Trust ratings | Bitcointalksearch.org

allahabadi

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 166

Quote from: actmyname on May 12, 2018, 09:52:53 AM

-snip-
From a utilitarian perspective, wouldn't you rather have 0 victims as opposed to 1?

From a hedonistic perspective, the individual would have to be the only one not to be scammed; since he'll be scamming all. Grin

#NotMyOpinion

actmyname

copper member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 2510

Spear the bees

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 11, 2018, 08:58:33 PM

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim. the juxtaposition in that article between "fraud" and "hoax" points out the requisite factors:

Quote

A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deliberate deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving a victim.

I think it is ridiculous that you have to wait until after a scam has occurred to do something about it. The idea of that is simply ridiculous: prophylactic action should be made to prevent the possibility of having any victims. From a utilitarian perspective, wouldn't you rather have 0 victims as opposed to 1?

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: digaran on May 12, 2018, 07:50:18 AM

@suchmoon, how would you know if you are making a mistake or not? if nobody tells you that you are making a mistake, you'd keep making the same mistakes and would think that you are doing the right thing. if you see marlboroza made a mistake by tagging me, you should tell him that. it would help him to improve himself.
You have the right to distrust me, but if your distrust of me is going to tag me red by default I don't deserve it

This whining and moaning in unrelated threads is not going to make you more trustworthy. Sort it out with marlboroza.

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

Quote from: suchmoon on May 11, 2018, 09:12:22 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 11, 2018, 08:58:33 PM

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

Quote

my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim.

This is a forum, not a court of law, and we are not talking about legal liability. Fraud is about intent.

Nice try with the dictionary but your links to scam/fraud definitions don't indicate that a victim must exist in order for something to be called scam or fraud.

Example IRL: if I get one of those "you won a cruise" letters I can call it a scam with a high degree of certainty without bothering to find out if there are any victims.

@suchmoon, how would you know if you are making a mistake or not? if nobody tells you that you are making a mistake, you'd keep making the same mistakes and would think that you are doing the right thing. if you see marlboroza made a mistake by tagging me, you should tell him that. it would help him to improve himself.
You have the right to distrust me, but if your distrust of me is going to tag me red by default I don't deserve it

iillaa

jr. member

Activity: 196

Merit: 5

A MAN SEEKING FOR KNOWLEDGE

@figmentofmyass
The scammer did not just got intention to scam but he created all the necessary tools to harm other ppl it's not just a thought .. and DT members as an experienced people will for sure stop the scam before it happen or at least with the minimum damages . ( some deals are worth more than 1 btc i guess you can't afford to lose that to a potential scammer ? Don't you )

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 11, 2018, 08:58:33 PM

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

Quote

my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim.

This is a forum, not a court of law, and we are not talking about legal liability. Fraud is about intent.

Nice try with the dictionary but your links to scam/fraud definitions don't indicate that a victim must exist in order for something to be called scam or fraud.

Example IRL: if I get one of those "you won a cruise" letters I can call it a scam with a high degree of certainty without bothering to find out if there are any victims.

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: suchmoon on May 11, 2018, 07:16:31 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 11, 2018, 06:41:46 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on May 11, 2018, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

No. What you're describing is a target, who may or may not become a victim. A scam is a scam even if it's unsuccessful and doesn't defraud anybody, or if it defrauds somebody who you think deserves it.

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

Quote

my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim. the juxtaposition in that article between "fraud" and "hoax" points out the requisite factors:

Quote

A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deliberate deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving a victim.

anyway, these ICOs and their bounties are not being materially damaged. they're not victims. in fact, they're lining their pockets (and probably exit scamming) on the backs of these horribly untrustworthy scamming shitposters. the idea that vaporware cash-grab ICOs are honorable and are "being cheated" employs such upside-down logic that it's painful. and they are the root spam problem too; they provide all the incentive and reinforce the terribly low posting standards. the bounty hunters are just a symptom, yet they get all the ire. the logic here is just totally backwards.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 11, 2018, 06:41:46 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on May 11, 2018, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

No. What you're describing is a target, who may or may not become a victim. A scam is a scam even if it's unsuccessful and doesn't defraud anybody, or if it defrauds somebody who you think deserves it.

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: suchmoon on May 11, 2018, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

and you removed the relevant part of the quote:

Quote from: suchmoon on May 11, 2018, 11:02:44 AM

Whether you like bounty campaigns or not is irrelevant.

what are you talking about? my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

and it's not just bounties either; that's just the most obvious example. like the digaran example above. it's normal now to see tags for "saying something untrustworthy once" (even in jest) or "lying" (as if the tagger could prove intent) or generic "untrustworthy" behavior. retaliatory tags. etc.

it's just rare these days to see people tagged for a bona fide scam. it's always stupid petty bullshit.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

Whether you like bounty campaigns or not is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make it right and all that.

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: actmyname on May 10, 2018, 09:48:23 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.

It absolutely is public. If you temporarily change your trust list to exclusively DefaultTrust then you can enter the hierarchal view of the depth and investigate who excluded/included whom.

haha d'oh, thanks! i sort of knew it was public since you can see who's on DT on the trust page, but i could never figure out how to read who included/excluded who. never noticed the hierarchal view---that's really helpful.

actmyname

copper member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 2510

Spear the bees

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.

It absolutely is public. If you temporarily change your trust list to exclusively DefaultTrust then you can enter the hierarchal view of the depth and investigate who excluded/included whom.

In fact, all trust inclusions/exclusions are public and in a document:

Quote from: theymos on September 10, 2015, 05:30:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz

I made it so that'll update every Saturday at 02:52 UTC. -> is "trusts", and -/> is "excludes". Only people with at least 1 post are included. If someone has never touched their trust list, then their trust in DefaultTrust is not shown.

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 01:55:29 PM

Enrolling alt accounts in the same bounties/giveaways even if it is clearly stated "one account is allowed" is cheating people who are paying them for "work".

scams require the existence of victims. again:

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 01:55:29 PM

Quote

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

No, I was tagging them before I become DT and I don't see any reason why should I stop tagging them now.

um, okay....? you're still the most egregious example.

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 01:55:29 PM

Quote

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Are you trying to say whoever tagged alt account cheater misused DT position?

i'm saying that---in most cases---it's a misuse of the trust system, period. it does absolutely nothing to prevent scams. fyi, neutral trust exists for situations where a user isn't actually a scammer.

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 01:55:29 PM

Any particular reason why you are pointing at me, because I am sure there are other DT members who tagged lots more cheaters than I did.

as i've stated multiple times, you are not the only problematic DT member.

and if you would simply read my replies before responding, you'd know precisely why i am "pointing at you". digaran asked specifically about your feedback:

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 09, 2018, 08:41:15 PM

Quote from: digaran on May 07, 2018, 10:41:30 AM

read my red tag by marlboroza. would you say i deserved it?

i added ~marlboroza to my trust settings after that. never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red.

so, i checked the feedback. you literally tagged the guy over one sarcastic remark---nothing at all to do with scamming. WTF? then i took a look at your sent feedback. holy shit, what a pile of garbage......

Quote from: Astargath on May 10, 2018, 02:02:12 PM

Well, probably not but I would still focus more on garbage posting than alt hunting. I wouldn't care if someone had 1k accounts as long as he has decent posts. You might as well tag shit posters too.

well, that's actually what he's doing. marlboroza (and anyone with a brain) knows the bounty campaigns aren't getting scammed. it's just an underhanded way to tag shitposters.

but i don't think that's a proper use of the trust system, and i believe theymos has specifically said that. "shitposter" ≠ "scammer".

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 03:15:04 PM

Quote from: gobsmacker on May 10, 2018, 02:14:25 PM

~

His account has solid connection with scammer.

Quote from: Astargath on May 10, 2018, 02:02:12 PM

''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating.

Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it.

I'll quote something which I received in PM recently:

Quote

Hello Sir i am not holding these accounts, I have only this account but these are my friends and we are working together on the forum, We just following the (user) posts as he referred us so we copy his data and the campaigns because of lake of knowledge but posting from our accounts and in some bounty account requirement we use latest post so you can see same posts as well. For the transactions we send our coins to (user) and (user) some times as we need money s o we sell those go them, in which way we can prove our identity? sir (user) account is ban due to signature scam since long time so he created other id named (user) yes (user) is his 2nd account, kindly remove negative trust from my id please I am just working here with my own account.

All "users" are connected recently.
Do you see this as mistake?

Well, probably not but I would still focus more on garbage posting than alt hunting. I wouldn't care if someone had 1k accounts as long as he has decent posts. You might as well tag shit posters too.

BitcoinSupremo

copper member

Activity: 1442

Merit: 529

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 03:15:04 PM

Quote from: gobsmacker on May 10, 2018, 02:14:25 PM

~

His account has solid connection with scammer.

Quote from: Astargath on May 10, 2018, 02:02:12 PM

''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating.

Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it.

I'll quote something which I received in PM recently:

Quote

Hello Sir i am not holding these accounts, I have only this account but these are my friends and we are working together on the forum, We just following the (user) posts as he referred us so we copy his data and the campaigns because of lake of knowledge but posting from our accounts and in some bounty account requirement we use latest post so you can see same posts as well. For the transactions we send our coins to (user) and (user) some times as we need money s o we sell those go them, in which way we can prove our identity? sir (user) account is ban due to signature scam since long time so he created other id named (user) yes (user) is his 2nd account, kindly remove negative trust from my id please I am just working here with my own account.

All "users" are connected recently.
Do you see this as mistake?

I didn't know back then as I was an amateur I have said it many times ,first registered here on February 2016. It was an error and I am back to my only original account being this one. Anyway no more time for this, you are distracting me from my tipping service. Last post here, no problem for me wearing red. Good night all.

marlboroza

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 2272

Quote from: gobsmacker on May 10, 2018, 02:14:25 PM

~

His account has solid connection with scammer.

Quote from: Astargath on May 10, 2018, 02:02:12 PM

''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating.

Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it.

I'll quote something which I received in PM recently:

Quote

Hello Sir i am not holding these accounts, I have only this account but these are my friends and we are working together on the forum, We just following the (user) posts as he referred us so we copy his data and the campaigns because of lake of knowledge but posting from our accounts and in some bounty account requirement we use latest post so you can see same posts as well. For the transactions we send our coins to (user) and (user) some times as we need money s o we sell those go them, in which way we can prove our identity? sir (user) account is ban due to signature scam since long time so he created other id named (user) yes (user) is his 2nd account, kindly remove negative trust from my id please I am just working here with my own account.

All "users" are connected recently.
Do you see this as mistake?

gobsmacker

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 0

Quote from: BitcoinSupremo on May 10, 2018, 01:59:04 PM

Which supposedly bounty did I cheat, check my other accounts date last login, it is clear they are all abandoned before they received negative feedback. I accepted that I did the error and abandoned all accounts, this is my original account which has some reds because I bought accounts in 2016. Now we are in 2018 and I only have this account active. I think it is an unfair trust rating , anyway I am used to it now.

I guess for buying forum accounts some years ago. Maybe he should tag Lauda and others who have been caught doing that. Haha, can you imagine that?? Equally applied standards from DT?? What a joke. The trust system is rotten and corrupt. Wink

Astargath

hero member

Activity: 1624

Merit: 645

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 01:55:29 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 11:59:38 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 11:13:51 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 11:04:14 AM

it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

Are you sure you are pointing only at me? Roll Eyes

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

to reiterate:

Quote

never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red.

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Enrolling alt accounts in the same bounties/giveaways even if it is clearly stated "one account is allowed" is cheating people who are paying them for "work".

Quote

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

No, I was tagging them before I become DT and I don't see any reason why should I stop tagging them now.

Quote

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Are you trying to say whoever tagged alt account cheater misused DT position?

Any particular reason why you are pointing at me, because I am sure there are other DT members who tagged lots more cheaters than I did.

''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating.

Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it.

BitcoinSupremo

copper member

Activity: 1442

Merit: 529

Which supposedly bounty did I cheat, check my other accounts date last login, it is clear they are all abandoned before they received negative feedback. I accepted that I did the error and abandoned all accounts, this is my original account which has some reds because I bought accounts in 2016. Now we are in 2018 and I only have this account active. I think it is an unfair trust rating , anyway I am used to it now.

marlboroza

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 2272

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 11:59:38 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on May 10, 2018, 11:13:51 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on May 10, 2018, 11:04:14 AM

it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

Are you sure you are pointing only at me? Roll Eyes

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

to reiterate:

Quote

never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red.

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Enrolling alt accounts in the same bounties/giveaways even if it is clearly stated "one account is allowed" is cheating people who are paying them for "work".

Quote

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

No, I was tagging them before I become DT and I don't see any reason why should I stop tagging them now.

Quote

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Are you trying to say whoever tagged alt account cheater misused DT position?

Any particular reason why you are pointing at me, because I am sure there are other DT members who tagged lots more cheaters than I did.

Topic: Trust ratings (Read 1000 times)