Topic: [Suggestion] Removal of signature display for negatively rated users - page 2. (Read 2586 times)

not arguing over nothing.. deal with the issue at hand.. trust ratings...

We are straying off topic, but let's see how many red flags we can find in 3 minutes:

- domain registered a week ago
- Scottish Security Limited not found in Companies House
- address is a rental mailbox
- photos on facebook taken from here: http://www.rammobile.com/Case-Study/Cat-5-Tracker
- crowdfunding for 10k pounds

I'm sorry you feel offended. Need a napkin?

Well CD, now you know how the scammers feel about the idea.   

Personally, I think it's a great idea.  Anyone who has a signature will think twice about attempting to scam or break the rules.

Yes I think that scam isn't .. or better has never been against forum rules. I've never seen a staff mod interview in a scam dispute or banned an user because he scammed, most probable because he trolled or spammed.


It's strange... but the forum works in this way, the staff members should not be considered as 'cops' .

Sorry did I just read that right.. Scam isn't against the forum rules??   I have seen that moderators do not remove likely scams but i'm sure there is no rule saying scamming is ok on the forum..

I would prefer if that condition would be applied for the banned users (only the users that have been banned due the excessive spam/sig ad) instead that your proposal. However at the end ... scam isn't against the forum rules, if it was against the rules I could say 'yes, your idea is nice'.

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

LMAO, now why did I know you'd take this stance QS? 'Obviously' a bad idea?

How do you figure that the prevention of, say, the example I have given in the OP, where a known shill for a known fraudulent 'cloud mining' scam is gaming the system and flaunting his promotional signature banner, a bad idea? How is the suggestion to have ratings displayed for all forums or at least signatures restricted, an 'obviously' bad idea?

Polish? No.. Scottish yes..

If you care to check my credentials

http://scottishsecurity.net
https://facebook.com/scottishsec
Twitter @ScottishSec

Please feel free to phone me if you are a non believer my contact info is all on the website.

Quite offended you would call me that to be honest.. we have enought polish in my country already without a myself a true scottish national being branded as such..

as we say here.  Get It Up Yee!!! Smiley

Theymos told it a million times that the reason for DT to be this complicated is only for it to be decentralized as far as possible and that means you do not hold any extra Powers than any other forum user but the weight a persons feedback has is just for guidance,it is now a weapon sadly.And because i have no problems with different opinions, I don't need to care about that shill but you CD is pissed & butt-hurt by him because he doesn't gives a fuck to your rating.

Why should someone lose their rights just because of your childish opinions ? why should someone not have a signature just because of your power hunt mentality ? you are not above anyone and nor anyone is above you.The neg trust you leave is just a warning for inexperienced or noobs based on your opinions of course and there is nothing more that you could do to troll him more

Because trust is not moderated,someone can tag me for staying alive and i cannot participate in signatures anymore ? loll

Trust is not shown in  " Politics & Society " because people wont be risking money and there is nothing to be cautious of.No one has to give a fuck to other persons opinions.In "Off-Topic" I would like to discuss with a random guy but why should i know what you think of him ? simply annoying and irrelevant.
Anyways, i dont think theymos is going to do anything childish like this.Good Luck Whining.

A quote for you "A thread full of whining a day keeps the open-mindedness & wisdom away".

You can check it by clicking on the username, it's just a matter of making it less confusing for newbies.

Speaking of usernames - interesting choice, ScottishSecurity. PolishPierogi was taken?

This is obviously a bad idea and is obviously against the principals the forum is based on.

This is nothing more then another example of CD trying to censor those that do not agree with him.

Users should do their own research to determine what is and what is not a safe/good investment. As mentioned above, a fool will eventually be parted with their money.

I do agree that trust ratings probably should be displayed in the newbie section as a small amount of business does take place there. This is in addition to the technical support and technical discussion subs as people often need to be trusted with private keys in order to help OPs with their problems.

I would agree I really would like to have them show up in "Beginners & Help" section.  This sadly I feel is where these examples of cloud ponzi sites push and someone brand new does not see negative beside name.  If they saw negative even new users would be protected in "Beginners & Help" section which they seem to target due to not showing and having new people.

Another example of it is a user trying to use signature and website to get people to download PDF and if people "upgrade" on download site he gets referral bonus ( http://sabercathost.com/plugins/rewards/site/rewards.php ) - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14555801 .
And I know some may say a fool and his money are parted.  But I think why not try to protect new users with it.

Whats the point in a trust rating if its not available to check all of the time? really dose defete the purpose of it entiatly.

Shame there is no way of blocking out the scammer's by HWID lock long time ago you could use activeX and javascript in IE to obtain HWID and do blocking. But now its impossible to do..

Trust ratings should be available to see on every board, not just on the marketplace.

I honestly don't value the opinion of people who are scammers. Neither do most people of this forum.

I would prefer trust ratings to be shown everywhere. Removing signatures would just give one more reason for the usual suspects to complain. Showing something that is already only one click away (as opposed to taking something away) shouldn't be a problem.

But if we were to tweak signatures, perhaps neg trusted users should have signatures restricted across the whole forum. I mean - keep the signatures but restrict formatting to the level of a newbie or something like that.

It's certain thread these shills target a lot, I HATE the cloud mining thread in beginner forum - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=852857.760 .   I'm afraid of anyone being new and reading half of the crap there and that is one place the mentioned account shills in.  I wish the thread would just block links to that site at this point but realize that will not happen even though ponzi.

There are others to though user: winspiral ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/winspiral-492957 ). Gets on my nerves talking about a U2 mining cloud it's another ponzi that sold more then it will ever profit.  This is the kinda rambling he does in thread over and over - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14548236 .  A U2 will never make the "Total pending investment:0.3315961577 BTC" he mentioned once.

I pop in in cloud mining thread some due to hating beginners logging in and seeing so many ponzi/scams.

Well, this is a different approach. If I think about it, it would make sense to lose some privileges on the forum if conditions X, Y or Z are met (e.g. negative rating). However, one would have to properly set this up (else it could go backwards) as someone from DT2 could take down people's signatures at least temporarily.

I would suggest to show trust ratings in all boards of the forum, yes it is only needed for sections which are involved in trading but the trust ratings is still part of a user's profile

Alternatively, display trust in most boards.
I know that this has been debated before, but above is another instance where people are led astray in boards where trust is not displayed.