Topic: What's more important to judge whether or not I should be trusted? - page 3. (Read 2193 times)

An interesting idea, but can we not have some Golden Balls style mind games and deception first? The forum has been lacking in exciting drama for a while.

Edit: The Pharmacist robbed me of my entertainment by being selfless. How selfish of him!

I like that idea in spirit, but in practice it's way too complicated.

The better solution is for me to right the wrong and with no bargaining or expectation from iluvbitcoins or anyone else.  My feedback will be removed, and not only should I not have left it in the first place (my instinct told me not to), but I should have removed it before the situation came to this. 

My apologies to iluvbitcoins for any problems my neg caused him, and I'll leave it at that.  This was one of the tougher calls I've had to make, and I made the wrong one.

Whatever ends this simple issue, I am down for it.

Since we're in crypto, another outside the box idea:
1. Both parties write a message in which they explain what they're going to do with the trust they left the other person. Keep the message, don't post it.
2. Both parties sign that message with a Bitcoin address they choose.
3. Both parties post the signature and Bitcoin address.
4. Once both parties have posted the signatures, they both post the message and do as it says.

This gives both parties the possibility to make a decision completely independent of what the other party does. Needless to say: step 4 should be followed through entirely.

Just turn both of feedbacks to neutral... End of story.

The whole situation is a bit of a mess, with several missteps as I see it:

1) I don't agree with taking an account as collateral, but it was done several years ago when the practice was more commonplace and selling accounts did not generally result in negative trust.

2) "Account sellers are not to be trusted" is too generic a statement. Trust isn't an all or nothing thing - I trust my wife completely, my friends a lot, my colleagues a bit, and strangers hardly at all. I would certainly trust someone with a large positive trading history (such as iluvbitcoins) a lot more than your average shitposting account farmer and seller.

3) "Abusing the trust system" is also not accurate, given The Pharmacist was simply applying well recognised and known about standards, albeit to a more senior and trusted member than the usual aforementioned account sellers.

There is no perfect, or even good, solution here. Leaving things as they are is one. LoyceV's suggestion is another, as is The Pharmacist's own suggestion regarding when he removes negative trust. Mutual or one-sided neutral trust is also a possibility.

Lauda has a long history of trolling those who he is in a dispute with. He rarely will engage in meaningful dialogue with his critics.

The sales thread doesn't say how old the staked address is. It does say this:
My assumption from this is that an address was staked after defaulting on the loan, which seems more likely than receiving the private keys together with the collateral.

Lol, I was going through my PMs when I saw your Profile with the Negative trust... Your last post led me to this thread. Went through 3 pages of it and surprisingly found you trolling. Something which I didn't associate you with in the past. But looks like getting Removed from Default trust has started to mess with your ego. 

---

Okay...

Cases probably exist, but I haven't seen them often (if at all).

That doesn't make sense indeed. Even if you repay your loan, your key (thus also your account, at least temporarily) remains compromised.

Just seemed odd to me that iluvbitcoins would control the staked address of an account he is selling which was apparently acquired through a defaulted loan. I don't see any evidence that private keys or staked addresses were typically used as collateral in the past with accounts - as that would be stupid for the account owner. And I guess I don't understand why anyone would accept a loan from an account owner who is handing over their private keys?? (assuming they expect to be paid back)

Posting without reading anything is back again. Me being a dog is more likely than this being a "perfect example" of an error in judgement. Tough call, sure. "Perfect example", no.

@The Pharmacist, Humans are prone to make errors in judgement and this case is the perfect example of it. Tagging OP was a bit harsh TBH and could be considered Abuse of Trust system but we can't ignore all the good work you have done for the community. Loyce has suggested the best solution IMO. I mean removing the Negative would be a good start to correct your "error" and I hope the OP can let you off too. Being a DT member comes with responsibility and there are cases like OP's where leaving a neutral trust is a better solution than giving a negative one right away. Just my 2 satoshis.

You don't seem to have experienced with 'act-nice-blackmail', which this was.

OP is dishonest; there's nothing harsh here. Their behavior post-rejecting to obeying their requests proves that.

I don't think so.

I'm not familiar with offering loans and accepting accounts as collateral, but would it be normal practice to take control of the staked address of the account they are getting as collateral for a loan?  I thought it was normally just the account login information provided?

This is tough, all the best to you

Since you asked for opinions, I'll give you mine: From the moment I saw the red tag on OP, I thought it was a bit harsh. I don't think he deserves it. I don't think OP should be labeled the same as Newbies who sell hacked, farmed or even non-existing accounts. OP didn't try to hide who he is, like most spammers/scammers do.

This is a good and well known example of a bought account that turned into a valuable member:
Of course you can never know for sure someone isn't going to abuse an account though, even with the best intentions.

You were put on DT for good reasons: most of your feedback does this forum a favour. I think that should be the main criterion for leaving a red tag. In this case, when you're second-guessing yourself, I'd say give a user the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, you tried to be consequent and not make exceptions for high ranking accounts. That's worth something too.

I can think of only one solution that solves your dilemma: you remove your red trust on OP, and OP doesn't remove the red trust he left you. It's not a solution I prefer, but it would prevent any self-interest accusations while you get to be fair to OP.

---

Thinking outside the box: you could counter your negative with a positive

I still have the PMs from iluvbitcoins he sent me after I tagged him, and I can't speak for Lauda but iluvbitcoins didn't try to blackmail me into removing my feedback.  He explained his situation and requested that I change my neg to a neutral, but he wasn't threatening and was polite throughout the entire exchange.

That one was a very tough call, because I did look at his trust page and I didn't then and don't now think iluvbitcoins is a scammer, just that selling accounts is untrustworthy behavior.  I made the call to be consistent in giving feedback, but I waffled on it for a bit.  I'm fine with the feedback he left me--believe me, I'm the last person who's going to complain about getting negged, even if it's by a DT member, but this case was one where I second-guessed myself a couple of times and I regret that it's come to this.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't at this point.  If I were to remove my feedback now, everyone would accuse me of doing it for my own interests, and if I let it stay in place I honestly feel like I'm not being fair to a member who probably deserves to have the neg removed by now.  I've removed feedback on members I've tagged for account selling after a period of time (which isn't set in stone) if they've shown evidence that they've done something that gives evidence of their trustworthiness--usually getting positive trust with valid references.  iluvbitcoins doesn't actually meet those criteria from the time I left my neg, but it's hard to ignore all his other positives.

I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts from people about this, whether I get lambasted or not. 

Yes, I added him to my trust list back in February. Yesterday I added him to my trust network, so his ratings are visible by default for me. Strangely, I am suddenly being attacked by another member out of the blue today now that this has been discovered. A bit of a coincidence for those who believe in such things. These sorts of “coincidences” are how I know I’ve made the correct judgement in my actions.