Quote from: stingers on July 12, 2015, 02:13:55 PM

I still feel that you gave a negative trust just based on "assumptions", cuz it has happened before so it will happen again, and as a "trusted" guy hasn't scammed before, so he wont scam in the future. I just feel the neg trust should have been converted to a neutral one(negative is too harsh cuz u gave it based on ASUMPTIONS), and so because of your assumptions, making an account bleed with red trust, is too harsh! I sincerely feel that it could have been a neutral one. If someone has to get scammed he will even get scammed after seeing a red trust, this is just because people tend to ignore the trust ratings because of the way neg. trust gets distributed by other members. The credibility of neg. trust has been reduced a lot and cases like this are making the red trust loose its importance.

I feel the case was more like : The op felt he is trusted, statistically he's untrusted, he offered escrow, hilarious took the offensive approach to defence the community, hilarious gave him a negative trust.
Could have been neutral imo.

What did I assume? I didn't assume anything. He's not qualified nor do I trust him to do escrow and my feedback reflects that.

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

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.

And you think leaving negative is going to stop people from harassing you? No, but you hoped it did, hence why you abused your position. Sometimes people may get it wrong, but that's why you take all the evidence into consideration before making judgment and only leave it for very probable cases as I do. I already explained I don't leave much feedback and would rather not, but in my opinion it's justified when I do whether you like it or not. What could I have actually got wrong here? Op may not intend to ever be a scammer but like it or not he shouldn't be trusted to hold onto others money, therefore feedback is appropriate. He's naive at best, a scammer at worst, but he is certainly not to be trusted as escrow and the feedback is representative of that. What's the worst that has happened here? He's had his Jnr member account ruined because of his naive/untrustworthy behavior. He can create a new account and now he knows what not to do, or if he creates a new account with the same behavior that will likely receive negative too. I've also stated I'm not adverse to removing it so it's not the end of the road for him.

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

The fact is NEGATIVE TRUST DOES NOT PREVENT SCAMMING.

Arguable. Negative trust will likely stop them scamming on that account, though nothing is going to stop scamming 100%. Sure they can create a new account but that doesn't mean we should just not bother. And again, negative trust doesn't stop people from harassing you, just the opposite, so why did you leave it? I know why you left it. You wanted to get your own way and get someone to shut up. It would be like me leaving you negative now just because you're annoying and can't resist posting in any thread about me or vod. Funny how some abuses are ok and how you had no beef with the trust system before your incident.

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

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.

Since when do you care about driving away decent users? Leaving negative just because someone says something you don't like will drive them away too. But that's ok? Maybe newbs getting scammed constantly drives people away also? I'm sure users being scammed drives much more away than people just getting neg-bombed for suspicious/untrustworthy behaviour. And you might not have anything to gain financially but neither do I. Your motive here is one of a scorned child who hasn't got his own way and now looks to continue his temper tantrum anytime the situation arises.

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

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.

No, you make it about you because every time you post in these sorts of threads it's fulled by your own anger and frustration of how you were removed from the trust list and that's the only reason you do it and it's pathetic. Trust was never an issue until you were removed, now you make it out that anyone who leaves feedback is a 'vigilante' or is doing it for alternative means and farming trust (lol) because it suits your petty argument. Let me tell you, the only trust you'll farm by outing scammers is negative after they leave it in retaliation. It's honestly not worth the hassle, especially when people like you get involved. I really don't care about how much feedback or green trust I have so I find your accusations laughable and my name or rep is worth much more to me than a few numbers on a feedback system.

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

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.

So wait a minute, isn't newbs, or "morons" as you call them getting scammed going to drive them away? If it's ok for naive newbs to get scammed then why is it not fair to mark naive newbs who appear to be scammers? Some people are just trying to help, as opposed to others just whinging whilst offering no help themselves. If someone offers to hold on to your money with no good reason then they are untrustworthy which you yourself admit, so feedback is appropriate regardless of their true intention. If a newb asks for a loan without collateral then 9/10 they wont pay it back, and that's why it's untrustworthy behavior even if they were just being naive but by your logic we should just be fine with it and tolerate the behavior just because newbs are going to newb therefore they deserve to be scammed.

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

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.

That's funny. I don't really see much difference between tomato and vod at all, but have you actually read tomatocage's trust? I think you're wrong on everything you've claimed he doesn't do. He leaves more negatives than me often based on assumption so you just seem to be making things up to suit your agenda. Few examples:

Use ESCROW when conducting business with this user. Never accept any forms of reversible payment either (ie. PayPal, Google Wallet, Amazon Payments, QuickPay, SurePay, etc).

Oh noez, what if he was just an innocent user looking to buy bitcoins? Why negative and not neutral?

Money launderer who will only send payment via stolen credit card info. Will not do cash deposit.

No proof at all that he's using stolen cards or laundering money, just likely that he is, but that's not good enough for you.

PayPal scammer. Wants you to send first and will not use escrow.

Well that's unfair, maybe he just doesn't trust escrows or anyone else?

New account + loan request. These are almost always scammers.

Always? Not according to tecshare. Sad to see another innocent newb blasted by a trust farmer. Roll Eyes

I could go on. And please do not think I'm throwing shade on tomato because I'm not and I do think most if not all of those are actually justified, though you don't. Funny how it's only me and vod who are trying to farm trust but tomato with his 201: -0 / +25 is apparently ok (most of it just received for him doing a good job busting scammers ironically (bloody trust farming vigilante! *shakes fist*)). The only reason you have issue with me is I didn't defend you when you abused the system and especially because I made my arguments several times why you were wrong (I would have never actually commented on it until you PMd me to 'help you out'). Had I have not got involved you very likely wouldn't be here whinging now. You can continue to attempt to mock or demonize me or others for leaving warranted and appropriate feedback but each time you do all it does it make you look more pathetic each and every time and we all know the only reason you do it is because you don't like what happened to you via mistakes that were your own fault.