Quote from: XinXan on July 12, 2015, 02:27:18 PM

Yes because if it was based on evidence then there would be no point talking about it, right? It's normal practice to give negative trust to people who are potentially going to scam, of course, based on asumptions, is not like we can know the future.

A lot of things are standard practice around here, that doesn't make it useful, or a good idea. This is exactly what I have a problem with, this idea of people being guilty until proven innocent. Only the worst dictatorial states follow such precedent, and if you think it even slows down scammers you are retarded.

Quote from: hilariousandco on July 12, 2015, 11:43:45 AM

I don't leave much feedback and tend to go for neutral more than straight up negative but me not leaving negative has lead to several users being scammed shortly after. There's two instances in the last month where I've regretted not leaving negative feedback but leaving negative feedback is more hassle than it's worth half of the time especially when you get children whining and everytime you leave it all you do is make yourself another enemy. People like QS and vod likely stopped countless users from being scammed but all the thanks they get is they're doing it for their own personal benefit or people like tecshare twist it for their own personal agenda.

And you think leaving negatives is going to stop people from being scammed? What about when you are wrong? How many good people do you drive away in your whack-a-mole game? If you really believe those scammers go anywhere you are quite naive. They are back in seconds setting up the next scam or buying an account with positive trust.

The fact is NEGATIVE TRUST DOES NOT PREVENT SCAMMING.

It does however drive away decent users when they are accused simply for being ignorant of how the trust vigilantes operate here. You claim I am serving some personal agenda... what exactly to I get from calling you out about this? Is there a paycheck somewhere I am not collecting? Of course it could not at all be that I object to the enforcement of arbitrary unwritten rules, no, as always with you every complaint I have is about my past, and you will squeeze that one for every last drop you can to try to marginalize anything I say that you don't agree with.

Quote from: hilariousandco on July 12, 2015, 11:43:45 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 11:15:29 AM

Quote from: hilariousandco on July 12, 2015, 10:34:12 AM

The trust is still valid regardless of whether the account was purchased or not and which I stated it was possibly bought.

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 10:00:10 AM

Yay more preemptive trust vigilantism... just what the forum needs.

Was wondering how long it'd take you to chime in. Next time you do a deal on here use this guy as an escrow. Also let's not forget you were removed for your own trust abuse vigilantism.

There are lots of people I don't trust that I don't give negative ratings to. Didn't take you very long to make this about me. BTW, I wasn't going around playing scambuster, I left a negative rating for some one actively harassing me, so try again OCD king.

Every time you make these pathetic and futile posts you make it about you. You only make them because you're still butthurt about being removed over your own personal abuse of the system. How do your comments help anything? Do you really think abusing the feedback system for your own personal motives is fine but attempting to stop likely scams is bad? I love how you think attempting to stop people from getting scammed is abuse but of course it suits your agenda to vilify anyone who actually uses the system for how it was intended.

Again, use this guy as an escrow for your next deals if my feedback here isn't justified.

Actually, you made this about me, as your very first response (as you always do). This is just some pathetic attempt to not have to reexamine your protocols for leaving negatives so you can try to be VOD v2 and collect all the positive trust ratings from rubberneckers like he did. I don't get anything for calling you out about this, you however, by continuing will basically just be farming trust from onlookers. Of course there is no way to know for sure if most of the people you mark are really scammers or not. You could just pick a handful of random ignorant newbs a day and mark them and gloat with pride about all the scammers you stopped.

You are trying to protect morons from their own idiocy. Anyone who uses a complete newb for escrow without even reviewing his trust, is GUARANTEED to be robbed, it is just a matter of time. You can't protect people from their own idiocy. By going around patrolling you give these newbs the impression that some one filters out scammers here when in reality you just pick a handful of sacrificial lambs and mark them and pretend it is progress. you aren't stopping anything, you are at most delaying the inevitable. Even worse, there is NO WAY TO KNOW if these people you are simply guessing about had ill intent.

Quote from: hilariousandco on July 12, 2015, 11:43:45 AM

Quote from: XinXan on July 12, 2015, 11:33:37 AM

What are you talking about? Have you seen the lending section? Pretty much any newbie or low rank member that asks for loan without collateral is given neg trust by one or various members, this is no different so i don't see why are you so concerned about this specific case when there are hundreds out there.

He did not destroy anyone reputation because the user didn't have any in the first place and im pretty sure if he stops doing what he did and talks to hilarious maybe in the future he will get his trust removed just like vod did.

Exactly, but I think tecshare thinks we should only leave feedback after someone has scammed and after we have taken that person to court and they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers but only then will feedback be justified... well, unless someone says something you don't like or trolls you then it's totally fine to use the feedback system to try get them to shut up.

If you were a newb here trying to build up a reputation, even the small amount of time on your account and post history is that much time lost that has to be rebuilt again if some one neg reps you. Just because he has no trust ratings doesn't mean you haven't wasted their time and energy.

You know who I think does a good job leaving trust ratings? Tomatocage. Of all the years I have been here I have had almost no issues with the methods he used to mark people. You know why? Before he marks people red he requires at lease SOME standard of evidence, and he almost never simply relies on guess work to do so. He has been here a long time and understands these scammers aren't dumb, and they will return instantly with a new account. He also understands if he plays whack-a-mole it is inevitable that he will ruin the reputations of people who are simply confused or ignorant and drive them away from the forum as well as Bitcoin in general. He is very willing to have a non-confrontational discussion with people, and if they can use common sense and reason, he will often remove negative marks.

The other trust vigilantes like to make their victims grovel before them and then usually tell them to get lost anyway after they have been appeased. BTW, if you compare our left ratings I think you will find a stark difference between the number left and the reasons for doing so, but keep up the attempts at marginalization, it might work you never know. Good luck with your quest for authoritah.