Pages:
Author

Topic: Requesting theymos to remove CanaryInTheMine from DefaultTrust - page 5. (Read 15809 times)

sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
he left me this feedback:





^ true though.  Cheesy

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward Undecided

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical Undecided

yup, i'm just your typical btc enthusiast, nothing special here. IMHO Mabsark called it rightly.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
he left me this feedback:





^ true though.  Cheesy

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward Undecided

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.

You accuse me of starting "hate campaigns" against "legitimate securities."  Asked to validate your accusation, you demur with "I'm not your secretary."
Typical Undecided
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
he left me this feedback:





^ true though.  Cheesy

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward Undecided

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."

there have been a few threads i've seen you trolling in, feel free to go back over your own posts to enlighten yourself, i'm not your secretary.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
he left me this feedback:





^ true though.  Cheesy

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward Undecided

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.

Please name the "legitimate securities."
P.S:  "Hate campaigns"?!  How, exactly, do you respond to scams?  Don't tell me, rhetorical--you turn the other cheek.  How's that been working out for you, tho?
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
he left me this feedback:





^ true though.  Cheesy

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward Undecided

happy christmas.
IMHO, from what i've seen of your trolling... you have caused a lot of damage to some very legitimate securities; and your reward is, just.
tip: orchestrating hate campaigns does in no way make you a prophet.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
he left me this feedback:





^ true though.  Cheesy

In the securities section, I have had 100% accuracy rate.  Even my opinions, once considered the fringes of pessimism, are now mainstream.  The negative feedback I received was my reward Undecided
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
Mabsark's use of the trust system is a bit curious.  I warned him about two of his "investments" being scams.  When those investments turned out to be scams, he left me this feedback:



Not sure if this is how the trust system was intended to work. 
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1004
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?

At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate.

Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though?
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?
hero member
Activity: 593
Merit: 500
1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

What is fun speculation for you may incorrectly ruin some one else's reputation. Hence I said you should judge carefully and be reasonably confident before making any kind of accusations.

malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.

Nah, I don't think so.


This should be reminder not to throw accusations as 'fun speculation'. BadBear might not be always available to answer and it will lead to ruining someone's reputation.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

He would be removed from default trust. I just want to make sure we are still talking hypothetical, we can't prosecute a guy for something he could possibly do. Theymos could make 50 accounts, give himself fake trust, and then scam someone out of free dancing lessons, but I'm not asking to remove Theymos from default trust yet.
But the thing is that he is doing something very close to that. He is putting almost anyone who gives him positive trust on his trust list, which improves his trust score. As a result he has a extremely high trust score (probably the highest, or close to the highest on the forum) which means it is essentially fruitless to open a scam accusation against him if he were to short you a miner or otherwise not deliver as promised.

Also every person who has recently been involved in something that caused them to be removed from default trust list has involved CanaryInTheMine in some way, including people who have tried to scam. You say that he is putting his reputation on the line by putting people on his trust list, but there have been many instances of problems with people on his trust list but he has both remained trust worthy and remained on default trust.

Plus it is not realistically possible to tell when you are in control of multiple accounts so theymos would probably not even know if/when CanaryInTheMine has his puppets on his trust list giving himself positive trust feedback
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
CanaryInTheMine 150: -0 / +331(331)   2014-12-11   0.00000000      keeps an eye out on possible scammers

^^^ Hilarious that was the same thing I was doing that he gave me negative trust for lol (just cause it involved havelock where we all know he has a vested interest)
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well

He would be removed from default trust. I just want to make sure we are still talking hypothetical, we can't prosecute a guy for something he could possibly do. Theymos could make 50 accounts, give himself fake trust, and then scam someone out of free dancing lessons, but I'm not asking to remove Theymos from default trust yet.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
I think you are mistaken here. There are no limits as to how many people he can add to his trust list (which puts them on default trust list). There is no limit as to how many accounts he can have.

There is nothing to stop him from making 1,000 accounts, putting them all on default trust list, giving each-other positive/green trust then giving him trust.

Being on default trust essentially makes it impossible to make it appear to an outsider that you have a bad reputation. His reputation may be negatively affected but only by people who regularly follow the politics of bitcointalk.org, for people who do not follow (probably most of the user base) will have no idea other then his trust rating that is available without clicking on any trust details.

He essentially is doing what I described in my 2nd paragraph, except with ~200 people as opposed to 1,000. From what I can tell many/most people who have green trust that are on his trust list have received trust feedback from others that are on his trust list alone; and have given him positive trust feedback as well
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
I think what the staff is telling everyone here is, the key is to lie to them and everyone else and just PRETEND you think the individual you negative is a scammer rather than being honest of why the feedback was left for various other reasons  (like prominent people on the default trust do almost daily). Going around "scambusting" is a nice cover for throwing in a few personal enemies into the grinder as well. In the end the staff care about one thing, THEIR PAYCHECK, and they don't have any other interest while getting involved with disputes. Why should they care if you were ripped off, harassed, or otherwise slandered?

You are correct about one thing, the staff not caring to get involved in disputes. We aren't the government out to protect bank account balances or to tell people to play nice, we are pretty much here just to keep things organized and to step in when there are major issues ie death threats, etc. This is a public forum, you can come here to chat with other people of similar ideology or that are interested in similar technologies. We aren't interested in babysitting or problem solving, if adults can't solve their own problems, then thats on them. If people don't like Default Trust, remove it from your trust lists, if you don't like CanaryInTheMine's trust picks, remove CanaryInTheMine from your trust list, no one is helpless.

I haven't reviewed the people on CanaryInTheMine's list, nor do I care to. Because as above, its not really my problem, people can work out any issues with other parties involved. But I agree with their above post to an extent.
yep, we've dealt with inaccurate or blatant abuses before and will continue to do so as necessary.  most people are not evil and if they flip, we can resolve disputes.

Canary is staking their reputation on the people they add. If there is an issue with the people they add, its on Canary to handle. Self interest is the best motivator to keep a corruptible system honest, and every system is corruptible.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
I think what the staff is telling everyone here is, the key is to lie to them and everyone else and just PRETEND you think the individual you negative is a scammer rather than being honest of why the feedback was left for various other reasons  (like prominent people on the default trust do almost daily). Going around "scambusting" is a nice cover for throwing in a few personal enemies into the grinder as well. In the end the staff care about one thing, THEIR PAYCHECK, and they don't have any other interest while getting involved with disputes. Why should they care if you were ripped off, harassed, or otherwise slandered?
donator
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1060
between a rock and a block!
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
yep, we've dealt with inaccurate or blatant abuses before and will continue to do so as necessary.  most people are not evil and if they flip, we can resolve disputes.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in.

That list is ordered by user ID, not added time.

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
Pages:
Jump to: