Topic: @theymos It's time to make DT blacklist. (Read 2297 times)

In a financial deal even next-of-kin may deceive you. Don't be so naive, Jet Cash. The btt trust system is just a tool for those who suffer from   the  imaginary superiority complex. No one in their right mind would pay attention to the trust points set  up by facelesses from nowhere.

Excuse me if your little selective editing game does not engender confidence in your unbiased examination of the topic. This is the same game Suchmoon likes to play. I answer the same question 8 times and each time they  pretend as if I never even attempted to address it. You can continue along with this strategy if you like but I will just start using quotes if so.




More exclusives standard for rating = less negative ratings = less dispute = no need for EVERY one to be disputed. If you feel you have case closing evidence against some one nothing is stopping you from rating, just know it will then be you under the microscope if you are wrong.


Here you are again insisting that the number of ratings disputes will HAVE to be the same for some undefined reason, I explained above why it will not be the case. Your insistence that there must be more ratings directly implies that more ratings are desirable for some reason. If not, then why exactly must we have the excessive amount we currently have? This is another case of trying to say something without saying it. This question has been answered, several times.




Rather convenient you need not reply to a simple logical formula. After all it does not fit the definition YOU wanted, therefore it MUST be invalid right? I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that you have no argument against the logic itself. No it is just nonsense and beneath you to reply is it?

How about this. How about you define an attainable metric under which

"evidence that too many red ratings provide cover." is potentially obtained.

Then we will operate from there. Of course you didn't purposely word this in such a way that you could later add qualifiers making answering this question to your satisfaction impossible now did you? Of course you could provide a metric under which this is possible to prove right? Oh no? Then lets use simple logic, like the kind you just summarily dismissed and declared you need not respond to.




Again this is just a rephrasing of the same argument you made above in a different way. Every rating will not result in a dispute or a discussion. It is not a hearing, it is a presentation of evidence upon which a proposed rating will be given. Nothing is stopping anyone from rating at any time as long as they are willing to endorse the evidence. In short this is what happens in scam accusations every single day, only now you would be expected to have evidence before damaging some ones trust ratings.






How many ways are you going to rephrase the same argument? You didn't demonstrate anything. You made assumptions then operate from those assumptions while completely ignoring the explanations why your assumptions are wrong. You are assuming. You are assuming it "doesn't work" because "overload" which I explained  in detail will not happen above because every rating will not be disputed. It does in fact change the system because the standard will be evidence instead of "I feel like [insert crime here] prove me wrong." That means we start from an objective point, not a guaranteed dispute point as is standard now.

In summary you haven't shown anything to be false. Essentially you have one argument you repeated in three different ways then proceeded to pretend I had not already answered all of these arguments. Here they are. Refute them, or keep repeating yourself then blame me for talking in circles as you rephrase the same argument 8 different ways.

Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post.

Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here.

Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.

Your fourth paragraph doesn't require a response - I am not offering a solution because I'm not the one trying to change the system, and the assumptions you keep claiming I have made I have shown to be false.

A+ responding. Now trying addressing the points. Or don't. I'm kinda bored of going in circles as you attack me/fake assumptions/things I never said, instead of actually clarifying how you want your system to work.

A+ selective editing. Now try logic.

I mean, I didn't say that in the slightest. In fact, I said the exact opposite:


If you have no proof of your statement, then you are making an assumption that it is ture.


How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now.


You can get caught up on whatever assumptions you think I have made but it doesn't change my points. The system you have outlined either doesn't change anything or doesn't work. This conversation is probably now moot, however, given this recent post from theymos:

And you are somebody? No delusional sense of grandiosity here... Also I can say fairly confidently most of the last people posting are no where near leftists, but whatever fits the meme you want to try to force go for it.



Yes, actually you did make the assumption, and you did it again by stating it as a given that there would again be the same number of ratings needing review. Not at all true. If you aren't suggesting they help prevent scams what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.

No evidence? How about simple logic. more signal noise = less reliable signal = more people ignoring signal. It is not a complicated concept. Again, you are assuming these ratings are some how helpful, but in a way you refuse to define or demonstrate. Ratings for petty subjective issues are not helpful. That is why we need an objective standard for leaving ratings.

The objective standard also conveniently gets rid of the majority of cases of disputes over what is an acceptable rating so, no they will not all require discussion. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

I see you criticizing, I don't see you offering solutions or even arguing my logic, just making repeated assumptions to justify your position.

---

At some point this turned into petty envy; they are nobodies anymore especially in the crypto sphere outside of the forum. Gotta love delusional leftists. #Harassment, #Abuse, #Blacklist

You forgot to mention "pill addict" and "witch". You can't be trusted if you're deliberately hiding important details.

Actually there isn’t any allegation that they have done anything that is reasonably described as a scam or scam attempt, not on their trust page or elsewhere. The negative feedback they have is from people not liking trying to get people to distrust Lauda and using negative trust to discourage others from siding with them. 

I don’t think any of them are particularly trustworthy, don’t have any of them on my trust list and certainly would not trust them with money. I would treat them as any other person with neutral trust and little/no trading history.

I don’t really understand why so many people are willing to defend lauda. He is a scammer who has extorted at least one person (unsuccessfully), is not transparent in his business dealings to the extent it is likely he was advertising multiple scams and stole hundreds of bitcoin (priced at 10k+) in his escrow dealings and is very immature. I have not seen him provide any original research in finding alleged scammers, as he is mostly reacting to reports found in reputation and scam accusations. If you ask my opinion, I would say he is using his title of “scam buster” to shield himself from criticism and from being held accountable for stealing from others.

I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out the number of negative feedbacks being left which, under your system, would each require discussion.


I see your point, but we have no evidence that too many red ratings provide cover. I agree there are a minority of users who will robbed/scammed regardless, but that's not an argument to remove the ratings from the majority of users who find them helpful.


Again, I never stated that. Those ratings could all be nonsense, but they would still all require discussion prior to reaching that conclusion under your system.


I would like that too. I think there are too many negative ratings left (i.e. all of them) for differing opinions or points of view. I just don't think the system or methods you have outlined are going to get us there.

Sold or hacked?

Not with users like TMAN, owlcatz, & Lauda in DT1 we can't.

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best. If people aren't even going to read the person's ratings having a red mark in a sea of red marks is not going to signal much and actually ends up providing cover for them. Furthermore that level of complete lack of due diligence guarantees a user will eventually be robbed regardless of what anyone else does.

Second you are assuming that every one of those ratings was valid, beneficial, and needed to be made. That I highly doubt. Also the whole point is there are less negative ratings left. Now only instead of any crime they can imagine happening being justification for a rating, they will have to document it first. The result is then higher regularity and quality of ratings and oh suddenly those red and green numbers have meaning again don't they? After all they are practically meaningless as quick indicators as they are currently used.

Last you are arguing from a point of view that the forum can even be actively protected from these scams, and attempting to do so pre-emptively is desirable. The fact is even if these people spend all day running accounts through the meat grinder negging them, at best it slows down these people. The question is at what cost to the contributing user base?

This system is becoming far too complex. Can't we have a system which helps us to decide if a member can be trusted in a financial deal?

Except it is true.

You have previously stated multiple times that for each negative rating you want users to first present their evidence in a Scam Accusations thread:

In the last 7 days, DT1 members left 273 negative ratings. That's 273 new threads in Scam Accusations which you want DT1 members to read, review, reach a conclusion, and act upon. And that's only ratings from the 54 DT1 members. There are 372 DT2 members I did not bother to pull data for.

It is impossible to expect DT1 members to reach a conclusion on literally hundreds, if not a thousand or so, new Scam Accusations threads every week. How would you address this?


Fair enough. I think it would result in some change, yes, but not the radical change you are looking for. Agree to disagree.

It is not a logical fallacy first of all because I made other arguments in support of my premise, and second because your experience in the system here is relevant to your understanding of it.

1. You make a conclusion which you assume to be true then expect me to operate from that assumption as a given. No. You don't just get to declare it a non-viable solution. I already explained the use of neutral ratings and warning threads. The ratings are overused and therefore ignored and meaningless anyway. Restricting their use to objective standards returns the standard back to quality not quantity so when you see a negative rating it means something.

2. Again you are repeating your argument from before only from another perspective. The community already follows Theymos's guidelines to a large degree as I already demonstrated. At the end of the day all this talk of decentralization is meaningless because this is a centralized site, and he is the ultimate authority here. So yes a simple post from him making this the standard would change things.

Your argument from authority is a logical fallacy. My "expertise" is irrelevant to the points I have made. If you are unable to defend your position logically, it suggests that your position does not posses sufficient merit to be defended. Once again, I was perfectly civil in my reply to you, and I would expect the same in return.

The rest of your post regarding due diligence is completely correct. We should be teaching all users to read individual trust ratings. But this is not an argument against leaving negative trust. Someone promoting a Ponzi scam is not trustworthy and deserves a negative rating, not a neutral one, regardless of whether he has yet managed to lure in any users or not.

You completely ignored the other points I made about your suggested system, so I will ask them again:
1) Under your system, starting a new thread to discuss every suspected scammer is a non-viable solution - the workload for DT1 would be insurmountable. How would you address this?
2) The community already have the ability to include and exclude people who don't follow your rules, but that's not happening. I don't think a simple post from theymos, with no other intervention, would result in the change you are looking for. Do you?

From the very beginning:


What "costs" are you paying? How does this effect what you do?

First of all you have little if any trade under your belt here, so this is policy change is of little concern to you since you pay no costs for it being as it is. Second as staff, you are fairly protected from this kind of abuse, so really your word doesn't mean much in this arena. Stick to calling anyone who disagrees with you racist in P&S.

I think there's no explanation need about those guys but you wanna hear from my side . yeah they are untrustworthy and there's no reason here to hide it. These guys have got several negative feedback on their trust section and have enough referrence link there to know their past records.I don't know why are you feeling so jealous with that,,,Maybe in your eyes they are trustworhthy because you also bearing multiple red colour on your trust section.