Topic: @theymos It's time to make DT blacklist. - page 2. (Read 2291 times)

I am not aware of any allegation that anyone in that thread has stolen money/property, or tried doing the same, nor am I aware of any of those people doing anything that might be consistent with a long con. Do you care to explain why you believe these people are untrustworthy?

Perhaps you should review Lauda's sent trust and evaluate that statement again.

Most of his sent trust ratings are for SMAS blacklist (a potential moderation issue, not a trust issue), someone potentially having a lot of alts, sometimes in signature campaigns (not reasonably a "scammer" by any reasonable definition), criticizing him (not in any way a scammer), breaking forum rules (a moderation issue, not a trust issue), and disagreeing with him (not in any way a scammer).

Ironically people have been saying similar for a long time, still waiting for the sky to fall...  Good and bad people come and go for lots of different reasons, you of course seem to know the answer to everything so why not just go make the perfect forum and stop whining like a fucking bitch for a while.

Oh you disagree do you? Based on what expertise exactly gained in your 2 whole years of activity here with zero trading under your belt?

Again this goes back to due diligence. We should be teaching users to do it and READ RATINGS not just the number which is largely now meaningless anyway. There is NOTHING stopping you from making a post in the scam accusations area and referencing it with a neutral rating in their trust. This has become more about the feeling of influence and giving the perception they are doing more than they are by seeing those little red numbers flash on an account and watching people react. They are all running around trying to get their dopamine hits and bulldozing thru anyone in your path with zero recourse for anyone wronged. It has been this way from the beginning but with the lack of any rules whatsoever just "guidelines" it has just increasingly deteriorated over the years. This is driving the people we want out and the people we don't want just keep buying accounts. Maybe that's the profit model now?

Think about what you said for a minute. You called this place a Democracy. In  a pure Democracy individual rights don't exist. Pure Democracy is literally mob rule. Is that how this place should best be run in what was originally a largely libertarian community? Ok, well then you can pretty much count on this becoming dogecointalk as the people who built this whole market bail and you are left with the jokers LAARPing Game of Thrones over trust ratings. Again, nothing is stopping people from utilizing neutral ratings and posts in the appropriate sections for preemptive warnings. New users will be better off being taught the protocol of due diligence, rating reading, and checking out their partner before trading instead of blindly trusting the trust overlords.

Is Lauda the only one?
OP you should perform to theymos all of your candidates with proves and maybe he will react somehow. But honestly, I doubt that something will be changed here.

I disagree with you here. Many scammers rely on pulling in as many customers as possible over a short period of time, before they are exposed. If we require every suspicion to be first posted, and then wait for the community to review before tagging, you are now giving them an extra 24-48 hours to continue scamming until they get tagged. It also simply isn't feasible to start a new thread and have a discussion about every suspected scammer - the board would be overrun with new threads and being a DT member would become a full time job to read and review every accusation.

I think your method is correct and workable in marginal or uncertain cases, but these are the minority. Trying to apply this to every case would rapidly overload the system.


Fair point, which I accept. However, you seem to be arguing against yourself here. Many DT users pre-emptively tag account sellers, Ponzi promoters, loan requests with no/fake collateral, fake ICOs, etc, before they are successful in their scamming. By your metric, none of these people would be tagged until after they had scammed and there was evidence of theft. Now, if the community decided this was "not acceptable", as you put it, then the users who leave these ratings should be "losing their reputation and/or being excluded". This isn't happening, so the only conclusion is that a majority of the community supports this position. You, of course, can completely disagree with this stance, but as theymos has more-or-less made DT a democracy, the majority view wins.


I agree with you that we shouldn't be tagging people for disagreements or differing points of view, but I disagree that we should be waiting for evidence of a scam being successful before we tag the scammers. I also don't think theymos just giving a top down declaration, but leaving the system as is - inclusions and exclusions based on community votes - would actually result in the change you are looking for.

Exactly. Common ground. Instead of suspicion and guesses, you don't act to harm some ones ratings without a review of evidence. I would say the best way to do it frankly would be to present any evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to the community in the scam accusation area, then allow others to review it. If the evidence presented is sufficient naturally people will want to negative rate them. The standard should be evidence, review, then penalty of negative rating. It is not just a warning system it is also a penalty and this can not be glossed over. I genuinely effects people's ability to trade here and that should be accounted for. You know, the due process everyone in free countries enjoy so much?

Your assertion that Theymos will be required to officiate over every dispute is false, and provably so. Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both. The only difference is the standard becomes more exclusive, and less open to interpretation leading to less disputes and selective enforcement.

We need a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.

Current trust system is good enough IMO. I don't know why do you think that its corruptible or open to unaccountable abuse. For positive feedback every user got theur own ideology to give someone or not. But for the negative feedback its common to everyone. Its pretty much simple that negative ratings are only for scammers, spammers or trollers who continuing their fraudlent activities to spoil our forum.

I beleive no one here giving someone trust for their own intention. Trust is only achievable not purchaseable 

So in my example, in which I have presented evidence I deem is sufficient, but you disagree and state my evidence is insufficient, then you agree it would left up to the community to decide who is correct, and by extension, who to place on their trust lists and who to exclude, which is what we have now. Right. We have some common ground from which to start.

So now you want theymos to enact a set of standards which he wishes people to follow, but he won't actually enforce them. I'm afraid I fail to see how that will work. If you want a set of standards to be enforced, then someone has to enforce them. If you want the community to decide for themselves, then that's exactly what's happening at the moment. You can't have both. This is what I don't understand in your argument.

If you want people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then theymos has to officiate over every disagreement. If you don't want the people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then what's the point in having the standards in the first place?


I was perfectly civil in my reply to you, and I would expect the same in return. I'm genuinely trying to understand your system, because I (and most others) currently don't see how it would work. Being aggressive with someone who is simply asking for clarification isn't going to win anyone to your cause.

I actually pegged you for a pretty well rounded individual in spite of our disagreement about some topics. You know how logic and debate work unlike most people here. I found it sad you felt the need to feel like part of the in crowd over supporting my statements you already demonstrated agreement with meriting. I am not sure how a completely dry post about the trust system is entertaining... but whatever excuse you need to make so you are sure you don't find yourself out of the "cool kids" club by admitting you agreed with me once publicly on this topic.

The VERY POINT is they will not have absolute power. They have that now because the rules are COMPLETELY arbitrary because they are all subjective standards open to so much interpretation to be meaningless. These standards are not, they are objective, and everyone can look and decide for themselves based on objective things, not what some one suspects, feels, or guesses arbitrarily. In effect they can abuse and then just pretend they don't via wide interpretation. This narrows that ability for interpretation significantly, and reduces the ability for arbitrary and abusive use of the system.





Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it. If you have none of those things you either leave a neutral rating as a warning and or create threads warning about them in the reputation or scam accusation areas. I already said the system would be no different than it is now, EXCEPT we would be operating on a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. That's it.

All Theymos has to do is declare that his preferred standard, then the community then bases their trust list off of who follows it. He doesn't need to officiate over every fucking case, or really any, and I think you know that is not what I meant, but any opportunity to discredit you gotta take right? Or they can rate how they like and find themselves with no power in the trust system via community exclusion. All this other stuff is garbage designed to confuse the fact that this is a simply implemented solution to many problems.

Ah! Democrazy - the will of the people demonstrating their control by destroying the local commerce that provides them with jobs.

Everyone look at the harassment, also how they are trying to control the narrative. Is this the manifestation of democracy?

BUILD THE WALL 

Do you really have no shred of self-awareness? Gonna whine about merits now? Make a good post and it'll get some. Hypocritical diatribes - probably not so much, ask cryptohunter.


QFT



Please stop interfering with TECSHARE's political campaign by digging into boring specifics. All that matters is that it sounds great. "Standard of Objective Evidence". "Take Back Control". "Drain the Swamp".

You're exactly right, and hit the nail on the head. The guy just likes bitching above everything else. He works in "objective standards" for DT rules every chance he gets, but he never explains what they are or how they would be enforced. Theymos just made a move towards what he wants and now he's bitchier than ever.

Why does he think everything has to be "political"? Am I a fucking senator or something? I'm barely interesting in the scheme of things.

Furthermore, there is already a DT blacklist, and Tecshare is on it. The system allows for this situation to be reversed should he garner the votes to make it so. There's not much left to discuss.

Of course there is a 3rd option, since TECSHARE is the smartest person on the forum (probably the world) we should all just agree with him.  

I personally think we should just forget all the in between horseshit about regulations and stuff, vote TECSHARE Supreme leader of the forum!

So once we get this "must break a law" to get red tag are we going to have forum police to investigate accusations, we will need lawyers (prosecutors and defense), then we need judges to adjudicate disputes.  Then we will need an appellate court (or course we have to be able to appeal a decision) and then of course we finally need a supreme court for an ultimate decision.  You know come to think of it we should make all users deposit 1000 BTC and full KYC including DNA samples so we can make sure we have a legal way to enforce any penalties.

Bonus question, under the new Supreme Leader TECSHARE is being a liberal a capital offence?

TECSHARE Supreme Leader 2020, he gets my vote!!!!!!!!!!!
 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or facetious here, but I would like some clarification on this.

Scam accusations are currently enforced in the following manner:
1) The accuser posts a thread outlining their accusation and supporting evidence in the Scam Accusations board
2) Users discuss the issue, and frequently more supporting or refuting evidence is found
3) One or several users (which may include DT members) may tag the accused provided the evidence is sufficient

Now let's say I find an ICO who is advertising with a fake team - using made up names, stock photos, and fictitious LinkedIn profiles with fake qualifications, job histories and business links. In my opinion, they are breaking the covenant of good faith by being dishonest with their potential customers/victims. I tag them as such. You disagree with my judgement and make a post saying as such, stating that we need evidence of theft to have occurred before a negative tag can be left. (This is just an example - we could substitute in 100 difference scenarios here.)

Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?


Edit: Spelling

It doesn't really matter, it is just yet another example of how the rules are for some but not for others around here. There needs to be an objective standard set around here for trust ratings or else the community will continue to eat its own face. Eventually it will go past the point of no return. The trust system is too easily corruptible and open to unaccountable abuse. There is no reason people can not leave neutral ratings an open threads if they want to warn people of users rather than negative rating them without evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

I don't know why you think that those merits are political oriented. There's no way to be agree with this i think. Merit doesn't mean alltime support. I always prefer to give someone merits only for his  quality works. It doesn't mean that i will support him in every single time in the future.  If i find him done something which doesn't meet the rules of forum i will definitely raise my hand against him.

     Well that's a surprising assessment from you. I thought you regarded me as a patronizing asshat.
     I'm still not certain who you propose is going to regulate this "mob." If the administration somehow puts them all on a DT blacklist, how do we know that their replacements will be any better once they gain power? As the trite saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the end, it's probably going to be another clique. Like it or not, people form alliances here with like-minded individuals. This clique will likely seek to exclude those that disagree with their particular point of view. You'd be surprised what a group of people can do to twist simple guidelines like you propose and have it work to their advantage.



Just because I give something merit, does not necessarily mean that I agree. I gave realr0ach a total of 12 merits. Now as a gay man who has a brown skin tone, among other things, do you think for a moment that I agree with anything that he spews forth on the page?




      What does "principles" have anything to do with meriting a post that I found amusing? If something makes me chuckle, it has a high chance of getting a merit from me. Sorry that the joke happened to be at your expense this time.

Actually its yours, you've been using it for at least 3 years... both "snark" and "snarky." Just come up with some new phrases man. Its ridiculous how much you harp on the same subjects, year after year. I've concluded that you'll never be happy regardless of who changes what, so I promise not to interfere with your mission any more.