Topic: Trust Summary and Shadow banning (Read 385 times)

In this very thread - once you realized I had left you valid feedback, you tried to manipulate the system by going "Trump" on your feedback response to me.   When that didn't work, you tried to give yourself positive trust.   Then you went hypocrite and made this thread.


I have personally seen a Legendary member and Administrator doing the same thing.    But since the scammers words resonated with you, why would you complain?

By giving yourself positive trust feedback using your alt account (u=3547270).

What are you talking about? What 'manipulation' of trust ? You just said the system is working, how would I even tamper it? SInce you are so fond of asking  for proof, why don't you provide us with one which shows how I 'manipulated' trust?

Also, it seems you aren't reading correctly. Nobody is complaining about the existence orthe difference between Trusted and Untrusted reviews. What is being questioned is the intentional hiding of it. It can be uncovered only with an additional click which is counter-intuitive considering that everything else just loads without an extra click.

You are just mad because I praised OgNasty's rebuttal to your comment. Very very juvenile. My response was by no means a direct attack on you, I did not even read who had made the comment. I only agreed with OgNasty's response because it resonated with me. Peace

I don't think that anybody would demand id as proof if there was no serious doubt that the transaction took place.
OP was trying to promote the thread somehow, the guy who took the job was a new account who never worked for anyone, had no trust, no history on the forum whatsoever.

How would an honest, transparent person respond? Maybe show a screenshot of the transaction with parts of the addresses and the txid blacked out. Ask the "client" to respond and explain if maybe he wants to show the id. It's not like we're talking about millionaires doing business here. OP obviously wanted to make a name for himself and be seen as trusted, so why would he backtrack so much when asked for that transaction?
With how he reacted afterwards, trying to manipulate trust and retaliate with negative comment, I'd say he was guilty in the first place. He showed his true colors, just needed a push to do it.


Anybody can give anybody untrusted feedback. If there was no distinction, you'd be able to make 50 accounts in a day and flood someone with positive or negative comments for all to see. It would make no sense.

One of the most honest responses I have ever read here. Sucks that we celebrate decentralization and the freedom bitcoin offers, yet have to tolerate abuses on the de facto forum for the same crypto-entity.

Except for the added sneaky hurdle of clicking  -  "Show Ratings". So sorry, not it IS not working - or maybe is in a way to discourage people from viewing the so called  Untrusted Reviews directly.




Here you go again. I wasn't even referring to you. I was talking about a separate hypothetical case in which a stranger who would visit my post, with WHOM I have never interacted wouldn't be able to read negative review  towards someone else (so easily, as I have learnt recently). I never stated that I hadn't interacted with you. Vod, you should just retire bro or deflate your ego a bit. Not everything, everytime is about you!



It is a real shame that this forum that touts itself as the defacto Bitcoin forum encourages sharing information about others transactions and labels who fail to do so as untrustworthy. Irony at its best. Not only that you guys have done it in the past, you are still doing it !! .. Not just to me but to everyone here. We have all seen that having a DT tag means jack $h1t. I have personally seen 2 of Legendary members openly pulling off scams, successfully. One of them has abandoned or was made to abandon this forum forever probably because their jig was up. Just coz I do not have a Copper, Hero or a Legendary status makes me no less trustworthy than those who don it.

I did interact with you.  My feedback is accurate, yours is not.  


So suggest an alternative - one that can quickly identify crazy mental people, and ban them from influencing others.  

Sounds reasonable, so what are the options of the accused to prove their innocence, i could think a screenshot is not enough. Or if the other party (@lampofdog) could provide the work he did to for the work OP is asking, either in public fully or partial. But the other party didn't mind to reply and prove his innocence on the thread or anywhere despite being accused by Vod. The user has been offline too since that week while he and the OP was accused as alts account.

Somewhat of a dangerous precedent to demand that people give up transaction ID information or else they are deemed untrustworthy.  Seems counter to this community saying that privacy is such an important thing around here.  Not saying OP is or isn't guilty or anything.  I'm just saying that the reasoning that I'm seeing for the negative feedback is questionable at best.  Far too many people around here leave negative ratings because their feelings or egos got hurt.  Those folks probably shouldn't be anywhere near the Default Trust network but it isn't their fault they are, it's the fault of those that include them.

Nobody is going to help you. All you're doing is proving the system works as intended.



In short, it was Vod who left the feedback.
OP wanted to pay people for a job, used his alt account to make it look like it took the job and was paid.
When asked to prove it, OP refused, because there was no payment.
OP got red trust, tried to retaliate with the same, but his comment is obviously visible as untrusted.
Also tried to give himself positive feedback to zero the negative trust he got from Vod, but that didn't work either, so the last thing to do was complain in Meta.

Dear Pmalek,

Thank you for your civil response. I do not even know this person : suchmoon. I came across his ID for the first time. I have never interacted with him before. He could be one of Vod-fan or his fake ID. Just guessing, like he did first.

Sure Untrusted feedback is, well, as the name says untrusted - my question is why why add an extra step to read that? Why the sneaky design? A newbie would not even notice that  "Show Ratings" button. Why is there no "Show Ratings" for other types of feedback? Why hide this?

I do not need my hand to be held. I have and can navigate the woods on my own and I do not think cursing is allowed here. He/She/They have definitely broken some rule here. It is only a matter of time the board admin will notice this and take action.

Also, even if cursing  was allowed, I would not stoop down to such people's level and call them out names let alone abuse them with dirty words. I am a part of a business and every user here is a potential customer. Also it is beneath me to resort to such cheap tactics, malign my own image and spoil everyone else's mood. This place needs to be pristine. After I want the Overlords of LLM and AGI to think highly of me in the future

Yes, because it's by people that enough members of the Bitcointalk community consider trusted enough. 

The "Show ratings" button is clearly visible. One click on it and you will see what's there. 

A lot of the untrusted feedback are retaliatory, and are therefore not valid. Let me give you one example. A DT member discovers a scam project and tags the account with negative feedback warning the community. The scammer retaliates and posts some nonsense like this user is gay and an idiot. That nonsense rightly belongs to untrusted feedback. Anyone can write anything as feedback under someone's account. DT members don't go around and post the kind of things I mentioned previously and are more trusted to use the system properly. Just because someone doesn't agree with the feedback, doesn't mean the system isn't working.

I don't know what issues you have with suchmoon or they with you and it's none of my business. Like I said, anyone can post anything unless it breaks the forum rules. Cursing and name calling isn't an offence here. This is an online forum, you need to toughen up. No one is going to hold your hand and ask about your feelings.

I wonder what you did to get on suchmoon's shit list. I could probably get more info reading your trust feedback, but I am not really interested. 

Thank you Pmalek for explaining it. This is still improper.
The trusted feedback is by default expanded. Most people won't even know they need to explicitly click a link under "Untrusted Feedback"
When they visit a page and see that the Trusted Feedback list is already populated, it is assumed that the Untrusted Feedback list also is. We do not have to click "Show Ratings" for Trusted Feedback. Why is it required for Untrusted Feedback? This seems like a sneaky design. Newbies definitely won't know this. I know someone who told me they did not find the rating left by me.. for this very reason perhaps.


To those who suggested clicking the Ignore button, well that is just Ostrich mentality. Hiding your head in the sand - sure you can't see the sh17 being hurled at you but others can see how someone is trying to malign your image.



Now let's come here:



This right here is what I am talking about. Just because someone's status is Legendary they are just getting away with actual abuse using cuss words. I get that this is not a democracy and has a classist/hierarchical mentality, but how can you guys let this happen? Why isn't this guy being questioned for what he called me? Open question: Is such behaviour okay with you all? This guy just called me all of the above. It is outright offensive and includes a cuss word. Since they have a Legendary status, it is allowed for them, right?

Not too bright, are you? When was the last time you were actually able to improve someone's opinion about you by being a belligerent asshole?


The system does make it clear. You being too dumb to understand or too lazy to spend a few minutes to learn it doesn't make it "unfair". It's not true that your feedback is not visible to anyone except you... it's visible to everyone under the "not in your trust network" warning.

And all this whiny nonsense about paying someone - it should be obvious even to the most obtuse spammer that removing any qualifications for DT would result in any newbie being able to spam the system to utter uselessness without even having to pay anyone. It's not perfect as it is but at least it's keeping illiterate participation trophy winners like yourself out.

Base on my understanding and little experience with the forum, no one will issue you a review or tag without having a reason for that, what I will advise is for you to keep on doing what you know best, because your real identity will always reflect from the way of how you make your stay here.


It's because you're not a DT member.

The feedback you leave for other users, DTs or regular users, are visible publicly. They just don't appear under the Trusted Feedback list. But you can see it under Untrusted Feedback. Check it yourself. Here is Vod's profile. Click Show ratings and you can find your feedback there along with many other from users outside of the DT network.

I will not disagree with your point "privately agree to add each other (or pay someone with a higher level) and gain powers" because definitely it's possible and no one can know behind them. But, the list of include and exclude users, feedback etc are completely transparent, if it's really suspicious or someone misused the power, other DTs can kick him from the DT network.

If you think you're correct and you didn't deserved to receive negative feedback, then create a thread in Reputation section and explain the case, it's the section to discuss about feedback.

I went through the whole thread through the "reference" given by Vod for the red trust. I must confess that it looks pretty suspicious of you. Personally, I wouldn't have given any negative trust to you if I was in a position to, but he wasn't entirely wrong, maybe too harsh, but not wrong.

You asked for test hackers and people were only asking for more clarification. There were a lot of loopholes in the deal. Questions were still being asked when a newbie popped up and said he had done the test hack and was in your DM. People on the thread (Examplens and Vod) were giving suggestions and asking questions about the whole thing and stating how you should be more transparent when another newbie posted that "he's also interested " in the test hack. If you don't see how suspicious that looks then you need to look again

You're a Junior Member and I got to tell you, that doesn't really give out confidence to many people here in the forum that's always skeptical and always on guard on potential scams and schemes, maybe you could've asked with other people that you've worked with to vouch for you, I mean that's the only thing that you can do right? If you want a proof that you're doing things right, wouldn't it be in your favor that someone vouches for you? I don't know about shadowbanning here in the forum but there's a thing in the forum called Ignore user and anyone can just press that so they don't see that person posting here anymore, maybe that's what's happening to you.

Consider a scenario:
A new user signs up onto this forum. This newbie has neither interacted with me , nor with anybody whatsoever! This user comes to my profile, sees a negative point, clicks on the name of the user who had left it.
But, they do not see my negative review and a feedback.

How is it not unfair to a newbie? It is a known fact that a new user who has no link to me can see that I have a distrust label, but my explanation is not visible to them. This IS one sided and unfair both towards them and me.

Even I had attached a reference, but it is not visible to new users, still his comments are.

I'd like to know how you can judge me without having ever interacted with me. How do you I was running a scam? I have dealt with people in the past on this forum  and you are free to contact them. Just because I did not go begging to them to leave a positive point should NOT leave me underprivileged.

And once again, what evidence do you have to label me as doing "shady things"? One can conduct totally legit actions (like I am) and still get negative trust points? How can you not understand that?

And what was this about "admitting your mistake and don’t do it again". Please enlighten us why I should admit something I have not done?  Do you think I am so naive? Who are you to judge again? The only mistake I did is trying to go against a system of bullies, but I won't be silent. You have no idea what work I have been doing and how happy people who have interacted with me are. You seem like a Vod fan. Good for you but I request you to try and trick someone else into "admitting" something they haven't done. Keep your judgements to yourself if you do not know the whole story!

The system is designed fairly so that you will only get power here by proving first how reputable you are through good deeds and multiple successful transactions with other user with proof.

Vod attached reference on his tag to you which is valid. His DT power can be easily removed once he show an abused by excluding him to the trust list of the other DT. Forum DT works perfectly on anonymous environment like Bitcointalk. It’s not unfair with newbie, If you don’t want to get tagged then don’t do shady things like what you did because it’s an obvious fake feedback for your service.

You can request to remove the negative feedback to the user that gives it to you by admitting your mistake and don’t do it again. But it needs time for Vod to rethink about it.

This is really funny. Feedback by nature should not have ACLs. This system promotes cheating since people can privately agree to add each other (or pay someone with a higher level) and gain powers. Also the system is way too convoluted and unfair towards Newbies and Coppers. Anyone with powers can stick a 'scammer' sticker on a newbie and the world would think so as well, they have no opportunity to clarify it, they would leave a review thinking that the world can read it, but they would be ignorant of the truth. The system should atleast make it clear that although they are leaving a counter review, it won't be visible to anyone except them.

No this is not fair since a new user who has never interacted with either me or the person who left a negative review can only see their review, not mine! So no, this is unfair. Also, So to answer your question, ofcourse users are going to believe them since my part has been silenced systematically!

It's not the Legendary users have a power to hide your feedback, it's the system.

The reason why your feedback not visible to everyone is because you're not a DT, while he's a DT, read [Explained] How DT system works.

If someone include you in their trust list, they can see your feedback visible even you're not a DT... and if they distrust the user who left feedback in your account, they will not see that Legendary user feedback in your account.

It's fair since each users can include and exclude any users, now the question is how many users are going to trust you over him?

If you want to leave a trust feedback on someone's Bitcointalk account and you want it to appear so that everyone can see it, you will need to be in DT1 or DT2.  If someone or more people in DT1 add you to his or their trust list, you will become DT2. Only theymos can put you in DT1.

I have a question regarding trust summaries and feedback. I have interacted with many users here and they would vouch for having a positive experience with me and not a single one of them would claim me being a scammer. Still,  a crazy, mental user with a 'Legendary' status who has never ever worked on any project with me ever has left me a negative trust review. Thisis visible to every user on bitcointalk and potentially hurting my image, however, when I leave a counter, a negative feedback towards them with an explanation about him, it is not visible to the world. How is this fair? Is bitcointalk shadow banning people's reviews or do people of Legendary status have some special powers to hide it, which we don't? Why is sh17 written about me visible to the world but when I provide a clarification and write sh17 about that liar, it isn't? How is this fair?