Topic: A case of preventive feedback to think about. (Read 121 times)

If the average user is not on DT1 or DT2 their feedback does not count for much and is not a threat to either a manager or participants of a campaign. What comes under scrutiny is DT members leaving feed-back in a way most consider to be wrong and as I said it is usually about a particular incident and not the concept of preemptive feed-back.

- Jay -

Who? I haven't read that.

Most likely people who leaving a negative feedback today and deleting it tomorrow was leaving an inappropriate feedback, hence they withdraw it after other DT warns them.

Yes there are, if the one who leaving the negative feedback is just an average user, especially to highly reputable service/service who have campaign. Because you know, it would be a threat to both the campaign managers and campaign participants.

Some people do believe that anyone leaving a negative tag today and deleting it tomorrow is not using the feedback system correctly. It is not supposed to be on speculations, but facts. Tagging someone before an action happens is just like sentencing someone before appearing before the court.

Not so bad, but I think a neutral tag can warn people. I might not pay attention to people's neutral tags, but when I want to do trade with them, I'll need to pay apt attention.

I think it's more of a case by case issue. Perhaps some folks tried to give Freebitco.in some more time to prove that they are not actually scamming anyone but just going through a rough patch after all those years

If one was to go by your no-nonsense preventive approach then the likes of Bestchange would be labelled as scammers as of now with various red tags and flag supports, but they did prove people who were quick to tag them red as wrong.
So Freebitco.in being an old brand, i think members just tried to be lenient to them.

Betnomi tried such a thing, not once but twice... What does their trust score say today?  
I think the DT members' judgement is still OK.
Preventive or not. One has to balance between judging if "one being innocent until proven guilty" or "one is guilty until they are innocent" but i prefer the former. You have no idea how much brands, services or business try to advertise themselves all the way to the top level. To rubbish that overnight, one must have definitive evidence why they must do so.

There are times when negative feedback before a scam is invaluable.   Recently, a trusted member tried to get a lot of coin based on collateral that she had private funds coming in this spring.   She may have succeeded if I had not warned people, and I can always remove my feedback and make arrears should she actually show proof of funds.   But there were so many contradictions in her story she has lied at least once already.

A "trade" trust system would be controlled by the scammers with most stolen coin.  Sell/give/trade items (or pay aa few people in a few cities to do it on his behalf.  Then he reciprotate the trust (even though he had no risk) and corrupts the default trust.

I am always thinking about new algorithms - I'm going to play with a few (like I did with BPIP) and see if we can come up with a less abusable system.   Since I don't play the DT games, I'll eventually be knocked off it.

Are there people who view it as bad? I have not seen any issue created for feed-backs left on suspicion, if you are convinced that others should be warned of a service or member, you can use a neutral feedback to do that as those can be used for pretty much everything.

If an issue has been raised it will be about using negative feed-backs and not leaving a reference or indicating that this is a suspicion. The trust system is always under scrutiny and there will be some talks about certain actions, but they are against particular cases and not a concept.

- Jay

To answer your actual question


a warning would have been out there in the community, but people are morons and half of them still wouldn't have listened to the warning. There are probably a good number of people who bought tokens who are not even on the forum.

I don't think people are necessarily against preventive feedback as you call it, but just feel like tagging people for a scam that hasn't happened yet is an incorrect use of the trust system. Been saying for a while that we need 2 different trust systems, 1 for reputation and 1 for trading, or we just need to adapt the current feedback system and let it be used for more than trades.

People leave feedback for damn near anything anyways. May as well use it as a hybrid system and combine trade and reputation as 1 system.

Sometimes we see mentioned in the forum that there are people in DT who have a more preventive conception of trust system, according to which negative feedback can, and should, be used to warn of the potential danger of scam even if it has not yet occurred and there is no evidence, while others have a punitive conception according to which negative feedback should only be used when the scam has already happened and there is conclusive evidence of it.

I was the first to use preventive feedback in the case of freebitco.in, which was soon followed by nutildah, who I would say is generally more of a punitive approach but in this case saw the danger clearly and left negative feedback as well.

Until recently I think that from a punitive conception we could not speak of clear scam by freebitco.in but I think that today we can, for the reasons that we can see summarized in the following quote:


Not even the guy who made us aware of the problems back in May 28 has left negative feedback until November 18.

Which is not to say that he is incorrect, he, like many, has a more punitive conception of the trust system.

Now I ask myself, what would have happened if freebitco.in, after the 4 negative feedback against wetsuit and the active flag, had come out the second week of June giving an explanation and saying that he was going to solve problems, leaving them solved at the end of June? Simply that we would have deleted the negative feedback and withdrawn the support to the flag. Using negative feedback is not causing irreparable damage, far from it.

With this I do not intend to convince those of you who have a more punitive conception of the trust system that what you think is wrong, I simply hope that you do not see the preventive conception so badly.