money is part of the equation when deciding to trust certain people that it induces a form of bias that is obvious in the actions that canary has engaged in and i think that someone who uses that power to profit should be relinquished of the power. Much the same as the situation that i was in. I had a transaction that went wrong and the user and members of his family slandered me and blackmailed me and as a result of this i applied negative trust to his profile (neutral was not an option at the time) but he was able to get me removed (albeit through a web of lies that where later proved false reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-nightmare-lies-extortion-blackmail-and-slander-by-bbxx-and-curiousminer-768105) my understanding was that i was removed because i "abused" my position on theymos trust tree although at the time it was the only option i had left. So i feel that anyone uses the trust network for personal gain should not be allowed to continue.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. 

I wish you really keep your word theymos. The motive of CanaryInTheMine & Mabshark is crystal clear from multiple evidences that have been talked about in this thread. Here is just another evidence...

Someone preferred Bimain backed Hashnest and see how he is pushing him to AM hash through his sig...

The way CanaryInTheMine is farming his trust is already discussed. What more evidence can we ask for to remove these people from DefaultTrust ?