Topic: @theymos It's time to make DT blacklist. - page 4. (Read 2291 times)

Here is Captain Toadie right on cue to derail more. More trust ratings does not equal more protection, it means LESS as I already explained. If they are for petty reasons all you are doing is conditioning people to ignore them, justified or not. If this objective standard is set then the only ratings left will ACTUALLY MEAN something, and will have proof that can be referenced, you know like one looks for when they are doing due diligence?

Just because it is supposed to work that way doesn't mean it does or that it ever will, and after years of this horse shit it is not looking good. This standard will only work if it is implemented top down. That is how standards work. Unless Theymos comes out and says this is how it should be the confusion, conflict, and scamming will continue to grow.

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings.

That's how it's been since before you found Jesus and switched from posting bullshit ratings to preaching how proper ratings should be posted. The trust system and DefaultTrust don't prevent or discourage this in any way, and provide the tools (ratings with references) for due diligence.

What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence. But you can set it up that way for yourself by building your custom trust list and I encourage anyone who agrees with that approach to do the same. That's how it's supposed to work. Not by implementing top-down rules.

This is something that also confuses me and makes me question the real intent of all of these systems. I see a pattern of wanting to look decentralized while actually a small handful of people control everything from the top with no means of redress of grievances in any uniform way. This inherently breeds contempt for the general "rule of law" of the forum as well as any authority figures within it. People tend to not react well to the "rules for thee and not for me" type justice systems.

You bring up a good point about how convoluted this whole system is. Members who have been here for years still barely know how it works, yet some how we expect new users to understand all of this and that the ratings can mean various things. Instead of teaching these new users to rely on red and green numbers we should be teaching them to use that as a quick reference, and then do due diligence looking into a user before doing any trade. With all these self proclaimed scambusters running around shouting their virtues from the mountain tops, it also gives new users the impression that they will be protected from scams. The status quo is currently creating a lot of issues that are quite counterproductive to the intended purpose of the trust system. Then all the conflict created on top with the rating disputes and infighting is completely eating the community from the inside out. I am warning you all, this is exactly how communities are destroyed...

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings.

I'm still not sure of the trust system's purpose. At first, I thought it was about trading, and apart from a couple of minor transactions with JackG, I haven't done any trading here. It seems it has now become a measure of reputation, rather than a guide for the evaluation of trust. I'm just pleased that I haven't been hit too badly. CryptoHunter gave me a tilde in his ranking, and I think this indicates the current weakness of the system. I have had no interaction with him, other than playing with some of his posts - hardly a reason for casting aspersions on my honesty.

I form my own opinions about the trustworthiness of members when it comes to trading with members, but I've been here long enough to do this. It must be difficult for a new member to make a similar judgement.

It is almost like we could use an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings so all of this could be avoided.

Good idea!
I left most of them red trust. What’s your opinion Jet Cash? theymos doesn’t think that publicly manipulating the DT list is worthy of red trust.

I’m wondering if I should change my feedbacks to neutral. The thing is most of them have Distrusted me just for having Lauda in my trust list & some have left me red trust too (I know their feedbacks mean jack shit but it’s annoying to be painted red - I’m a trustworthy poster of over 4 years).

It's interesting to see who awards and receives merits in tht thread.

Can you explain to me why these people can not be rated again if appropriate? Also what is preventing these scammers from just buying a new account and returning moments later? The question is not if the trust police are helpful, it is at what cost, and is it worth it? I would argue they are doing more to divide the community and provide cover for scammers because everywhere is a sea of red over the most petty disputes. This makes it EASIER for these con artists to blend in.

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings. If this was the standard a LARGE portion of all of these disputes, if not the majority of them would simply cease to exist. Any disputes would be handled in scam accusations and reviewed by the community as all scams are without much problem. This system of arbitrary enforcement and abuse needs to stop.

Current trust system is proper enough to make entrance for trustworthy users. I don't know why you thinking its not fair enough. Trust system only build for keep the forum secure from scammers. Its not bulid for welcoming untrusted people around here.

I beleive this trust system will be much updated with more effective rules in future but there will be no chances for scammers. IMO Obviously forum admin will appreciate the safety of users first.

i continue to decimate all on the workings of the trust system and you here too


your statements in this thread about the working of the trust system are foolishly incorrect
you look like a moron saying i dont understand the system

My principles are just fine, thanks. You have repeatedly shown you don't understand how the trust system works, your misguided attempts to "overthrow" it would give literally thousands of scammers a clean trust rating to go out and scam again, and you live in an echo chamber by deleting every reply you don't agree with and adding the poster to your exclusion list. I happen to agree with theymos' point regarding the trust system, which is why I haven't red tagged any of you, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking you and your fellow "union of conspirators" are a bunch of morons.

Maybe you are https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trust-abuse-and-lies-from-dt-members-5105765

looks like you are on the wrong side of this forum
you should think long and hard about your principles

Yeah, I don't know why some folk are still wasting their time even trying to reason with them. They have repeatedly shown they are not in the least bit interested in having any form of discussion - they just want to live in their echo chamber and delete any post they disagree with, regardless of facts.

They have already responded to suchmoon and actmyname regarding that issue in their usual eloquent fashion, and I also have no doubt that those posts will be deleted anyway as soon as H8bussesNfacts next logs on:

Solar-powered calculators don't work in dark, festering troll caves.  They must have gotten a different number.

I had to go back and read Theymos's original post about how the voting thing works, and I get it now (more or less).  How these jokers plan to get even one member onto DT1 baffles me, and their claims of an overthrow are ludicrous--unless Theymos steps in, which would make their claims of a centralized trust system ironically self-serving.  Don't think he's going to do that, however.

Now we're hearing new claims about suchmoon buying Gleb's acount, but although I'd love to respond to those, scunter edit: Thule (I can't keep 'em straight) made the accusations in their self-moderated thread and any replies I make are going to get deleted.  They'll try anything.

Another user who has no idea how the voting system works, apparently. Observe his recently sent merit:



9 merit to hoop to bring him to 10 merit. hoop distrusts Lauda.
9 merit to TheCoinFinder to bring him to 10 merit. TheCoinFinder distrusts Lauda.
7 merit to Tupsu to bring him to 10 merit. Tupsu distrusts Lauda.
8 merit to LiQio to bring him to 10 merit. LiQio distrusts Lauda.
2 merit to mich to bring him to 10 merit. mich distrusts Lauda.

He obviously thinks that the "10 merit vote" rule applies to exclusions as well as inclusions, and is trying to manipulate the system.

Shhhhh... let them waste their merits.

BTW their new sugar daddy stingers is or was a merit source. Sent out way more than the 200 sMerit airdrop for Legendaries.

I still doubt it will make any difference. Even if he manages to beg/buy/trade up to 250 merits, that only gives him a single vote. They would have to get another account up to 250 merits to be able to vote one single person on to DT1. I would bet all the bitcoin I own that that person would be instantly excluded by other DT1 members.

For this "union of conspirators" to overthrow the system like they are planning, then they need enough DT1 members voted on to outnumber the DT1 members who would exclude them - given that there are currently 47 DT1 members, even if only half were to exclude these idiots, they would still need 25 DT1 accounts. The probability of this happening is effectively 0.

And that's not even considering that DT1 is likely to grow in size whenever theymos does the first recalculation.

I have clearly demonstrated with proof that what you are saying is incorrect.

If you knowingly keep spreading false information then this is a trust issue. This is deliberately spreading false and damaging information. That is called lying. This is untrustworthy behaviour.

If you are a proven liar then the sig campaign employing you must be alerted to the fact it is supporting liars. Do you think they want you spamming lies over and over? if they do then again that is for them to state in public.

From now on proven liars will be shown evidence of their lies. If they continue to lie then this evidence must be presented to their sponsors lying over and over in public is not a great image for them I am sure. Then it is for them to in public condone or strike of persons of an untrustworthy nature from their service.

People need to be made responsible for the proliferation of false information and the damage that it creates.

Do you understand this clearly how I am trying to help you here?

Now do you find a flaw within this logic or do you wish to see evidence provided once again that demonstrates that persons here on DT are

1. proven liars and supporters of lying untrustworthy projects
2. proven and self confessed trust abusers
3. proven sneaky devious and greedy sock puppet racist sig spammers.

DT members red trust for

1. supporting "possible" untrustworthy projects.
2. presenting facts demonstrating untrustworthy actions of other DT members.

read this post several times then think before posting false information again.

It is time to try and assist people to speak only the truth from now on. Sometimes is can be tempting to proliferate and repeat false information over and over for financial gain. This should be stopped really.

Let's not let an environment spring up where there are great rewards for lying and punishments for telling the truth. That would be a disgrace to turn this board into such a place.

Yeah you are right. Rules of bitcointalk are always same for everyone. There is no way to beleive that some will get facilities and others will not.

Honestly we should maintain the mentality to accept our wrong. Its not fair to put our own blame to others. This forum not only giving us the opportuinity to learn but also freedom of sharing own thoughts.