TheButterZone Removed From Default Trust - page 5.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Wardrick on November 16, 2014, 08:58:03 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 16, 2014, 05:05:49 PM

Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.

P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?

Quit trolling and just remove my negative feedback please.

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 16, 2014, 08:38:10 PM

Quote from: darkmule on November 16, 2014, 05:46:21 PM

Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?

I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner.

Unfortunately since your trust score is attached to your account it's easy for most new members to go off of it. The "untrusted feedback" you get is barely looked at because I don't think very many people know there's a button for it. I think this sub-forum to keep track of your trades (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0) is just fine and the trust system should just be removed.

Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me.

At any rate you will never get Butterzone off of the trust list because he was put there by Badbear and Theymos trusting him, and if it is one of their cronies they get a pass from things like this. I was simply trusted by some one easily manipulated by the staff, and not a part of the boys club here so I was expendable. This is a perfect example of how policy is selectively enforced around here.

Wardrick

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 16, 2014, 05:05:49 PM

Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.

P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?

Quit trolling and just remove my negative feedback please.

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 16, 2014, 08:38:10 PM

Quote from: darkmule on November 16, 2014, 05:46:21 PM

Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?

I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner.

Unfortunately since your trust score is attached to your account it's easy for most new members to go off of it. The "untrusted feedback" you get is barely looked at because I don't think very many people know there's a button for it. I think this sub-forum to keep track of your trades (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0) is just fine and the trust system should just be removed.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: darkmule on November 16, 2014, 05:46:21 PM

Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?

I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner.

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.

P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?

Wardrick

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Wardrick on November 16, 2014, 02:20:07 PM

Thanks for clearing that up. People on the default trust list or however way you get the power to have a -6/-1 feedback rating need to use it responsibly and from what I've seen it's being used for the wrong reasons so the people who have it either need to start using it right or it needs to be deleted all together. Using your forum power because you're mad at somebody doesn't show the maturity level you need to hold that kind of position on the forum no matter how much you've helped the site out because it's ultimately hurting the site.

There is no sensible way to moderate people's trust. What you are demanding is impossible to be delivered without there being other tremendous pitfalls being created by dictating to other people how to use their trust. You might think it is for the wrong reasons, clearly he thinks it was for the right reasons. Uninterested 3rd parties have no stake in making sure justice is done, only in making the drama go away as quickly as possible. Because of this strategy, all a troll has to do is kick ans scream and the mods and staff will come running in an endless self fueling cycle of troll-baiting of trusted members followed by claims of abuse. Trusted members operate IN THE OPEN. Trolls use endless disposable accounts. There is a cost to operating out in the open so that people know you can be trusted, and people who are reputable should be supported, because they are what makes this community work, not the trust system.

Being in the default trust is not an elected position. No one on it signed up to be a servant of the community even when it costs them personally. We got on that list for demonstrating we follow through on our agreements and operate in an open an honest manner. A long history of operating in a reputable way does not some how create an obligation on the part of the trusted party to serve you as if they had some kind of capacity of a public officer. Basically what you are saying is you were joking with this user on a professional thread of his, he did not find it amusing and left you a negative trust. Now that you are faced with the consequences of your actions you demand that he uphold the good name of this forum at his expense, but you yourself hold no liability in this circumstance.

I am sorry but I am having a hard time having sympathy for you. Maybe if instead of making this big thread about it you simply apologized to him and asked for him to remove it he would respond, but of course not. What fun would that be? You would rather escalate this like all trolls do.

dishwara

legendary

Activity: 1855

Merit: 1016

@TheButterZone, You can forgive Wardrick this time after watching the below videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPjGyJvefd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEcvPhP4tqc

Wardrick

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Quickseller on November 16, 2014, 12:59:05 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 05:44:25 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2014, 05:16:27 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 05:08:27 PM

words

It does not matter if a troll is going to act logically or not. The troll can make their invalid argument then you can respond with logic to counter their argument. Unless they bring up an additional point there is no reason to respond further, if you do then you are only feeding the trolls. If the troll bumps their argument or continues to post trolling without you or anyone responding then you can report the post and it should be deleted and/or they will get banned. If you continue to respond to them then they are responding to you and their posts will likely not get deleted and will likely not get banned. It may not be easy to do this however if you ignore the troll they will eventually go away. Also if you leave a logical response to the troll then your potential customers will be able to see your response and can see that your trolls concerns are invalid (if this is actually the case).

There is no reason for your marketplace threads to be your property. You did not invest any money in the development of the forum nor did you invest anything to get the forum to be as popular.used as it is today. If you were to pay the forum for the right to list what you are selling in the marketplace then it would be a different story, but you do not and it is not. Although it is a good practice to check places like scam accusations prior to buying from someone, I do not think that most/many people do and as a result all that a potential buyer can see is what is on the selling thread. If someone's concerns are not there then a buyer will probably not see them.

Why would I want to waste my day making logical arguments against trolls who don't care? You claim there is no reason to respond further, but the damage is already done at that point. I have reported this type of trolling and it goes ignored repeatedly. Just like you have no incentive to argue for my protection from harassment, neither do the mods. It is a waste of their time and they don't give enough of a shit to spend any time dealing with trolls. As far as people seeing the claim is invalid, not really. Often people here are so paranoid about being scammed all it takes is one empty accusation in the middle of a marketplace op to lose a person's interest.

So you think over 3 years and hundreds of completed trades as well as introducing hundreds of new users to this forum and showing them the ropes is not investing anything in the forum or helping it get popular huh? When I started trading here people still laughed at you for accepting Bitcoin. People such as myself and Butter-zone helped CREATE this community, and we help hold it together today. It is a buyers responsibility to do due diligence with their trading partner. Anyone who bothers to do a search of their username wont have a problem finding scam accusations. This is why there is an entire section dedicated to it as well as trust ratings.

No one is limiting anyone's ability to point out misdeeds. You can criticize people almost anywhere on the forum. People trading here are only allowed to trade in their own ops in a very limited area that people insist upon invading for their own personal gratification, at the expense of the OP. Vetting your trading partners is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Allowing everyone in the marketplace to be harassed so that people like you can entertain yourself and be too lazy to verify your trading partners is an asinine strategy counter to producing a reliable trading environment. You claim his right to speak is being infringed and yet you demand Butterzone's right to speak against him be limited in the same breath. As a retailer of other people's trust ratings I really don't think you have any moral authority in this situation. Maybe he should choose who he trolls more carefully in the future and things like this wont be a problem.

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 06:40:37 PM

words

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 06:23:34 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 06:17:57 PM

words

I believe that is correct. Because the forum is set to default 2 levels of trust, anyone who trusts you that is on that list also makes you part of the default trust tree.

This is not quite correct. The above people must go into their trust settings and add/remove you in order to add/remove you from default trust. The above people can leave positive feedback for you without adding you to default trust

Actually this is exactly what I said, you specified the same thing only with more detail of how it is accomplished.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 05:44:25 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on November 15, 2014, 05:16:27 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 05:08:27 PM

Butterzone, I think where we agree is that not all critical posts in the marketplace or other areas where people are engaged in professional activities here are accurate or warranted. People who engage in such activity should not be free to do so without repercussion. Being critical of a user for engaging in actual fraudulent or dishonest activity is one thing, and users are free to bring light to anyone engaged in these acts pretty much on the entire forum. For the rest of the dedicated users operating here professionally and obeying posting guidelines, allowing this kind of activity or furthermore punishing users for acting against it is a slap in the face. Letting some one control their own marketplace thread does not some how silence critics because they have the ENTIRE FORUM to be critical of users. Not letting some one take a crap all over your storefront is not equivalent to silencing free speech.

Unless you own the property that someone is making speaking on, then you do not have any right to "punish" them for what they say. You do not own the thread in which you are selling your goods, and therefore you do not have any right to punish anyone who says anything in your thread (provided they are not attempting to scam).

It is a valid question to ask why you are charging a certain price when others are charging a lower price. If you feel your price is appropriate then you should respond to then why they are appropriate and any potential customer can see both of your arguments in a transparent way.

Yeah that works great in fantasy land. In reality trolls don't give a crap about logical arguments, and regardless it doesn't stop the damage done. Also I love the misquoting of the actual words I used about the mods "punishing" me for the trust I left, and attributing it to me as if I claimed I want to "punish" others. Quite disingenuous.

You want a fair trading environment but also want to let people operate on this forum as if it were 4chan. I am not claiming the thread itself is my property, I am claiming it SHOULD be, at least within the confines of the marketplace section. Even if every single marketplace posting was self moderated it would not stop others from calling out fraud or abuse elsewhere in the forum. Additionally it costs you nothing to allow people to harass me, therefore you have no interest in protecting me to begin with, and neither do the mods.

However there is plenty of incentive for people to drift from thread to thread and pretend like they are righting wrongs so they can look like social justice warriors and also entertain themselves with trolling in the process. People can cause harm with their words and by invading and hijacking otherwise productive threads. These people thrive off of destroying the work of others and due so under a guise of pointing out a wrong to put their victims on the defensive from the beginning of their perpetration of this harassment. This will continue to be exploited by disingenuous people until the moderators and staff correct their failed attempts at moderating trust in any way. As long as you comply to it, they will keep harassing then demanding the staff correct it for them. Neutral trust isn't going to fix anything, because the problem isn't the trust system, it is your attempts at moderating it. Staff/moderators your strategy is a failing one. Unfortunately you decided to punish me and others instead of accepting that fact.

It does not matter if a troll is going to act logically or not. The troll can make their invalid argument then you can respond with logic to counter their argument. Unless they bring up an additional point there is no reason to respond further, if you do then you are only feeding the trolls. If the troll bumps their argument or continues to post trolling without you or anyone responding then you can report the post and it should be deleted and/or they will get banned. If you continue to respond to them then they are responding to you and their posts will likely not get deleted and will likely not get banned. It may not be easy to do this however if you ignore the troll they will eventually go away. Also if you leave a logical response to the troll then your potential customers will be able to see your response and can see that your trolls concerns are invalid (if this is actually the case).

There is no reason for your marketplace threads to be your property. You did not invest any money in the development of the forum nor did you invest anything to get the forum to be as popular.used as it is today. If you were to pay the forum for the right to list what you are selling in the marketplace then it would be a different story, but you do not and it is not. Although it is a good practice to check places like scam accusations prior to buying from someone, I do not think that most/many people do and as a result all that a potential buyer can see is what is on the selling thread. If someone's concerns are not there then a buyer will probably not see them.

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 06:40:37 PM

Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4). Subjective systems are subjective. /unsubscribe

You are on default trust. You are trusted by both theymos and badbear. If you do not have any custom trust list then you can see who is on default trust by going to your trust settings. These are the people who are on default trust and who will impact anyone's trust in the eyes of anyone that has not customized their trust list; the positive numbers are the number of people who are on the root level of default trust have you on their trusted list:

Code:

HostFat (2)
mikegogulski (1)
Luke-Jr (2)
dooglus (1)
Raize (2)
Maged (4)
gmaxwell (2)
Carnth (2)
TECSHARE (-2)
Caesium (1)
dilatedPixel (1)
phantastisch (1)
OgNasty (3)
CanaryInTheMine (1)
ckolivas (2)
paraipan (1)
John (John K.) (5)
danieldaniel (1)
dree12 (3)
Tomatocage (3)
SaltySpitoon (4)
ineededausername (1)
DeaDTerra (1)
BadBear (5)
El Cabron (-2)
Blazr (3)
LouReed (1)
xkrikl (1)
BCB (3)
PsychoticBoy (2)
btharper (1)
burnside (1)
Akka (1)
TheButterZone (2)
LoweryCBS (2)
stenkross (1)
Benson Samuel (2)
johnniewalker (1)
escrow.ms (3)
shiftybugger (1)
ThickAsThieves (2)
fluidjax (1)
binaryFate (1)
TomUnderSea (-1)
dwdoc (2)
Tywill (1)
DefaultTrust (7)
BayAreaCoins (1)
mitzie (1)
Jaaawsh (-1)
theymos (4)
rb1205 (1)
paci (1)
Stemby (1)
ziomik (1)
ercolinux (1)
diego1000 (1)
GIANNAT (1)
bertani (1)
Cripto (1)
ghibly79 (1)
sirius (1)
Gavin Andresen (3)
casascius (3)
Stunna (3)
OldScammerTag (1)
tysat (3)
piuk (1)
sveetsnelda (2)
nonnakip (1)
Miner-TE (1)
Noitev (1)
eleuthria (1)
luv2drnkbr (1)
Digigami (1)
E (1)
zapeta (1)
bitpop (1)
Mabsark (1)
redcomet (1)
ipxtreme (1)
Philj (1)
os2sam (1)
yxt (1)
knybe (1)
Trance104 (1)
conv3rsion (1)
tlr (1)
bitcoin-rigs.com (1)
Vod (3)
dtmcnamara (1)
notme (1)
FCTaiChi (1)
Mushroomized (2)
mainichi (1)
greeners (1)
dribbits (1)
echris1 (1)
bitcoiner49er (1)
freshzive (1)
arklan (1)
glendall (1)
Pistachio (1)
tarrant_01 (1)
tbcoin (1)
ElideN (1)
friedcat (1)
Bees Brothers (2)
Christoban (1)
Stale (1)
af_newbie (1)
eroxors (1)
camolist (1)
MrTeal (1)
cncguru (1)
Mendacium (1)
Dabs (2)
mem (1)
Namworld (1)
lky_svn (1)
420 (1)
mr2dave (1)
DobZombie (1)
gektek (1)
johnny5 (1)
dyingdreams (1)
Zillions (1)
phrog (1)
Domrada (1)
Mapuo (1)
philipma1957 (1)
jborkl (1)
RicRock (1)
jmutch (1)
MonocleMan (1)
b!z (1)
CoinHoarder (1)
absinth (1)
mitty (1)
(^_^) (1)
der_troll (1)
soy (1)
super3 (1)
iluvpcs (1)
batt01 (1)
xstr8guy (1)
MJGrae (1)
mobile (1)
nubbins (1)
hephaist0s (1)
BitcoinValet (1)
Timzim103 (1)
Rounder (1)
Nemo1024 (1)
TheXev (1)
ibminer (1)
Mooshire (1)
Benny1985 (1)
mrbrt (1)
hanti (1)
ssinc (1)
Kaega (1)
finlof (1)
True___Blue (1)
elchorizo (1)
fewerlaws (1)
bitterdog (1)
Swimmer63 (1)
locksmith9 (1)
Krellan (1)
Spendulus (1)
MikeMike (1)
statdude (1)
bluespaceant (1)
Hiroaki (1)
keeron (1)
Bigdaddyaz (1)
Polyatomic (1)
palmface (1)
flowdab (1)
SpaceCadet (1)
photon (1)
xzempt (1)
jdany (1)
mackstuart (1)
bmoconno (1)
jdot007 (1)
mrtg (1)
maxpower (1)
xjack (1)
CommanderVenus (1)
daddyfatsax (1)
Plesk (1)
helipotte (1)
aurel57 (1)
gambitv (1)
boyohi (1)
LaserHorse (1)
joeventura (1)
slashopt (1)
drofdelm (1)
canth (1)
zackclark70 (1)
cdogster (1)
DBOD (1)
addzz (1)
DustMite (1)
pixl8tr (1)
namoom (1)
blblr (1)
Taugeran (1)
arc45 (1)
smscotten (1)
Cilantro (1)
chadtn (1)
kinger1331 (1)
guytechie (1)
rumlazy (1)
fractalbc (1)
fforforest (1)
KyrosKrane (1)
ZBC3 (1)
rj11248 (1)
bitdigger2013 (1)
Damnsammit (1)
jaslo (1)
BorisAlt (1)
ASICSAUCE (1)
sidehack (1)
steelcave (1)
Rotorgeek (1)
buyer99 (1)
daddyhutch (1)
digeros (1)
west17m (1)
Trillium (1)
ziggysisland (1)
devthedev (1)
ryhan (1)
zac2013 (1)
atomriot (1)
metal_jacke1 (1)
Apheration (1)
spacebob (1)
2byZi (1)
terrapinflyer (1)
BenTheRighteous (1)
gsr18 (1)
Paddy (1)
Jennifer Smith (1)
J_Dubbs (1)
00Smurf (1)
ldh37 (1)
thomslik (1)
argakiig (1)
ManeBjorn (1)
Ski72 (1)
suchmoon (1)
Thai (1)
Vladimir (1)
grue (1)
Kluge (2)
piotr_n (1)
Mousepotato (1)
jwzguy (1)
Graet (1)
the joint (1)
Michail1 (1)
wallet.dat (1)
KWH (2)
Blazedout419 (1)
Powell (1)
shdvb (-1)
Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza (1)
nanotube (1)
zvs (1)
malevolent (1)
Korbman (1)
Deprived (1)
DiamondCardz (1)
DannyHamilton (2)
Boelens (1)
rarkenin (1)
idee2013 (1)
favdesu (1)
allinvain (1)
datafish (1)
smooth (1)
SebastianJu (1)
Rassah (1)
Otoh (1)
jackjack (1)
Eisenhower34 (1)
btc_jumpnrl (1)
etotheipi (1)
DeathAndTaxes (1)
CIYAM (1)
buysellbitcoin (1)
subvolatil (1)
cooldgamer (1)
shawshankinmate37927 (1)
webr3 (1)
vitalemontea (1)
Chainsaw (1)
BladeRunner (1)
deadley (1)
Dragooon (1)
Evilish (1)
gudmunsn (1)
spartan82 (1)
Badman0316 (1)
goose20 (1)
americandesi (1)
Equate (1)
bobtaj (1)
Sovereign_Curtis (1)
instacash (1)
Clayce (1)
KCmining (1)
@ThisWeeksCoin (1)

Here are the people who are on the "root" default trust list and can effectively add/remove people from default trust:

Code:

sirius
theymos 
HostFat 
dooglus 
Maged 
OgNasty 
CanaryInTheMine 
Tomatocage 
SaltySpitoon 
BadBear 
escrow.ms 
OldScammerTag

It so happens that many people on this list happen to be moderators and may wear multiple hats when posting regarding trust in this section. They may be posting as a moderator or they may be posting as someone who is on the root level of default trust.

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 06:23:34 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 06:17:57 PM

Can anyone screenshot or otherwise link me to the Default Trust list? The closest I could find was under my user version of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - scrolled to the bottom (TLOT is one of the 3 on my trust list) and saw:

TheLordOfTime
serp
DefaultTrust
sirius
theymos
HostFat
dooglus
Maged
OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
Tomatocage
SaltySpitoon
BadBear
escrow.ms
OldScammerTag

Aren't all the names in bold the only ones on Default Trust?

I believe that is correct. Because the forum is set to default 2 levels of trust, anyone who trusts you that is on that list also makes you part of the default trust tree.

This is not quite correct. The above people must go into their trust settings and add/remove you in order to add/remove you from default trust. The above people can leave positive feedback for you without adding you to default trust

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

I don't think anyone should be attempting to moderate the trust. I find it irrelevant WHY he left it. If people who trust him find him abusive they can always remove him. In my case SaltySpitoon was threatened with his own removal from default trust if he did not comply with demands to remove me in stead of letting him decide himself if I am reputable or not. The simple fact is moderation of the trust list from any central authority is a disaster and these types of things will become more common. If the staff/moderators don't admit the flaw in their reasoning here they will simply end up tearing the Bitcoin talk community apart with their own hands.

Wardrick

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 06:30:11 PM

Quote from: Wardrick on November 15, 2014, 06:26:23 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 05:42:42 PM

Quote from: MilesJohan on November 15, 2014, 05:34:57 PM

I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).

I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR

My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan?

Quote from: Wardrick on November 15, 2014, 05:41:13 PM

First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.

As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less?

For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke".

I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody.

As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change.

Or people such as yourself might weigh their need for self gratification over the cost of having their own reputation harmed in the future. People on the default trust got there by demonstrating their ability to be fair and equitable. If they are not free to use it in a way that they feel is frair and equitable then it is useless. There is NO RELIABLE WAY to moderate the trust system. The staff/moderators have painted themselves into a corner with this one by complying to the demands of trolls.

So you agree that the weight TBZ's account carries for the feedback he left me is fair and equitable to one post I made on his thread?

Wardrick

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 06:40:37 PM

Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4). Subjective systems are subjective. /unsubscribe

I must of mixed up the DefaultTrust and people who carry a -6/-1, -4/-1 feedback score, the second one is what I'm talking about.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4). Subjective systems are subjective. /unsubscribe

Wardrick

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2014, 06:30:11 PM

Quote from: Wardrick on November 15, 2014, 06:26:23 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 05:42:42 PM

Quote from: MilesJohan on November 15, 2014, 05:34:57 PM

I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).

I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR

My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan?

Quote from: Wardrick on November 15, 2014, 05:41:13 PM

First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.

As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less?

For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke".

I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody.

As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change.

Or people such as yourself might weigh their need for self gratification over the cost of having their own reputation harmed in the future. People on the default trust got there by demonstrating their ability to be fair and equitable. If they are not free to use it in a way that they feel is frair and equitable then it is useless. There is NO RELIABLE WAY to moderate the trust system. The staff/moderators have painted themselves into a corner with this one by complying to the demands of trolls.

I just noticed the defaulttrust list varies from person to person and I'm talking about the people who's feedback carries a -6/-1 or -4/-1. I don't know what it's based on but I guess it's something about how many people have you in their default trust list.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Wardrick on November 15, 2014, 06:26:23 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 05:42:42 PM

Quote from: MilesJohan on November 15, 2014, 05:34:57 PM

I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).

I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR

My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan?

Quote from: Wardrick on November 15, 2014, 05:41:13 PM

First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.

As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less?

For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke".

I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody.

As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change.

Or people such as yourself might weigh their need for self gratification over the cost of having their own reputation harmed in the future. People on the default trust got there by demonstrating their ability to be fair and equitable. If they are not free to use it in a way that they feel is fair and equitable then it is useless. There is NO RELIABLE WAY to moderate the trust system. The staff/moderators have painted themselves into a corner with this one by complying to the demands of trolls.

Wardrick

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 05:42:42 PM

Quote from: MilesJohan on November 15, 2014, 05:34:57 PM

I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).

I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR

My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan?

Quote from: Wardrick on November 15, 2014, 05:41:13 PM

First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.

As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less?

For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke".

I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody.

As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 15, 2014, 06:17:57 PM

Can anyone screenshot or otherwise link me to the Default Trust list? The closest I could find was under my user version of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - scrolled to the bottom (TLOT is one of the 3 on my trust list) and saw:

TheLordOfTime
   serp
   DefaultTrust
   sirius
   theymos
   HostFat
   dooglus
   Maged
   OgNasty
   CanaryInTheMine
   Tomatocage
   SaltySpitoon
   BadBear
   escrow.ms
   OldScammerTag

Aren't all the names in bold the only ones on Default Trust?

I believe that is correct. Because the forum is set to default 2 levels of trust, anyone who trusts you that is on that list also makes you part of the default trust tree.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Can anyone screenshot or otherwise link me to the Default Trust list? The closest I could find was under my user version of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - scrolled to the bottom (TLOT is one of the 3 on my trust list) and saw:

TheLordOfTime
   serp
   DefaultTrust
   sirius
   theymos
   HostFat
   dooglus
   Maged
   OgNasty
   CanaryInTheMine
   Tomatocage
   SaltySpitoon
   BadBear
   escrow.ms
   OldScammerTag

Aren't all the names in bold the only ones on Default Trust?

Topic: TheButterZone Removed From Default Trust - page 5. (Read 6881 times)