I answered in the other thread to not having to repeat myself again. I think it would not work for several reasons. And removing a bad rating on your account would only be cosmetics since most other forum members still would see it when they would have a controversial voter in their list. And they probably would have when many have added him.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.new;topicseen#new
Topic: Trim or eliminate "default trust" (Read 6174 times)
Tspacepilot, i will quote my answer from the other thread since it matches here too. I will add that your suggestion of changing red to yellow will not really change anything. Red is an alarm and it mostly is because of scams. Everyone can check out what it is about. When it was quickseller neg repping a newbie asking for a loan then you don't need to think automatically that he is a scammer. A yellow text instead red wouldn't change much there.
I think you're missing the point. The trust system has several wonderful features which aren't even used, such as the ability to select your own network and depth of trust. The reason they aren't used is because of the existence of default settings and the lack of any clear instructions about what a newbie should do. For this reason, 99% of the people don't change their trust settings and if you do change your trust settings, it just means that your blinding yourself to the state of affairs as seen by most users.
The idea of the default trust list was supposedly that it would "bootstrap the system" so that people's trust wasn't all zeros at the beginning. What happened instead was that the few people on default trust became the de-facto scam police. And this led to the current situation where there's always a handful of people trying to fight their way into that elite clique.
If steps were taken to educate people about how to build their own networks then I'd think we'd see two things:
1) A more natural, heterogenous community where people happily trade with people in their network, and approach others with caution
2) A healthier environment where there wasn't any one person you had to please in order to become an elite, in a more distributed trust network, you'd see many clusters of people instead of the top-down pyrimid style network we currently have.
In my opinion, and from what I've read from theymos and others, it's this latter network that we were supposed to see in the trust system, but bootstrapping it with a central authority alongside the well-known internet phenomenon of mob-mentality has led to a number of avoidable abuses.
@Saltyspitoon, upthread you said that you strongly agreed with some of my ideas here and that you were going to bring them up with Theymos. Do you have any update for us on that?
Tspacepilot, i will quote my answer from the other thread since it matches here too. I will add that your suggestion of changing red to yellow will not really change anything. Red is an alarm and it mostly is because of scams. Everyone can check out what it is about. When it was quickseller neg repping a newbie asking for a loan then you don't need to think automatically that he is a scammer. A yellow text instead red wouldn't change much there.
I think the idea of turtlehurricane is exploitable because scammer simply would have to build a lot of accounts and spam all negative ratings away. Or give positives all the way from the start.
I escrowed a lot accounts and i got the feeling that some people on here hold a lot of accounts. Account farmers and traders and obviously scammers that create accounts very often. They would get an enourmous power with these accounts.
We know that nearly no user is bothering with changing something on the trust list so i wonder if tspacepilot's idea will work. In fact i like his idea of adding those people to default trust that you trust. Then you can trust their reviews.
In practice that woul no work because people wouldn't bother to add someone in 98% of all cases. And next thing is that you never could add as much users as are on default trust. Which means you will miss a lot scam alerts. Since you surely don't want to add those users that add their negative rating to everyone who appears in scam accusations. Because that often enough are accounts that are levelled up to make a scam at one point in time.
I escrowed a lot accounts and i got the feeling that some people on here hold a lot of accounts. Account farmers and traders and obviously scammers that create accounts very often. They would get an enourmous power with these accounts.
We know that nearly no user is bothering with changing something on the trust list so i wonder if tspacepilot's idea will work. In fact i like his idea of adding those people to default trust that you trust. Then you can trust their reviews.
In practice that woul no work because people wouldn't bother to add someone in 98% of all cases. And next thing is that you never could add as much users as are on default trust. Which means you will miss a lot scam alerts. Since you surely don't want to add those users that add their negative rating to everyone who appears in scam accusations. Because that often enough are accounts that are levelled up to make a scam at one point in time.
(btw Vod you sound like a parrot).
How do you know what I sound like, troll?
Vod, this is totally not helping. What do you think of the suggestions in the OP?
(btw Vod you sound like a parrot).
How do you know what I sound like, troll?
The trust system should be disabled completely, since it's a terrible indicator of reliability and if you're new here you might think it actually means something and get tricked.
What does this trust mean when people are selling accounts "with Green Trust" on here? It's not linked to anything like a PGP key.
What does this trust mean when people are selling accounts "with Green Trust" on here? It's not linked to anything like a PGP key.
This is definitely the crux of my OP. So far, wrt mods and others on Default trust, only Salty has given a reply. He was actually interested in supporting the suggestion to at least tone down the "warning" so that it more accurately reflects what what negative trust means. I agree that overconfidence in what the trust system is supposed to mean is the main reason behind most of the drama.
The trust system should be disabled completely, since it's a terrible indicator of reliability and if you're new here you might think it actually means something and get tricked.
What does this trust mean when people are selling accounts "with Green Trust" on here? It's not linked to anything like a PGP key.
What does this trust mean when people are selling accounts "with Green Trust" on here? It's not linked to anything like a PGP key.
words
Its great that you love talking about me so much, its cute, but its getting a little old.
words
It's great that you love talking about me so much as well - it's cute too. And no but!
You just like to "read your own posts" and want to "win" as you always do.
Flame war isn't really appropriate here folks. I know that tecshare has had issue with default trust but I don't understand all the history. I opened this thread before I ended up on the wrong end of a smear attack by quickseller. But this isn't the place to discuss individual instances of trust abuse, here we're discussing ways to have less drama in meta and a cleaner and more understandable trust system. Vod, what do you think of the suggestinos in the OP?
We are here to discuss how to make the trust system better, in order to do that we need to examine its failures. How exactly do we do that without talking about specific instances of those failures?
words
Its great that you love talking about me so much, its cute, but its getting a little old.
words
It's great that you love talking about me so much as well - it's cute too. And no but!
You just like to "read your own posts" and want to "win" as you always do.
Flame war isn't really appropriate here folks. I know that tecshare has had issue with default trust but I don't understand all the history. I opened this thread before I ended up on the wrong end of a smear attack by quickseller. But this isn't the place to discuss individual instances of trust abuse, here we're discussing ways to have less drama in meta and a cleaner and more understandable trust system. Vod, what do you think of the suggestinos in the OP?
words
Its great that you love talking about me so much, its cute, but its getting a little old.
words
It's great that you love talking about me so much as well - it's cute too. And no but!
You just like to "read your own posts" and want to "win" as you always do.
words
Its great that you love talking about me so much, its cute, but its getting a little old. If my ideas are so baseless then my arguments will fail on their own right, and you shouldn't have a problem with me stating them should you? You are the one "blurring the lines" here. You have plenty of time to attack me and defend your position, but funny how all the other points I made about how flawed the trust system is, are just glossed over in exchange for your continuing attempts at character assassination and marginalization. It is pretty clear you aren't interested in a discussion, or even staying on topic. You just like to "hear yourself speak" and want to "win" as you always do.
@salty, upthread you enthusiastically agreed with my suggestion to change the warning text to something less inflammatory and more descriptive. I, however, don't have a very direct line of communication with Theymos. Is this something that you can bring up with him?
Can do, I don't have any special persuasive power, but I can make sure Theymos sees the idea.
^^^Thanks!
@salty, upthread you enthusiastically agreed with my suggestion to change the warning text to something less inflammatory and more descriptive. I, however, don't have a very direct line of communication with Theymos. Is this something that you can bring up with him?
Can do, I don't have any special persuasive power, but I can make sure Theymos sees the idea.
Removal, no
Trim, yes
I think it is pretty clear that you just want the people who keep tagging all of your accounts and all of your HYIP's off of default trust so it will be easier for you to scam Trim, yes
The thing is that people throughout the community trust and respect me enough so that regardless of my status on default trust that they will listen when I say that I think you are running a particular scam so default trust or not, the "investments" that flow into your HYIP's will screech to a halt once I out them as being run by you
This is the kind of reply which is a kneejerk for you, it's what you say to anyone who disagrees with you or has been harmed by you. You used to say it to me everytime I disagreed with you: "I think it's pretty clear you are an idiot who is just spamming his signature." It's what you said to me when I accused you of attempting a smear campaign on me "I think it's pretty clear you are an idiot who deserves to be smeared".
This kind of reply is really not helpful here. We are discussing ways to improve the trust system so that people down't have to cowtow to trust rangers like you and so that meta isn't constantly clogged up with Quickseller is giving me negative trust for no reason. Please try to stay on topic here.
@salty, upthread you enthusiastically agreed with my suggestion to change the warning text to something less inflammatory and more descriptive. I, however, don't have a very direct line of communication with Theymos. Is this something that you can bring up with him?
Could you be anymore condescending? I understand fine, I just don't accept your narrative as an excuse for lack of standards and posted rules. No one is saying other people should be told who to trust. I am pointing out you have the ABILITY to take action, but you refuse to. Just because you know the rules as a moderator does not mean that everyone else is just magically as familiar with them as you are.
"Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks." Sorry to be the one to tell you, but this is exactly what the current trust system is. I don't have "faith" in the default trust list or the trust system itself. These are people, not Gods, and I don't worship at the alter of the default trust. People do fucked up things like humans do without a frame of reference known as rule of law to provide a clear line of what is and is not acceptable. Human beings are notorious for being able to justify very fucked up things without any outside forces checking them.
You know what your problem is? You confuse me not giving a shit if you like what I have to say with not having awareness of it. I don't blame staff for everything that happened, I blame them for not having any kind of posted or regularly enforced standards as well as not taking any responsibility for their own part in the disorder caused by the lack of clear rules. They enforce their own personally serving form of "justice", but if it doesn't personally serve them, then suddenly they have more important things to do and they are too busy, or are magically always looking the other way. There is nothing that complicated about it. It is just plain old self serving behavior and nepotism. I have answered many of the questions you are repeating again before in the past. You pretend like individuals who are also admins and staff some how can act as an individual without also being an admin or staff at the same time. This is just doublespeak and an excuse to quietly moderate the trust system while also pretending you don't overtly.
What exactly about me speaking critically about mods/admins/staff is so insulting and harassing? Because it might offend you, suddenly it means I am harassing you for having an opinion you don't agree with and not submitting to your viewpoint? Do you even read what you type? What I am saying makes plenty of sense, you are just very eager to do whatever mental gymnastics that are necessary for you to continue pretending like the points I raise aren't actually an issue.
"Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks." Sorry to be the one to tell you, but this is exactly what the current trust system is. I don't have "faith" in the default trust list or the trust system itself. These are people, not Gods, and I don't worship at the alter of the default trust. People do fucked up things like humans do without a frame of reference known as rule of law to provide a clear line of what is and is not acceptable. Human beings are notorious for being able to justify very fucked up things without any outside forces checking them.
You know what your problem is? You confuse me not giving a shit if you like what I have to say with not having awareness of it. I don't blame staff for everything that happened, I blame them for not having any kind of posted or regularly enforced standards as well as not taking any responsibility for their own part in the disorder caused by the lack of clear rules. They enforce their own personally serving form of "justice", but if it doesn't personally serve them, then suddenly they have more important things to do and they are too busy, or are magically always looking the other way. There is nothing that complicated about it. It is just plain old self serving behavior and nepotism. I have answered many of the questions you are repeating again before in the past. You pretend like individuals who are also admins and staff some how can act as an individual without also being an admin or staff at the same time. This is just doublespeak and an excuse to quietly moderate the trust system while also pretending you don't overtly.
What exactly about me speaking critically about mods/admins/staff is so insulting and harassing? Because it might offend you, suddenly it means I am harassing you for having an opinion you don't agree with and not submitting to your viewpoint? Do you even read what you type? What I am saying makes plenty of sense, you are just very eager to do whatever mental gymnastics that are necessary for you to continue pretending like the points I raise aren't actually an issue.
So I bolded a few things. First, "You have the ABILITY to take action, but you refuse to" You are completely correct there. If I took action and laid down the law, then it would be the staff controlled trust system you keep claiming it is. I don't have the time nor the desire to moderate the trust system. The community can regulate its own trading practices. Did the staff tell people they have to use escrow, or only loan to people with collateral? Or is that a community founded guideline?
"People do fucked up things like humans do without a frame of reference known as rule of law" again, you are correct once again, but what if moderators do fucked up things like humans and set that frame of reference in a harmful or useless way? Everything is designed so that Moderators have limited involvement in them. We don't need to babysit 400,000 members, nor do we have the overwhelming staff power needed to do so. We keep the boards free of spam (or at least try to) the rest is on you.
" I don't blame staff for everything that happened, I blame them for not having any kind of posted or regularly enforced standards as well as not taking any responsibility for their own part in the disorder caused by the lack of clear rules." I can cite tens of instances where you say the exact opposite. You take no personal responsbility for anything, you just blame it on the staff. If you would like me to cite quotes, I can, it will just take me 10 minutes of looking through any thread in Meta that has anything to do with the trust system. But, again we are blurring lines here, are you talking about moderation policy or default trust?
" They enforce their own personally serving form of "justice", but if it doesn't personally serve them, then suddenly they have more important things to do and they are too busy, or are magically always looking the other way."
Being busy just kind of happens as a result of a website having thousands of members that are free to say whatever they want. At the time of writing this post, I have another 420 reports that are unhandled at this moment. Sometimes they take a while to get to, but as I explained to you back then, I don't handle reports for things that I have a stake in. I don't handle reports by anyone I'm involved with in anyway because I couldn't be fair and do so.
"This is just doublespeak and an excuse to quietly moderate the trust system while also pretending you don't overtly." Again, moderators are busy enough, we have no motivations for quietly moderating the trust system. That would just further involve us in more time consuming crap. What would we have to gain? If we wanted to rule the trust system with an iron fist, we would have just left Theymos in charge of scammer tags, or gone to an explicit staff central trust system. What can I accomplish now being on default trust, that I couldn't just being a moderator if I so wished to abuse people?
"Because it might offend you, suddenly it means I am harassing you for having an opinion you don't agree with and not submitting to your viewpoint?" Isn't that exactly what you left Armis negative feedback for, and that was a single occasion that took place over what, a couple of hours? This has been ongoing for months. I'm not offended by the constant attacks, I'm annoyed. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, but posting your quazi off topic, "Everyone is out to get me!" crap is getting old, especially when your points are debunked and you just continue on with the same arguments. Did you expect that you can just make completely unfounded claims and not have anyone respond to them? Try taking responsibility for yourself, create a new trust branch, get everyone to create their own trust branches, show us that you can rebel and save us time, its a win win.
There a few things you don't seem to comprehend. Theymos can enforce his trust list as selectively as he likes. I can enforce my trust list as selectively as I like, Tomatocage can do what he wishes with his trust list. Being on default trust isn't a right. Self interest is the motivation to make your own trust lists in the best interest of the community. If I put a bunch of jerks on my trust list, by association, I'm a jerk. I don't want my feedback to be watered down by people who inherit trust from me that then abuse their positions. Perhaps Tomatocage feels that the good that Vod does is worth the controversy, but hence the reason Vod isn't on my trust list, I dont. Lets all go tell Tomatocage he can't trust who he wants because it would be unfair to people who were treated differently by different people.
There are no official guidelines for trust? Leave accurate feedback is one, don't make up BS trade values, does common sense need to be posted? Need I remind people to breathe? As I stated, for things that aren't common sense, it is up for the community to decide. The Staff didn't decide whether or not people could leave feedback if they hadn't traded with that person, others did. Who is popular on the default trust list? Is there a correlation between traits in a person that others like and whether or not they are suitable to help the community? No, as proposed we can't have a decentralized feedback system. Look at forum polls, how much do you trust their results? Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks. Majority rule is not the way to go, centralization isn't the way to go either, but without a better idea, putting faith in people who have some sort of long term stake in the community is a better bet.
The problem is, you are completely disillusioned by your vindictiveness. You blame staff for everything that has happened, because A) a staff member directly removed you from their default trust list B) You made an ass of yourself which lead others to not trust you C) It was all because Staff members didn't help you in a timely fashion. Why would the staff be out to get you at the time? You keep refering to forum staff as the moderators of the trust system that have this presence over others. Have we threatened someone who didn't obey with bans? Are all forum staff members even on Default trust? What reasons would they have for trying to silence you, or bully you? What does the forum staff have to do with anything? Are we talking about default trust here, or deleting posts? If forum staff had this overwhelming power you claim they do, why would we put up with the constant harassment and insults? You can't back any of your statements with anything you can prove as true, you make a theory and base your factual statements on those theories without stopping to think, wait... does any of this make sense in the slightest? What would Theymos or the other staff have to gain by controlling the default trust list? Why would we want to involve ourselves in squabbles between people? Wouldn't it just take up more of our time and drag us into discussions like that are tedious?
If you feel like a written list of rules would help everyone out, why don't you make it?
There are no official guidelines for trust? Leave accurate feedback is one, don't make up BS trade values, does common sense need to be posted? Need I remind people to breathe? As I stated, for things that aren't common sense, it is up for the community to decide. The Staff didn't decide whether or not people could leave feedback if they hadn't traded with that person, others did. Who is popular on the default trust list? Is there a correlation between traits in a person that others like and whether or not they are suitable to help the community? No, as proposed we can't have a decentralized feedback system. Look at forum polls, how much do you trust their results? Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks. Majority rule is not the way to go, centralization isn't the way to go either, but without a better idea, putting faith in people who have some sort of long term stake in the community is a better bet.
The problem is, you are completely disillusioned by your vindictiveness. You blame staff for everything that has happened, because A) a staff member directly removed you from their default trust list B) You made an ass of yourself which lead others to not trust you C) It was all because Staff members didn't help you in a timely fashion. Why would the staff be out to get you at the time? You keep refering to forum staff as the moderators of the trust system that have this presence over others. Have we threatened someone who didn't obey with bans? Are all forum staff members even on Default trust? What reasons would they have for trying to silence you, or bully you? What does the forum staff have to do with anything? Are we talking about default trust here, or deleting posts? If forum staff had this overwhelming power you claim they do, why would we put up with the constant harassment and insults? You can't back any of your statements with anything you can prove as true, you make a theory and base your factual statements on those theories without stopping to think, wait... does any of this make sense in the slightest? What would Theymos or the other staff have to gain by controlling the default trust list? Why would we want to involve ourselves in squabbles between people? Wouldn't it just take up more of our time and drag us into discussions like that are tedious?
If you feel like a written list of rules would help everyone out, why don't you make it?
Could you be anymore condescending? I understand fine, I just don't accept your narrative as an excuse for lack of standards and posted rules. No one is saying other people should be told who to trust. I am pointing out you have the ABILITY to take action, but you refuse to. Just because you know the rules as a moderator does not mean that everyone else is just magically as familiar with them as you are.
"Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks." Sorry to be the one to tell you, but this is exactly what the current trust system is. I don't have "faith" in the default trust list or the trust system itself. These are people, not Gods, and I don't worship at the alter of the default trust. People do fucked up things like humans do without a frame of reference known as rule of law to provide a clear line of what is and is not acceptable. Human beings are notorious for being able to justify very fucked up things without any outside forces checking them.
You know what your problem is? You confuse me not giving a shit if you like what I have to say with not having awareness of it. I don't blame staff for everything that happened, I blame them for not having any kind of posted or regularly enforced standards as well as not taking any responsibility for their own part in the disorder caused by the lack of clear rules. They enforce their own personally serving form of "justice", but if it doesn't personally serve them, then suddenly they have more important things to do and they are too busy, or are magically always looking the other way. There is nothing that complicated about it. It is just plain old self serving behavior and nepotism. I have answered many of the questions you are repeating again before in the past. You pretend like individuals who are also admins and staff some how can act as an individual without also being an admin or staff at the same time. This is just doublespeak and an excuse to quietly moderate the trust system while also pretending you don't overtly.
What exactly about me speaking critically about mods/admins/staff is so insulting and harassing? Because it might offend you, suddenly it means I am harassing you for having an opinion you don't agree with and not submitting to your viewpoint? Do you even read what you type? What I am saying makes plenty of sense, you are just very eager to do whatever mental gymnastics that are necessary for you to continue pretending like the points I raise aren't actually an issue.
There are no official guidelines for using the default trust posted now either, don't start lying now. Expecting every user to review every trust dispute to know the non-rules is frankly retarded. So its not your place or Theymo's place to make rules, only enforce them selectively? "get people to agree, and those are the rules" Thats what is known as a popularity contest or mob rule. History shows how well this form of government works. If this is really what you think this is the best way, then why is there a default trust list to begin with? Oh yes, that's right that same mob might take over if it was gone. Can't have the supposedly decentralized system be decentralized now can we?
No one is forcing you to think anything, I am calling out the fact that you as well as other members of the forum staff only enforce the rules when you want to exclude some one for the crime of being unpopular, not because you are following a set of rules that are the same for everyone. This is called nepotism and or selective enforcement, and it does nothing but destroy communities in addition to driving away contributing members that dared to say things the trustmasters don't approve of. The trust system is broken, and yes people are using it wrong. However how exactly do people follow unposted rules? The staff have the ability to set standards and enforce them, instead everything is left ambiguous, confusing, and infested with Nepotism and infighting, and the staff primarily use their authority within the trust system to settle their personal disputes not to aid the community. There are no rules, you leave people to learn by example, then set horrible examples of how to use the system. Why should you take any responsibility for that?
No one is forcing you to think anything, I am calling out the fact that you as well as other members of the forum staff only enforce the rules when you want to exclude some one for the crime of being unpopular, not because you are following a set of rules that are the same for everyone. This is called nepotism and or selective enforcement, and it does nothing but destroy communities in addition to driving away contributing members that dared to say things the trustmasters don't approve of. The trust system is broken, and yes people are using it wrong. However how exactly do people follow unposted rules? The staff have the ability to set standards and enforce them, instead everything is left ambiguous, confusing, and infested with Nepotism and infighting, and the staff primarily use their authority within the trust system to settle their personal disputes not to aid the community. There are no rules, you leave people to learn by example, then set horrible examples of how to use the system. Why should you take any responsibility for that?
There a few things you don't seem to comprehend. Theymos can enforce his trust list as selectively as he likes. I can enforce my trust list as selectively as I like, Tomatocage can do what he wishes with his trust list. Being on default trust isn't a right. Self interest is the motivation to make your own trust lists in the best interest of the community. If I put a bunch of jerks on my trust list, by association, I'm a jerk. I don't want my feedback to be watered down by people who inherit trust from me that then abuse their positions. Perhaps Tomatocage feels that the good that Vod does is worth the controversy, but hence the reason Vod isn't on my trust list, I dont. Lets all go tell Tomatocage he can't trust who he wants because it would be unfair to people who were treated differently by different people.
There are no official guidelines for trust? Leave accurate feedback is one, don't make up BS trade values, does common sense need to be posted? Need I remind people to breathe? As I stated, for things that aren't common sense, it is up for the community to decide. The Staff didn't decide whether or not people could leave feedback if they hadn't traded with that person, others did. Who is popular on the default trust list? Is there a correlation between traits in a person that others like and whether or not they are suitable to help the community? No, as proposed we can't have a decentralized feedback system. Look at forum polls, how much do you trust their results? Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks. Majority rule is not the way to go, centralization isn't the way to go either, but without a better idea, putting faith in people who have some sort of long term stake in the community is a better bet.
The problem is, you are completely disillusioned by your vindictiveness. You blame staff for everything that has happened, because A) a staff member directly removed you from their default trust list B) You made an ass of yourself which lead others to not trust you C) It was all because Staff members didn't help you in a timely fashion. Why would the staff be out to get you at the time? You keep refering to forum staff as the moderators of the trust system that have this presence over others. Have we threatened someone who didn't obey with bans? Are all forum staff members even on Default trust? What reasons would they have for trying to silence you, or bully you? What does the forum staff have to do with anything? Are we talking about default trust here, or deleting posts? If forum staff had this overwhelming power you claim they do, why would we put up with the constant harassment and insults? You can't back any of your statements with anything you can prove as true, you make a theory and base your factual statements on those theories without stopping to think, wait... does any of this make sense in the slightest? What would Theymos or the other staff have to gain by controlling the default trust list? Why would we want to involve ourselves in squabbles between people? Wouldn't it just take up more of our time and drag us into discussions like that are tedious?
If you feel like a written list of rules would help everyone out, why don't you make it?
There are guidelines, solid rules cause issues. I personally don't agree with what Vod does sometimes, but I don't disagree with what he does all the time. I don't feel the need to exclude him nor do I feel the need to add him to my trust list. I could name you a handful of "rules" to default trust, but others might disagree. Its not my place to set rules, and it's not Theymos' place to set rules. Set your own rules, get people to agree, and those are the rules. Talk hypocrisy, you don't think it's fair that one person thinks differently than another person? I must exclude Vod because you want me to? You inherited your default trust position from me. I no longer wished to stake my reputation on the fact that you would make rational decisions, so I removed you from my trust list. Tomatocage is willing to stake his reputation on Vod, and that's his choice. Lets force people to make decisions based on what I think and not what the general consensus is. That's not a very non dictorial approach either. You keep trying to equate different branches of default trust, but each human rationalizes things differently. Perhaps Tomatocage is more patient than I? But regardless, just as Default trust inherits its rules from the community, it also inherits its meaning and trust from the community. If people disagree with Vod and Tomatocage refuses to cut him, Tomatocage looses his trust in the community making his branch worthless. Default trust only means as much as the community as a whole makes it.
In my opinion people are using the trust system wrong, but who am I to tell everyone that they are doing it wrong? I'm responsible only for myself, if you don't like how it works, make your own trust list and get others to use it. "Default" by definition does imply that it is automatically opted in until you change it yourself. Stop fighting default trust and as a community make an attempt to replace it yourself, it is designed to be used however you want to use it.
In my opinion people are using the trust system wrong, but who am I to tell everyone that they are doing it wrong? I'm responsible only for myself, if you don't like how it works, make your own trust list and get others to use it. "Default" by definition does imply that it is automatically opted in until you change it yourself. Stop fighting default trust and as a community make an attempt to replace it yourself, it is designed to be used however you want to use it.
There are no official guidelines for using the default trust posted now either, don't start lying now. Expecting every user to review every trust dispute to know the non-rules is frankly retarded. So its not your place or Theymo's place to make rules, only enforce them selectively? "get people to agree, and those are the rules" Thats what is known as a popularity contest or mob rule. History shows how well this form of government works. If this is really what you think this is the best way, then why is there a default trust list to begin with? Oh yes, that's right that same mob might take over if it was gone. Can't have the supposedly decentralized system be decentralized now can we?
No one is forcing you to think anything, I am calling out the fact that you as well as other members of the forum staff only enforce the rules when you want to exclude some one for the crime of being unpopular, not because you are following a set of rules that are the same for everyone. This is called nepotism and or selective enforcement, and it does nothing but destroy communities in addition to driving away contributing members that dared to say things the trustmasters don't approve of. The trust system is broken, and yes people are using it wrong. However how exactly do people follow unposted rules? The staff have the ability to set standards and enforce them, instead everything is left ambiguous, confusing, and infested with Nepotism and infighting, and the staff primarily use their authority within the trust system to settle their personal disputes not to aid the community. There are no rules, you leave people to learn by example, then set horrible examples of how to use the system. Why should you take any responsibility for that?
So from what I can understand, you bought an account which was marked as a loan defaulted account. Right?
So basically Quickseller is punishing you for a crime that the original owner did. It's sad if it has happened as if he was the escrow of this deal, he probably would need no proof that you bought that account. He himself sells loan defaulted accounts as well and says that the negative rating given by the loan giver will be removed after the loan is payed.
Did you use an escrow to buy this account from Ume? Or you bought the account directly from Ume?
In this case, again it's proved that account selling/buying shouldn't be allowed and basically buying an account that has a defaulted loan or belongs to a scammer can make it useless with a negative trust rating.
As for the crime, I don't think the original owner did any crime, its just that the address he(twipple) posted for the loan , and another address some scammer guy posted for the loan request are somehow related(look at my trust description, left by quickseller).
As for what the scam was or other info, why I believe its not the alt account quickseller claims it to be , read this : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-gave-me-a-negative-trust-without-considering-any-possibility-1035687
Don't know about Cryptosplit, but for my account, it was part of a loan default , and went to this guy Ume(who had given the loan) after original Twipple failed to repay loan.
I from my original account, had started a scam accusation that Ume was possibly giving out loans, only to get accounts from defaulters, and Ume had given himself a positive trust which I proved to be his alt.
Now later, I bought the account from him(from another account), and 2 months later Quickseller gave it a negative trust also saying that I am Ume, and another scammer tacoman, based on an address Twipple had posted for that loan request. I provided all proof that I bought it from Ume, and it was me because of whom Ume had got the negative trust, but Quickseller didn't believe me.
But he agreed to pagalwana owner's request to be sold and have the trust removed from his account.
I also did some recent research into the address Twipple had posted for the loan request, and found out some things, which led me to believe it was an exchange sites/gambling sites address, which usually sweeps addresses from multiple accounts.
So from what I can understand, you bought an account which was marked as a loan defaulted account. Right?
So basically Quickseller is punishing you for a crime that the original owner did. It's sad if it has happened as if he was the escrow of this deal, he probably would need no proof that you bought that account. He himself sells loan defaulted accounts as well and says that the negative rating given by the loan giver will be removed after the loan is payed.
Did you use an escrow to buy this account from Ume? Or you bought the account directly from Ume?
In this case, again it's proved that account selling/buying shouldn't be allowed and basically buying an account that has a defaulted loan or belongs to a scammer can make it useless with a negative trust rating.
Jump to: