Topic: Trust System Abuse By Nullius - page 12. (Read 5529 times)

What trust ratings of mine are objectionable exactly? Are you sure this is not just you making excuses for your personal antipathy? You seem quite obsessed with me.

Are you implicitly saying that achow101 should be excluded because of this as well? I'm just trying to understand the extent of this statement..

That doesn't make it good for the rest of the forum. Technically (pun intended) dev&tech users who do that should be excluded from DT and can form their own trust network to pat themselves on the back with positive trust ratings.

~nullius would be the proper action for being untrustworthy in the way you apply your "smarts" to the trust system..
Do your thing, whatever you want, but I don't think it works or is going to work in the way you insist it does, especially just because you insist that it does or will..

You are still "green"..
Your self confidence that you are not is a mistake IMO that will come back to bite you..
Excessive confidence and absolutism may make you seem smart when you are correct, but when you are eventually and inevitably wrong it doesn't leave much room to correct yourself or save face..

To be clear upfront:  Threats of ~nullius will have zero impact on my decision-making process.  I will not change my decisions to avoid exclusions, any more than I would change my decisions to scratch someone’s back for inclusions—both are equally corrupt.  I make my decisions independently.



That is a custom specific to the Development & Technology forum—only well-known to regulars there, and very well-known to regulars there, together with the use of the merit system to endorse technical correctness.  If you need to assess whether you should trust highly technical, jargon-filled posts about subjects that you are only learning, you look for merit and feedback from well-known experts.  Otherwise, you risk being misled by self-styled Internet pseudo-experts who make it up as they go along, on the basis of “if you can’t convince ’em, confuse ’em”.  All too oft, those are the ones spouting FUD against Bitcoin and/or Lightning, and/or giving extremely poor security “advice” that they just made up on the spot to sound smart.

Moreover, you are misinterpreting the nature of the feedback.  It is not merely marking out smarts, but trustworthiness in applying those smarts.

For a real-world exampe to illustrate why:  The original creator of brainwallet.org undoubtedly had a high IQ, and a strong technical competence in Bitcoin.  He did it to fool people into making wallets that he could more easily crack, a concept later demonstrated by whitehat ryanc’s brainflayer (created to show people WHY YOU SHOULD NOT USE BRAINWALLETS).  Dev & Tech still sometimes suffers “security advice” from brainwallet advocates who are probably just itching to use brainflayer themselves.

When you see a brainwallet advocate tell you X, Y, and Z about technical topics you don’t understand, and you see nullius saying, “This is a wallet thief giving bad advice so that he can steal your money with an offline attack!”, how do you choose whose technical advice to trust?  Well, you hop over to my trust page, you see that a staff member/Core Dev marked me as trustworthy, and you DO NOT USE BRAINWALLETS!

There are also BCH advocates with technical skills, who sometimes make arguments that cannot be motivated by other than malice:  They know enough to damn well know that what they are saying is not correct!  The same principle applies.


I disagree, as stated above.

A hard-learned lesson gives an empirical example of why: alia, and theymos’ positive feedback for alia (screenshots of which still exist somewhere in the alia scam investigation megathread).

I am not blaming theymos for my own actions:  I am blaming my own foolishness in being insufficiently conservative in weighing positive feedback.  I was still green in handling the trust system, and relatively forum-naïve about all the things one can’t learn just by lurking without interaction.  Because it was a positive (not a neutral), and because of who it was from, I misread into it all kinds of things that theymos did not actually say in the feedback text.  That was admittedly poor judgment on my own part—but nevertheless, it shows how damaging erroneous positive feedback can be!


You contradict yourself.  You call my tech-related positive feedbacks “frivolous”, because they do not pertain to trades; but that is a local community consensus that evolved in the Dev & Tech forum.

Moreover, these things only “evolve” somehow:  They evolve when somebody uses the trust system to fill an actual need, and explains to others why this is wise and beneficial.

---

The foregoing was dashed off in haste, and is admittedly a bit inadequate for addressing the complex issues hereby raised; and I have perforce in haste ignored other posts raising other points.  I am only trying to cover the key points for now; I will be back later.

One other important point for now:


That is true, but not applicable to Dev & Tech positive feedback for trustworthy technical advice.

Many high-IQ people are dishonest, criminal-minded scum.  They usually become politicians, lawyers, bankers, brainwallet advocates, Bcashers...  I also would not underestimate Faketoshi’s IQ—though I would not overestimate it based on his diploma-mill act, either!  (It is actually difficult to judge his intelligence based on his writings, because I presume he may have help due to the types of agendas that dovetail with his.)

Low general intelligence indeed correlates with certain types of crimes, including garden-variety scams plus “street crime”.  +1 for science!

Bingo.  Frankly the only thing I tend to not trust about TECSHARE are some of his trust ratings, which is why I have him ~'ed in my trust list.  Other than that I don't consider him untrustworthy in the least--in fact, he has a very long history of completing trades to the satisfaction of his counterparties and thus it comes down to a case of leaving red trust for someone whose opinions/interpretation of facts/whatever doesn't jibe with your own.  I don't think the trust system ought to be used for that, and it seems like we've had this debate before.

As an aside, reading through this thread it struck me that we haven't heard from CH/TOAA ever since he promised to leave the forum--or I may have missed their posts, but I don't think I did.  Hooray for that but boo for all of this other drama.  Where are Rodney King's words when you need them?

There are far too many attention seeking members in this forum. Somehow, in their own mind everything literally has to be about them...

Being smart just makes one a more dangerous scammer if they are a scammer..
I don't think its a great reason either but seems widely accepted, such as the ones Nulli has received and brags about..


Remember Robertt?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/robertt-704654

Overly smart acting, seemingly well intentioned, and overly ambitious newbies, are dangerous..

Although the evidence isn't that strong (as tends to be with psychology), the above statement is wrong. Not being smart makes you more likely of committing a crime (i.e. scamming). Here. Also as per Ellis, Beaver & Wright 2009, several personality traits correlate strongly with likelihood of committing a crime (scamming). However, in general I agree with you due to my conservative stance on issuing positive ratings as false credibility poses a huge risk of an user scamming somebody.

Merely being smart doesn't make someone unlikely to scam so that's probably not a good reason for a positive rating.

So you're saying that I can write the same stuff, infinite number of times (i.e. even reslap the same rating) as long as it is neutral? Watch what you're preaching for.
One thing that I've read between the lines over the last couple of months that you all explicitly or implicitly agree that there is no such thing as a frivolous neutral rating, even if everything in it is a complete and utter lie which is an interesting (conscious or subconscious) stance to have.

This is incorrect. People are more likely to be actually trustworthy based on these long-standing ratings (i.e. continued display of X) rather than someone who just farms up with pajeet trade-deals. People really need to learn how to exercise caution when giving out positives.

Again, doesn't exist.

---

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing anything in relation to OP's claim or against it.

1. Then expect to be ~ because frivolous negatives are much more serious than frivolous positives..
Positivs can be left for something as simple as "This user seems smart", while negatives absolutely should be held to a much higher standard..  
Your personal opinion on this matter matters little..

2. Sure, as soon as Lauda and Vod remove their BS negatives on TS..
If you would like examples of why both of their ratings should be highly questioned due to blatant abuse elsewhere, LMK.. (added to the end)

3.  I doubt it..

4. You mean all your frivolous positives you have received for non-trade related subjects?

5. We are constantly evolving the trust system to what the community consensus sees fit.. The "laws" have not been drastically rewritten in any gamechanging way allowing for the frivolous use of negative trust..

______
Here in this post are good reasons users should doubt ratings left by Vod..

And here.. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/calling-for-sensible-debate-on-this-use-of-the-trust-system-not-regarding-us-5206862
Are good reasons users should doubt ratings by your favorite buddy Lauda..

Should I place these references on their trust walls to warn unsuspecting users such as yourself Nully?

if only 0.1% of people check trust pages to learn this information, that means inaccurate/undeserved trust scores won't be questioned by 99.9% of members. that only lends credence to the idea that DT members should not throw around red trust so lightly.

counter feedback is the only thing one can do when they see inaccurate/undeserved feedback (besides ~), so nobody should be surprised that it's done.

When you post a negative rating for someone you're confirming that


(emphasis mine)

You're free to think the above but I think that any reasonable person would conclude by looking at TECSHARE's trading history that trading with him is not high-risk. Debating politics with him might carry a high risk of being trolled but that doesn't call for a red rating.

Therefore your rating is unreasonable, therefore ~ and yes, I'll consider the same for Vod.

On the other hand, posting a positive rating for someone means that


Which is exactly what I think and what other positive counterers (not a word, don't care) think so those are perfectly valid.

In the abstract, I look much more seriously upon frivolous positive feedback than upon questionable negatives.  You will notice that I have never yet left a positive for anybody, ever.  (I have been intending one for Lauda; perhaps I may consider a few others after that.)  I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.


Hello, you sound almost like me. :-)


Hey, I said, “No backsies!”  I despise this childish game of the counter to the counter to the counter.

Because it explicitly is a “counter”, I will remove my “counter” if figmentofmyass, eddie13, and BayAreaCoins all remove their positive “counters”—and not otherwise.  However, this will not stop the potential that now that I am examining TECSHARE, I may independently add my own negative feedback at some point; and such a thing would absolutely and unarguably stay put until either hell freezes over, or I mine a Bitcoin block on my Raspberry Pi.  Perhaps longer.


Will you also do ~figmentofmyass and ~eddie13?  My feedback was a “counter” to their frivolous positive “counter” feedback.  It is negative, in support of Vod’s and Lauda’s negatives.  Moreover, will you ~Vod for the negative feedback that I am supporting?  I notice that you include Vod, and you are not demanding that he remove his eminently reasonable negative feedback that you are now counter-counter-countering.

(You already ~BayAreaCoins, so it is moot here.)

FYI, I left this feedback after Vod’s reference link led me to nutildah’s post on DT manipulation by TECSHARE and Kalemder, a Turkish local member whom I am investigating.  At the same time as I tagged TECSHARE, I tagged Kalemder based on nutildah’s post plus evidence that I will not yet disclose publicly.  Thanks, Vod!  Lauda’s was less useful, but only because I had already figured out for myself most of what it said.

Vod’s tip on nutildah’s post leaves me shrugging at TECSHARE’s accusations against me.  A DT manipulator tries to manipulate others into ~nullius by accusing me of his own guilt of trust system abuse?  Quelle surprise.


The trust system has evolved to become much more than that, as you well know.

Most of my positives (including one from a moderator) are for my technical expertise, such that people who read my technical posts should know whether I know whereof I speak, or I am just spouting Internet faux-expert techno-gibberish.

I myself have been saved numerous times by negatives and informational feedback discovered through the trust system.  The forum is a dangerous place, in a good way, because freedom is dangerous:  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions; and they need such reputational information available to them as is necessary for the exercise of wise judgment.  Aside, reputational systems are a major interest of mine; and I have had some thoughts on how to improve the trust system into a cypherpunks-style cryptographic, decentralized reputational system like a PGP WoT that actually works.

With so many scammers, trolls, sockpuppets, and other miscreants hereabouts, I would not feel comfortable even posting here without the trust system.  Before I apply significant merit to a post, I check the trust system.  Before I praise someone in public, I check the trust system.  It’s not perfect; and as you know (cough), I have nearly suffered disaster due to my own foolishly excessive reliance on a single positive trust feedback from a very trustworthy person.  Cf. what I said above about my conservatism in positive feedback:  A mistaken positive can be far more harmful than an erroneous negative!

---

(1) You, who game the trust system, accuse your accuser of your own wrongs?  That is exactly the type of dishonest behaviour that will earn a non-“counter” negative feedback from me—on grounds similar to Vod’s, but independently of him.  One which will stay permanently.

(2) Any evidence about “alts”, or are you descending to the level of a garden-variety whiner full of “conspiracy theories”?  I have been frequently accused of being both Lauda and Satoshi, and less-frequently accused of being about a half-dozen others.  Yawn.

Note:  I will not waste my time arguing with your nonsense, other than if you have substantial evidence on point (2).

If there was an actual need for the counter, those "others" (assuming unbiased, and rational) wouldn't need them to find the truth to begin with. The problem is the lack of "unbiased" and "rational" people here. There are no counters, and no counters to counters either. Keep up with the advance of the system that you're using.

Maybe the trust numbers created by counters have little meaning, but the information placed is valuable to others who look trying to independently interpret situations..

LOL, that's the TECSHARE that we all know and love.

Not really, it is just a low cost strategy to give the image of impartiality where none exists so they can abuse it later when it serves them. Marlboroza does the same thing.