Quote from: ibminer on November 13, 2017, 04:20:29 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on November 13, 2017, 07:10:28 AM

It looks like hilariousandco didn't like the decision of an admin and left trust against loan shark as a result:

Quote

User was previously permabanned for copy and pasting posts but let off by an admin due to his loaning service. Cheating campaigns and activity by copy and pasting is pretty scammy in itself but the loans are probably only being given to easily build up feedback. The two trusted feedbacks he currently has are merely for using an escrow service and an email forwarding service that he probably only purchased to acquire a cheap positive feedback. Was also infected with bitcoin stealing malware at one point from downloading pirated/cracked software: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1780068.0 so I would take all those factors into consideration when dealing with this user.

[reference in rating]

I am not sure it is right to be leaving negative ratings to get around authority limits as a moderator.

Officially, I don't think it would be relevant that hilariousandco is a moderator leaving feedback, he's just a DT member leaving feedback and would have every right to do so. Trust is not moderated, as I believe we've all heard plenty of times.

Whether it violates some sort of moral or ethical concern, shows insubordination, or causes some sort of conflict of interest may be the argument here but given hilariousandco's explanation of why the feedback was left, his thought process makes sense to me and I'd say the feedback is warranted. I'd probably say he's even warranted in leaving Cyrus a feedback questioning his judgement to unban someone due to a loan service they provide, if this is the sole reason... but that would be too much drama and probably not conducive to maintaining a somewhat professional demeanor amongst mods & admins. Grin

I think the point is more that the feedback was left for reasons that are a moderation issue, not a 'is this person a scammer' issue. The way the rating comes across to me as Hilariousandco being vindictive because he was overruled on the decision to unban that guy. The only part of the rating that has anything to do with scamming is the copy/paste issue in that doing so was "cheating" his signature campaign -- I would compare what he did to leaving 5 minutes early but writing down that he left at 4:00 PM on his timecard, this is not something I would personally do, is something I would advise against doing, is something that if I was made aware of would tell the person to cut it out, but isn't something I would push for corrective action over, and if corrective action/termination resulted from a single instance of leaving 5 minutes early, I would opine that someone wanted the person out for some other reason.

I don't think it is so much that hilariousandco is a moderator, but rather that he is a moderator who advocated for certain action to be taken over an issue, was overruled, and left feedback over that same issue.

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

Quote from: hilariousandco on November 13, 2017, 09:33:24 AM

[...]Lauda[...]

I think adding lauda to your trust list is a major lapse of judgment, however that has not stopped me from supporting you in this thread with the caveat that you need to address the lauda issue. When you add someone to your trust list, you are staking your reputation on them (anyone that trusts you will also trust that person), so as long as you have an extortionist and/or someone as shady as Lauda, you will be viewed in a negative light in my eyes. If you don't want your own reputation to be associated with Lauda's history of extortion and other shadiness, then you should remove him from your trust list, simple as that.

In re loan shark, I posted above why I disagree with the rating, as I mentioned above, I think someone who leaves a negative rating for a single instance of copy/past posting is looking for a reason to leave a negative rating, and the rating is not about warning others about his behavior. I would find it unlikely that a business would withhold payment over a single post.

Just because we got along in the past doesn't mean that I will blindly support everything you do. If I see something that I don't think is right, I will say something, and this is an instance of when I see something I don't think is right. I think you should do the right thing and address both the lauda and loan shark issues.