This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin - page 3.

The-One-Above-All

member

Activity: 252

Merit: 56

Quote from: bones261 on June 18, 2019, 01:55:00 PM

With the new trust system, the new negative trust comments do not have the impact that they used to have. There won't be a big red score display and there won't be a message stating to trade with caution. They only thing the negative trust comment due is cause the negative tally to go up by one. People are now encouraged to actually read the negative trust comments. The guideline for leaving a negative trust comment is now as follows:

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 10:13:36 PM

Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Apparently, LFC_Bitcoin thinks it is negative for this particular user to ask for a no collateral loan. However, since many people ask for no collateral loans, many potential lenders may simply ignore this.

Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in.

So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6981

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: unibitcoinist on June 18, 2019, 01:57:47 PM

I didn't know that you are a sig spammer. You didn't bother to read the thread.

Quote from: bones261 on June 18, 2019, 01:58:34 PM

LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it.

Alright ladies, I did see the neg and for some reason thought there was going to be a flagging. Cut me a little slack; I did read the OP and did check the dude's feedback before I wrote what I wrote. Sometimes your brain just doesn't do what you want it to do. That's the case here with me.

Quote from: unibitcoinist on June 18, 2019, 01:57:47 PM

On a side note, please stop saying "I don't know this", "I didn't use this" etc. If you don't know about a certain issue, try skipping that.

On a side note, why don't you ~~go gargle a salami stick~~ have a nice day and don't get too upset about people getting tagged over no-collateral loans. Vod has been doing exactly what LFC_Bitcoin did for years.

Quote from: unibitcoinist on June 18, 2019, 02:03:34 PM

actmyname aka ChemicalSpillage had clearly mentioned in the 2nd post, but sig spammers are not concerned about what's going on, they need to create a paid post.

We have a new cunt in town.

Findingnemo

hero member

Activity: 2366

Merit: 793

Bitcoin = Financial freedom

Yes its not fair though IMO.Because as other said this is a high ranked member asking for a loan so actually some people might give loan and if its defaulted then its good to have a negative feedback on that account but just for warning may give neutral right?

The Cryptovator

legendary

Activity: 2394

Merit: 2223

Signature space for rent

I can't agree with @LFC_Bitcoin in that case. A Hero member ask just for 0.05BTC loan, I don't think some would like to lose his/her Hero rank account for that amount. At least he wasn't newbie and negative feedback isn't appropriate in my opinion. Although I am not going to leave counter feedback but I would like to suggest LFC_Bitcoin for reconsider his/her feedback on this case.

unibitcoinist

member

Activity: 121

Merit: 40

Quote from: bones261 on June 18, 2019, 01:58:34 PM

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on June 18, 2019, 01:56:06 PM

That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either.

LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it.

actmyname aka ChemicalSpillage had clearly mentioned in the 2nd post, but sig spammers are not concerned about what's going on, they need to create a paid post.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

100% inappropriate. The OP of the thread is not posting from a newbie account/throwaway account.

If someone decides that guy is a low risk they may decide to lend to him. I’ve seen others receive no collateral loans.

He may it may not be untrustworthy for other reasons but the loan request is not appropriate.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on June 18, 2019, 01:56:06 PM

That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either.

LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it.

unibitcoinist

member

Activity: 121

Merit: 40

Do you think it will not impact his slot in the current signature campaign? Of course it will. I know you guys don't care. In fact, sometimes I found some of you guys enjoy destroying other reputation (account in fact) in the name of saving the forum.
It's not fair.

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on June 18, 2019, 01:56:06 PM

Someone would be foolish to give this guy a loan with no collateral, but I'm not so sure about a flagging. I'm honestly still not used to the system yet and haven't been spending as much time on the forum lately, though I'm getting back to my old self slowly but surely.

I didn't know that you are a sig spammer. You didn't bother to read the thread.
On a side note, please stop saying "I don't know this", "I didn't use this" etc. If you don't know about a certain issue, try skipping that.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3500

Merit: 6981

Top Crypto Casino

That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either.

The thing is, no-collateral loans are extremely frowned upon here, and it does not matter if the request comes from a Hero or Legendary member unless there's a long history of positive trades or some other extenuating circumstances which would lead the community to think the loan would be safe. That certainly is not the case with this guy, and the request is for a pretty decent amount (0.05BTC). That's probably enough for someone to exit scam a neg-tagged Hero account for, though I'm not saying this is the case here.

Someone would be foolish to give this guy a loan with no collateral, but I'm not so sure about a flagging. I'm honestly still not used to the system yet and haven't been spending as much time on the forum lately, though I'm getting back to my old self slowly but surely.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

With the new trust system, the new negative trust comments do not have the impact that they used to have. There won't be a big red score display and there won't be a message stating to trade with caution. They only thing the negative trust comment due is cause the negative tally to go up by one. People are now encouraged to actually read the negative trust comments. The guideline for leaving a negative trust comment is now as follows:

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 10:13:36 PM

Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Apparently, LFC_Bitcoin thinks it is negative for this particular user to ask for a no collateral loan. However, since many people ask for no collateral loans, many potential lenders may simply ignore this.

unibitcoinist

member

Activity: 121

Merit: 40

Quote from: ChemicalSpillage on June 18, 2019, 01:46:51 PM

The ~~trust~~ reputation system has changed.

If someone still wants to give the loan to such a person, they can. It's not like LFC flagged the user for requesting a loan.
LFC saw red flags... so they decided to warn others thereof.

I know what has been changed.

If someone tag you for some reason, no one will find you here with this account. Don't act too much.

Edit-
I see, it's actmyname?

ChemicalSpillage

member

Activity: 62

Merit: 41

The ~~trust~~ reputation system has changed.

If someone still wants to give the loan to such a person, they can. It's not like LFC flagged the user for requesting a loan.
LFC saw red flags... so they decided to warn others thereof.

unibitcoinist

member

Activity: 121

Merit: 40

Just got this thread- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/urgently-wanted-loan-to-pay-education-fees-5155671
LFC_Bitcoin has tagged user susila_bai for asking a No Collateral loan of 0.05 BTC.

Susila_bai may not have a trading background here.
Can't someone ask for a No collateral loan? You may or may not give loan, it's your choice but why the hell you will tag someone?
He is not a newbie, he is a hero member.

Topic: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 10329 times)