read my red tag by marlboroza. would you say i deserved it?
i added ~marlboroza to my trust settings after that. never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red. this is what negative feedback is
supposed to be for:
negative - you were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.
Have you contradicted yourself?
no.
but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red
Which new DT2 members?
Can you point us to DT2 members who are leaving useless feedbacks, point us to these useless feedbacks and explain why they are useless?
it was extremely obvious that i was talking about
you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.
but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't
want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.
there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.