Quote from: shorena on May 17, 2015, 05:32:51 PM

Quote from: ACCTseller on May 17, 2015, 04:14:22 PM

I don't think presenting a lot of evidence that someone is a scammer (or an alt of a scammer) would stop the bickering and drama. It would just give scammers additional information as to how they are caught and what to do to avoid detection. Even when evidence is provided that is solid, scammers still deny the allegations, take a look at what was quoted here (or look at reply #8 in the archive). I think as long as people like quickseller and tomatocage maintain their reputation by being in possession of evidence of a scam prior to leaving negative trust, and removing negative trust when additional information comes to light, posting a scam accusation is really not necessary IMO. Scammers are going to do anything they can to try to intimidate others into removing negative trust (see the number of death threats made by KoS as an example).

This sounds like we are some sort of shadow tribunal. If there is evidence it should be presented. If it helps scammers to improve their skills in avoding detection thats the pill we have to swallow. There are certainly exceptions that are acceptable, the newbie asking for loan w/o collateral, the obviously carded gift cards, the ToS violation of MS keys. They have been discussed at length and there has been some sort of consensus among the commuity that these ratings are justified or at least the reasoning behind them can easily be understood. That at least is my impression judging by the threads that pop up in meta.

I think having a history of being fair with your trust. If you have a history of being right about these kinds of things then the community will believe your trust ratings. If you have a history of being unfair with trust ratings then your trust ratings will be ignored. If someone has a history of being right about figuring out alts of scammers, then when they say that someone is an alt of a scammer, then their word will be believed. A negative rating is not a criminal punishment, and as a result it does not need to have the same protections that a criminal courtroom would provide. A negative trust rating is to provide a warning to others to trade with extreme caution and to alert their potential trading partners to take precautions when dealing with them. The primary effect of a negative rating is that it makes it more difficult for them to scam in the future.

Giving ways for scammers to avoid detection means that scammers will have an easier time pulling off their scams.

Besides. The example you gave has a measly 16 posts, there is little drama and next to no bickering. This is exactly what I was hinting at. Everytime there is an accusation without proper proof we have a 3 day dramathon in meta over a multitude of threads. The only thing this does is to lower the trust in those on DT. This is as much a political tool as it is a jurisdictional. If the overal impression is that DT is misused and judged without evidence or without evidence the "regular" user can refer to it is of no use. If the evidence is withheld to the public the rating can not be judged and thus will be considered worthless. [/quote]The example did not have additional drama in that specific thread, however I believe there was additional drama in other threads after that post (he had deleted his posts so there is nothing to point to specifically.

Quote from: shorena on May 17, 2015, 05:32:51 PM

makes my point -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1038343.msg11215151#msg11215151

I think it also makes my point. After presenting my proof that they were the same person, additional precautions were taken to cover his tracks. After seeing that his bc.i wallet was leaking the identity of his alts, he started using bitstamp and bitdice.me as his "wallet", leaving significantly less evidence then would otherwise be expected.

Quote from: shorena on May 17, 2015, 05:32:51 PM

I am very impressed by the work you do and I value it, but if you dont make your findings public it results in the view people have of you now. If you have something extra, keep it for later if you want, but there should be a minimum to hold you accountable.

Evidence was presented on replies 2 and 3 of this thread (xeter and I both posted the same evidence, and I posted it shortly after he did, so I deleted the post to avoid posting essentially the exact same thing).

Quote from: shorena on May 17, 2015, 05:32:51 PM

Quote from: ACCTseller on May 17, 2015, 04:14:22 PM

The intimidation and trolling does work against a lot of people. For example, look at how much tspacepilot trolls those who left him negative trust (both TF and quickseller), look at how many people have left him negative trust, and then look at how many people have excluded them from their trust network. You can make your own conclusions.

It should also be noted that the OP was not asking for proof to be presented, he was asking that negative trust either be removed or that the quickseller account be removed from DefaultTrust (network)

The title and thread are very clear in my opinion. There is no reason to insult your intelligence here.

Quote from: title

"Quickseller" marked my account red rating with no evidence in ANGER, UNETHICAL

Quote from: BitcoinDistributor on May 17, 2015, 01:42:38 AM

-snip-
where is any evidence i am this scammer or whoever this kos guy is?? there is no proof, i troll sometimes but i am no scammer!
-snip-
I demand that quickseller remove his rating or be removed from the default trust list. He is mad I called him unethical and has retailiated into following suit of other scammer's accusations in retaliation and calling me a scammer when not one piece of evidence has been provided

His lack of providing evidence with his rating and ruining someone shows how immature he is. he should not be on this default trust list.

I didn't post the evidence, but my allegation was still true. Asking for evidence when you are guilty of something is trying to get off on a technicality. As I mentioned previously, negative trust is not a criminal punishment, but is rather a warning to others