Topic: [RESOLVED] Trust abuse (Read 836 times)

I am glad to see at least one forum dispute between two members is resolved in a peaceful way.
It appears there is still some hope for humanity  

OP I think it's time for locking this topic now.

True, but I ported them to my own mobile alt so that there wasn't any misunderstandings - must have slipped through the cracks I'd say at a guess.

I'm so glad to see that problems can be peacefully resolved if there's communication between the two parties.
That was the civilised way.
There was so many fights here which ended with valuable users leaving the forum, I'm so happy this is not one of those.

Good to see this was resolved!

Probably because you distrusted many mobile alts.

Maybe you should have contacted the guy before you create this thread. He would have corrected his mistake in a second probably. Gaining reputation is hard here and losing it is way too easy.

I can see the dT1 distrust has been removed (and assume the DT2 occurred at the same time)



As I said previously, I can't recall why krogoth was on my distrust list (for many weeks/months from what I can tell) so I have removed that distrust in their alt.

I managed to send krog an email explaining that 2 actions he took cross some very cared for rules here.

His reply was very constructive.

We have removed trust feedbacks left to each other.

Now I am looking to discuss forward with him so we can rectify the default trust abuse.

---

We managed to have a phone call that lasted over an hour
Settle and talk of what's in the past once and for all, looking forward to what's in the future

krog told me he removed his double Trust exlusion

Thank you krogoth !

That user has no "Untrusted feedback" at all, because he's Selfscratching anyone who left him positive feedback. That's one of the reasons why I said the Collectibles board has a different interpretation of the Trust system than the rest of the forum.
If I'd do the same, my green Trust score would almost double. But I like being Switzerland more.
I checked the data a long time ago: requiring 2 DT1-inclusions to reach DT2 would reduce the number of users on DT2 by about 50%. I'm still in favour of such a change.

From what I can see six of those seven are only DT2 because one DT1 user has voted all of them in (most don't even have ten votes that the one DT1 user has - ^{who is not the same DT1 user voting the other six in}) - plus a couple of them DT trust each-other.

I mean, asking people to exclude my alt account if I see it getting Trust inclusions.
Simple mention the issues it creates towards bitcointalk if the alt gets into DT, and ask DT people to exclude the alt in regards to that.

---

Peaceful solution is found on my end, and isn't really different from what has been going for months already.
I just don't care about this users vents. He could stop breathing and go red to have a whim I just am so far away from that now ...

Now, what I just want is simply the trust abuse to be rectified, as I shouldn't suffer from a double Trust exclusion as both accounts are in the hands of a single user.

Once this is settled, you'll never hear me talking about krog. Someday, I just might say "I told you so..."

If people trust you, that doesn't work. Marlboroza tried that 3 years ago, and he's still stuck at DT2 strength (29).
It might be different with an alt, but there are no guarantees.

---

---

It's probably better to split this topic into 2 topics: one to address the Trust abuse, and another one to discuss what happened when yogg went "missing" (I didn't know that). Now 2 completely different subjects are getting entangled, and if that results in more mud slinging it's not helping. Or, if you don't want to create 2 topics, I suggest to strictly stick to the topic title: Trust abuse.

Hey DaveF,

I really like you too.

I understand your point of view and I'm sorry to hear that.
However for my defense, every individual with an outstanding order from me has been offered refunds as soon as I ran into troubles.
Nobody chose to. Everyone told me they prefer to patient the necessary time to finally get what they have ordered.

Please see this thread : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coldkey-website-is-down-whats-up-with-this-project-5358870

If you think I have money outstanding with people, please let me prove that I don't.

What krog eludes here is that he started calling me on my GSM in the middle of my night, unnoticed, and bullied me to get around 0.12BTC back.
I returned them to him within 24h (maybe 48h).
And yes, during these calls I told him he is a liar and a hypocrite trickster.

This topic was initially made as this user uses his DT2 alt to double exclude me from DT, which is a Default Trust abuse.
He also artificially pumps his alt trust feedback score.

I will be more than happy to explain myself regarding any accusation if only it was addressed properly, in the way bitcointalk is used to deal with these disputes.

---

Rectified with a neutral feedback.
I will go this thread again in a little while and address anything I could have missed.

---

I don't know.
If this was me and I'd see my alt getting Trust inclusions, I'd open a thread in Reputation to request members to exclude it.

I have gone on that rant many many times that the collectables and hardware section need their own / separate trust information.
Not going to re-hash it here again here, but: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/do-we-need-1-more-datapoint-for-trust-in-trades-and-only-trades-5154576

As for this thread and what is going on here and now: To the best of my knowledge...one of the people has completed every business dealing and done so fairly and promptly the other one has not.
Sorry yogg I like you, I really do. But, because you went dark with peoples money for that long. I don't trust you. And this just looks like pettiness.

-Dave

This on it's own isn't such a bad thing. My LoyceMobile has been on and off DT2 several times.


This is definitely a big no-go for me. I've seen neutral, and I've even seen negative used for alts (for instance because they're used on a public computer). But leaving positive to yourself is cheating the feedback system.
It's even worse to leave positive feedback to an account created to be used from unsecure connections. Such an account should not be trusted. I'm amazed 7 other DT-members left the same alt positive feedback too:

Then again, the entire Collectibles board seems to have it's own use of the Trust system. I'm not even sure that's a bad thing: unlike the rest of the forum, the Collectibles board has many users who trade without scamming. I get that their view the Trust system is different than users who for instance visit Scam Accusations.


I can understand a negative warning on "unsecure" krogoth, but not for "Default Trust abuser". If anything, it should be a reminder that the account is used from unsecure connections and shouldn't be trusted. But even in that case I think I'd prefer neutral.

That's not enough: If someone included LoyceMobile, my exclusion would give it DT2 strength (0). That means it's still on DT2.

I don't think a bad Trust list should result in negative feedback, but instead you should exclude the user from your Trust list.

Great! Then exclude them.

This data is from theymos' data dump (last Saturday morning).

---

---

Allow me to quote theymos (slightly out of context):
I'm pretty sure both krogothmanhattan and yogg are much safer to trade with than a random person.

Although it seems slightly off-topic: nobody on the whole big internet should be able to touch your mental health. If you don't like someone: ignore them and forget about them. Why torture yourself by giving power to someone you don't know?
Get well

I agree with Timelord2067

---

---

I'm (for now at least) not commenting on the mud slinging: I see unverifiable accusations in both directions.

Interesting case really, I am in the same situation as you. I like them both, I had contact with both without any issues and both have given a lot to the forum and mostly to the collectables.
As well as I agree that having alt in the DT gives you an advantage which i think should not be used like that. Many DT users have alts like LoyceV and LoyceMobile (i think that's his main alt, the rest are bots) but only the main account is on the DT.
I hope you guys find a peaceful solution because as I said I like you both.

I'll keep an eye on the thread, seems that I need to read a bit more on the case.

From my viewpoint - I like both yogg and krog and it saddens me to see such strife between the two.

But no alt should be used to garner merit or trust or be used to exclude or even include anyone into a trust list.

To do so is an abuse - was it intentional? I dont know, but once identified, it should be corrected.

If you guys can't resolve your personal issues than just ignore each other, and create new topic if someone is holding money from other person, don't just make some wage comment without proof.
It's not forbidden to use altaccounts in bitcointalk forum but messing around with DT system to exclude or include anyone with your accounts is not cool.
I would not give anyone negative feedback for this, but owner self declared that he controls both account so it would be good to exclude his second account from ~DT.

Thank you Timelord <3
Appreciate your kind words.

Yes, I'm lucky to team up with owlcatz now, to bring my project Coldkey further to the next level, his help kinda shields me away from what this place can do to you.

However last year .... let's say I'm über pumped to still be there, and do something I love to do.

During my time away, this happened : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coldkey-website-is-down-whats-up-with-this-project-5358870
It really touched me, I wasn't aware of this thread for some time, and owlcatz mentioned it to me when we were on the phone. (He's the ONLY person from bitcointalk I kept in touch with during these tough times...)

Now I'm doing much better. Initially I just wanted to sort out the double trust exclusion, but heh, krog shown his true self and well this is pretty much it...

---

I regret every second I spent teaching BTC tech stuff to that guy.

What ever happened to :


What did I do to deserve this treatment from him ?

When we fell out, I told him he is a liar, and he abides by double standards. Well, seems I'm not quite wrong ....

Hang in there @yogg - don't ever let this place get the better of you.

I am going to clarify this once and for all.

This user contributed big times to my mental health deterioration last year, and he is still not done bullying me.

I use some plugin to replace words with other words in my browser, as just reading "krog" or "krogoth" was triggering anxiety. (i's disabled right now obviously ..)

Last day, I checked the trust list and forgot about the char substitution.
The nicknames ended up being not existent, hence removed from trust list.

Once I noticed it, I included back both users straight away.

This isn't the first time two alts with DT1/DT2 power has been used to target one user in the past.  This is what @LoyceV had to say on a previous occasion:


In your instance the user and their alt have gone one step further with DT trust abuse.  I already have ~krogoth for many months now (although off the top of my head I can't recall what that was over), but I haven't ~krogothmanhattan as yet.  (In saying that, their response to you in this thread was fairly piss poor)...

Can I just ask why in the last week this occurred:

Week 166.

https://loyce.club/trust/2022-03-19_Sat_05.10h/140827.html


You've removed your distrust *and*then* started a thread about their distrust - have you reapplied your distrust of them?

So.. are you saying that you are above forum rules and can abuse the trust system freely ?

I don't know what happened between you two, but I don't see "all [yogg's] negative feedback from others". There isn't anything particularly negative in his trust ratings except a few idiots. If you have a trade issue, create a flag, provide evidence, and ask to support the flag, instead of abusing the trust system with sockpuppet inclusions/exclusions.

Edit: grammar.

(@mods sorry for consecutive posts ... i switch from OS to OS and can't edit )


how there are no issues ?
you cheat the forum rules and have 2 accounts in DT, and use both to exclude me ?

how is that not an issue ??

---

you did not address any of the points brought up

What does this all have to do with abusing the Default Trust and excluding me twice from DT ?

Also, you resort to real life violence threats


What negative feedback ?

---

What on earth would I be jealous of ?
Lol why would I be jealous of something I gave you ?

---

In the end, are you going to stop trust abusing me because your alt is DT2 ?

---

Do you even know how this whole thing works ?
Hey buddy, just FYI this is how your feedbacks looks to everybody without a custom trust list :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1000199:dt

And ... just so you see how it is through people's eyes, here's how my profile looks :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827;dt

So, what negative feedbacks ?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

  Why dont you vanish for a couple of months like you did without responding to anyone...with my money as well? And when asked to get money back you hurle insults and threats. I have all the PMs as well. But you aint worth my time in posting on this silly bratty thread.

   Very manly of you to do that from behind a computer.

   And yet here you are back creating issues like the person you really are when there are no issues just because you are the Vanishing Yogg that we all know you are. Look at all your negative feedback from others...that speaks for itself.

   I aint going to waste my time with you so go back to the little cave you crawled out from and stay there....the forum was a better place without you in the past year.

   I really feel sorry about your depression, but your attacks cause of your jealosy are pathetic. Sendiing tracking numbers when no items were sent.  

   Leave all the negative you feel I deserve, get a life as well and pray you and I will never meet.

   My reputation speaks for itself and so does my feedback.  

   And do stop PMing me with new accounts about any new threads you create...you are on my ignore list just like many other have had due to your Gone Yogg reputation that can't handle real life issues.
  

I would put my money on something slightly different, but yes let's wait for krog's explanation

my way of seeing this :

he ^krogoth did over 300 free raffles where the prize was a $1 cheap fake bitcoin shaped coin.
he organized the shipping directly to the winner from alibaba or banggood .. I know I got one at some point !

many people left him trust feedbacks, even more so as this is something he suggests / requests by PM quite often.
(i must be stoopid, i never asked anybody for a trust feedback )



(why would someone leave a positive trust feedback as krog was the buyer ? in the screen above, I risked nothing to krog)

At that time those didn't mean very much, as DT1 was fixed and clogged, DT2 was changing a little depending on the mood of the old DT1 clique, and that's it.
The Trust feedback was not irrelevant, but didn't do much to help the forum really..

---

Then, theymos changed the way DT worked :


This change happened in 2019, leaving krog almost 2 years to farm trust with $1 raffles.
Obviously, when the update happened, dude got among the top

I guess it takes some time to spot the bad apples ...

Well, what happened is that I had both there in ~ for a long time.

At some point recently, I mistakenly removed both accounts from my distrust list.
Don't ask how it happened lol but I believe I added both back there.

LoyceV's datascrape must have happened around the same time.

I would say the negative by yogg is correct at the moment, this is certainly a kind of violation of the rules. as one of the older users, he ^krogoth should definitely know that such things can be considered as trust abuse.
I believe there is a reasonable explanation and this will be rectified.

btw. yogg, whether you removed both of his accounts from your Distrust list before or after this research?

Well, this is actually pretty common practice and not complicated at all.
I never included my alt anywhere with the help of my main account.
Just look at my alt's trust.

Except, to know that, you have to be accustomed with how the forum functions.
krog can have all the trust feedbacks he deserves and wants, but my opinion is that neither his main or alt belongs in DT.

(got to switch to microsoft OS.. hence why I use my alt I do use my main only on very specific setups ....)

I hear your point.

My red will stay for now until krog addresses the situation AND rectifies his double Trust exclusion towards me.

Afterwards, given the general consensus, I might reconsider my trust feedback.

---

EDIT :

In fact, I have a more straightforward question :

What did I do to deserve being excluded twice from DT by krog ?




This is trust abuse. I mean, what have I done ?
Can I make up for what I supposedly did ?

What is the reason for this ? (What is the REAL reason for this ? .. )

I'm the ONLY forum user excluded by that dude, but I'm excluded twice.
B*tch I'm fabulous

Neutral feedback should be the standard for any and all alts. It's visible enough to get the point across. The use of an alt to keep the main account secure is nothing new, people get tripped up on how to treat the account is the problem.

It does open the door for potential abuses or a greater voting power, if you originally had th ereputation and trust to grow it. I doubt this was the intent, but I remember a few people in the past running into the same issue. Moving forward any and all known alts, could be added to th eblacklist that was running- not sure how often it's updated. Individual DT users can exclude the alt on their own, which should easily enough remove it from DT.

The rest is unfortunarte to see another relationship deteriorate on the forum. It's personal/business and I think this summed it up for Yogg fairly well.


Hard to put into feedback but looks neutral overall.

Edit: Yogg, I don't believe the negative is warranted on the Krogg account as written. That would be best suited to a neutral given the comment isn't related to how you feel they handle trades.

BOOO How could you create an alt account and boost yourself mate? That's pretty scummy at best. Shame on you man. I think DT people should be more careful when they are adding people to their trust lists.

Not cool. Not cool at all.

I have been reading carefully and I think we are going to have a bit of drama, because although I think you raise valid points, he has a previous great reputation and I guess he will defend himself.

I think that in principle it is not right to leave positive feedback or include your alt in your trust list. I have remembered that LoyceV has an alt and he has neither left positive feedback (only neutral to reflect that it is his alt) nor has he included it in his trust list.

And apart from what LoyceV does, which as much as he knows he could be wrong, the inclusion of your alt, and thus being able to vote double and being able to leave double feedback that is reflected, being you a single person, does not seem right to me. If so, where would be the limit?

Hello folks,

I would never believe that I would witness such ignorance, resulting in multiple risks for bitcointalk users and several blatant DT abuses from a DT1 member.

This screams to me that not matter how hard you built your trust, if you don’t know such basic inner workings of this forum, you don’t belong on this end of the DT ladder as you can inadvertently do more harm than good.
If you do know how things work down here and did it knowingly, then it’s even worse.

krogothmanhattan (DT1) has an alt account, krogoth (DT2 ).

I’ll refer to the user behind both profiles as “krog”

---

1/ Default Trust abuse

krog is abusing the Trust system.
Main account is in DT1 and the other in DT2, user ends up with “2 inclusion votes” for the Trust system.
This is unfair towards the rest of the forum users.


(https://loyce.club/trust/2022-03-19_Sat_05.10h/181253.html)


(https://loyce.club/trust/2022-03-19_Sat_05.10h/1000199.html)

What’s the reasoning behind giving a Trust inclusion to his alt from his main, and another Trust inclusion to his main from his alt ?
Both accounts are currently in DT… Wonderful Can I do that as well ?  

krog is also abusing the feedback system as he left himself a positive feedback from his DT1 account to his alt.
This results in an artificially pumped feedback score on his alt account.


(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=181253)

WHY does krog intentionally make his ALT account look more trusted than it is ? ? ?
This feedback should have been neutral like johnyUA’s one.

Doing so defies the purpose of using an alt as this alt is used for trading purposes.
In this situation, If the alt account is compromised because the user logged in from a compromised network/device (which is the “purpose” of an alt really);
it is nearly as bad as if the main account was compromised.

If you are a “trusted” user around here, what is the purpose of using an alt account on Bitcointalk ?
Well it’s to mitigate the risk of other users getting scammed by your negligence when you’re about to login on a compromised network/device.

krog, care to explain your thought process ?
You should have already taken the steps so your alt does not end up in DT2.

---

2/ Using both accounts to Trust exclude a single user

Well, this speaks of itself :




I’m at a loss of words.

Can I do that as well ?

---

I believe that krog is dangerous as he puts other’s people funds at risk, demonstrating his nonchalance towards DT / taking steps so his alt account created “FOR UNSECURE CONNECTIONS” is DT2 )


I do not understand what have I done to deserve such treatment from this user.

After seeing several demonstrations from this user, it is quite obvious that not only would I not trust them, I also tend to seek to prevent other users from possibly losing their BTC.

I mean, he is more than trustworthy when it comes to buying or selling an item, or even escrowing funds for other users, but this is not what my point is about.

Thank you everyone.