Topic: A case of preventive feedback to think about. (Read 593 times)

Well, first of all, as I had predicted, and no matter how many jokes my soul friend wanted to make, no one has paid any attention to a post like this one, which is quite long and has a certain intellectual density.

But well, let's leave my soul friend alone, as I see that there has been enough of a shitshow here lately.


Perhaps it would have been better to have started a thread titled “My thoughts on the merit system” and placed this post there, but I will reply to you as played (as we say in poker).


Well, as you say that's not my case, I've been using Expected Value for a long time to make money and I don't use it only with poker. The difference between the example you give and poker is that in the example you give we know the expected value beforehand while in poker in most cases we mix intuition: if I am 50% sure that your raise on the river is a bluff and paying $100 to see your cards I will take the total pot which is $400 I have a clear call. The problem is that the probability I assign is somewhat subjective.

Then you make a whole argument based on your example, which in a way I understand because in my daily life I also spend the day assigning probabilities (I don't think that X person is not going to come to the dinner with friends, I think that there is an 80% chance that he/she will not come) but I doubt if it is mathematically overcomplicating the matter for something that is of daily life.


Here I think you are wrong on the downside. Red tagging someone and deleting them after a short time has negligible consequences, and I see that losing enthusiasm is an intuitive assumption on your part and not at all mathematical within the whole argument you are making.


This is what happens to me. I respect and thank you enormously for your argument but you do not convince me unless you clarify it in a later answer: your mathematical argumentation is impeccable but the premise of what happens in the downside is far from being evidence and I think it is rather an assumption of yours based on your intuition but that has little to do with reality.


Probably, but that does not mean that we should not stop tagging people. Let me put it another way: imagine that you find randomly surfing the net a site with videos of child abuse with torture and death, snuff videos. Now suppose also that as the hosts of the site have taken their security measures the probability that even if you report it they will be caught is extremely low. Would you not report it because of that? I wouldn't. Some things have to be done because you have a moral obligation regardless of the expected outcome.

Yes, I think a tldr would be good so most people could understand.


I read the whole thing and got an idea of what he says. Just keep in mind that the concept of Expected Value is used a lot in poker, it is at the basis of the decisions that winning poker players make. What happens is that with such a detailed explanation I will have to read it again carefully to be able to answer properly.

Edited: oh okay, I can see it was a sarcasm. I don't know what you want me to tell you, AB de Royse777, we are in a forum where it is not uncommon for the person who writes comment number 5 in a thread to have not even read the previous 4 comments. Lucky if he has read the OP other than the title. Mine wasn't so much for the part of being able to understand it, as I don't think there are many people who are going to spend their time to read a couple of times carefully what he says.

But clearly I can't come around here without having to argue.

I'll leave the thread open if you want to comment on it but don't expect me to come here.

Jokes aside :
Don't you think the forum is already is a hostile place for new users even the users (no matter if they are Hero or even legendary) who has not able to establish themselves to be a powerful member yet? I always see there is a few users who are policing around, constantly harassing users who do not support their arguments or even dare to write a word against their arguments. A handful of other users who really do not find anything to write to fulfil their weekly signature quota but they also don't want to be visible as spammers too, without reading, investigating or going deep into those claims from these so called self proclaimed police - they write something which eventually is encouraging those polices to continuing their nasty abusing and power seeking in DT system. They already created a narrative that a neutral tag is just a tag that does not mean anything. But when you write something like "this user is not trustworthy and so on with all negative things" and wrap it with a natural label then give your explanation and support the explanation that Yo! It's just a neutral tag! - that's funny. Yes, I am too guilty of saying such (it's just a neutral tag) sometimes.

A hypothetical idea by the way,
Who will seek a powerful position?
- A power seeker. I don't think many like people who are in power because power comes from dirty games.

A user who have interest in Bitcoin, technical discussion, caring others to make this place better and smooth for everyone in the space - I do not think they will have negativity in their mind always. They will not chase people who they do not like and find a way to level their victims negatively, insult their victims all the time. They will never become a scary ghost for new users or even to the users users who have not earned some sort of power yet to defend themselves from these so called DT members.

The current DT is the tool for power seekers. By hook or by crook they want to be a DT and unfortunately we are telling them trusted members.

I was able to read this far and then this below part.
Curious to know how far you were able to ready? :-D

Hey PowerGlove, first I want to thank you for such a detailed response. Then tell you that I do want to express what I think about it, because although I see that lately I'm doing better without coming for the drama board it doesn't mean that I have definitely ruled out coming back here, and that in any case this detailed answer deserves that I lay out my thoughts about it.

The bad thing is that it seems to me that between the length of the answer and the somewhat complex reasoning, quite mathematical in its basis, I do not think that there are many people besides me who will stop to read it and understand it. So even more reason for me to comment on it.

But in any case I have read what you have written once in detail and I think it is better that I reread it again before expressing my thoughts.

(I asked Poker Player to unlock this thread so that I could post in it. I drafted a reply that grew much larger than I meant for it to, and basically didn't want it to go to waste. Even though it's written in a way that suggests that I might be expecting a response to it, I'm not; I'm just sharing some long-winded thoughts, is all, in the hope that some of them might be found to be interesting.)

Hmm... Probably I expressed myself poorly which led to you misunderstanding me. The problem is, my thoughts on the trust system are scattered across more than a few posts (and probably even more PMs), and it's not really practical for me to try to share my complete perspective on it each time I write something concerning it.

A lot of my perspective on the trust system can be understood as an argument formed in terms of expected value. Judging by your handle, I'm guessing that you already understand that principle well, but, as a refresher for the people that don't understand it, let's ask ourselves whether or not it makes mathematical sense to accept a gambling offer like the following:

"Flip a fair coin 5 times. If all 5 flips come up as heads, then you win $100. If at least one of your flips comes up as tails, then you lose $5."

One way to analyze an offer like that is to multiply the probability of a successful outcome (which is: 0.5**5, or 3.125%) by the amount you will gain in that case ($100), and then subtract from that the probability of an unsuccessful outcome (which is: 1 - 0.5**5, or 96.875%) multiplied by the amount you will lose in that case ($5).

So, 0.03125 * 100 - 0.96875 * 5 = −1.71875. In other words, you'll lose ~$1.72 (that's a tilde, not a minus sign, BTW) each time you try that game. That's difficult for most people to see, because in concrete terms each attempt will either lose you $5, or gain you $100. But, in some abstract mathematical sense you're actually losing ~$1.72 every time you play the game, and the more you play the game, the more you should expect your concrete balance to mimic your abstract one (that is, if you play the game 100 times, then you should expect to lose ~$172, and if you play it 1000 times, then you should expect to lose ~$1720).

I've run into my fair share of people who aren't convinced by the concept of expected value, and think that it's some kind of neat idea that doesn't correlate with reality, so to drive the point home, here's a Python script that actually simulates what would happen to a starting balance of $0 if you played the above game 1 million times (you should expect to lose something in the neighborhood of 1.7 million dollars, so let's see if that actually bears out):


Running the above script gives me:


(If my [hide] tag were available, I'd have used it on the above aside.)

So, let's take "expected value" as a sensible idea, and, for ease of discussion, let's give the specific two-outcome formula from above some mnemonic terms, like this:

S * u - F * d (where S is the probability of success, u is the upside, F is the probability of failure, and d is the downside).

Let's also invent a new unit called assist and imagine that that made-up unit encapsulates the idea of Bitcointalk-related value (as in, when you do something that helps the forum, your action can be thought of as one that produces positive assist, and when you do something that harms the forum, your action can be thought of as one that produces negative assist).

Different trust-actions admit slightly different treatments, so let's (for the rest of this post) just focus on the following case: Leaving someone negative (or neutral-negative) feedback when you estimate that something warning-worthy is happening, has happened, or will happen. In this case, S is the chance that you're not mistaken in your judgment, and F is the chance that you are mistaken in your judgment. That takes care of S and F, but what about u and d? Let's assume that the upside (u) is 1 unit of "assist" (our made-up unit to encapsulate forum-related value), and that the downside (d) is also 1 unit of assist (that is, let's assume we contribute as much value to Bitcointalk by being correct in our judgment as we detract from it by being incorrect; I don't think that that's a fair assumption, especially for the kind of trust-actions we're talking about, but let's do it that way for now). Finally, let's say someone has an accuracy of 95% (as in, 95% of the time their judgment turns out to have been spot-on, and 5% of the time it turns out that they were mistaken).

So, 0.95 * 1 - 0.05 * 1 = 0.9. In other words, every time that our 95%-accurate speculative-feedback-leaver does their thing, they produce 0.9 units of assist. Nice! Let them do their thing 100 times and you can expect them to have produced 90 units of assist. They should be on DT, yeah?

The problem I have with the above calculation is to do with the ratio between u and d. I don't share the following view, but I would guess that most people feel that u should be bigger than d (or at the very least that they should be set equal to each other, as above), which is to say, I think most people feel that when their judgment-calls are correct then they've done something very good for Bitcointalk (like actually helped some other user to avoid being scammed), and that when they get things wrong and make mistakes then that's not really such a big deal (especially compared to all the good that they believe they're doing when they're not mistaken). Let's call this perspective (that u should be greater than or equal to d, and that getting it "right" is worth many instances of getting it "wrong") the "u>=d" perspective.

I have the opposite (and then some) view (let's call this one the "u<<d" perspective). My perspective is that even when you do get things right, you're producing a much smaller effect on other people's decision-making than you think you are (that is, you're not actually sparing other users pain and suffering on any non-negligible scale, you just like to believe that you are, or, even worse, you already suspect that you're not really helping anything or anyone, but your sense-of-justice compels you to do something, even if it makes little sense to do so). In my view, the upside when you're right is much, much smaller than the downside when you're wrong. When you're right, you think that your feedback will correctly help some other user to make a better/safer decision than they would have been able to make without you taking the action that you took (and in my view, that's mostly just wishful thinking that everyone wants to believe is true [1]). But when you're wrong, you're almost certainly causing definite harm (as in, tagging some innocent user and contributing to them losing their enthusiasm for the forum, for example).

So, I'd scale the value for u way, way down. Something like 0.01 makes more sense to me than 1 does. I mean, who can really say what the value should be set to, especially when we're dealing with a made-up unit, but, remember, all that that value relates to is how genuinely helpful to other people your accurate speculative feedback actually is, and what I'm saying is that (I think) people have been vastly overestimating that value (u), and that scaling it down (relative to d) by two factors of 10 would be my guesstimate to get it within realistic proximity of its "true" value. With that adjustment, the previous hypothetical user with an accuracy of 95% is actually producing -0.0405 units of assist per trust-action (of the kind we've limited our thinking to), and should therefore stop doing that. Even a user with 99% accuracy would produce small amounts of negative assist with each action that they take. If you look at things through that lens (like I do), then your view will be that this kind of feedback is just slowly making Bitcointalk worse and worse (in the same way that my example-game unavoidably loses you ~$1.72 each time you play it).

Look, I don't expect many will support my view (because of how counterintuitive and difficult-to-accept the conclusion is), but I hope that most people can at least appreciate the shape of my argument, and realize how easy it would be for someone to set out to do one thing (for example, to try to make the forum a nicer/safer place by taking it upon themselves to actively "police" it) and instead end up mostly accomplishing something else (like maybe succeeding in making things negligibly safer, but only at the greater expense of very non-negligibly contributing to the negative forum dynamics that make the whole environment less productive and much less hospitable than it could be for new users and new businesses).

---

[1] Since I think it's typically DT members that feel the need to leave the kind of feedback we've been talking about, here's an interesting thought experiment: Imagine Bitcointalk implemented a policy of dissolving DT for the first three months of every year. What do you predict the consequences of that would be? Personally, I find the "doomsday" prediction that during the first quarter of each year Bitcointalk would temporarily devolve into some kind of shitshow with people getting scammed left and right to be an extremely silly one.

Yeah, well, I guess I won't be able to avoid the temptation to come around here from time to time because this section is a mix of gossip and emotional turmoil, but having gone about a week without coming around here I think it suits me better not to come to dramas and that my contribution to the forum is more productive in other sections as well.

See you back here in 2025 

Not being specific about the link above and instead taking a generic view, I would stress that a preventative approach is very important as it highlights a potential scam or misdemeanour in the making before there are any victims or any nefarious conduct takes place. The only problem with this process is consensus because members have been unable to agree on the way forward as acceptable thresholds for what and when to leave feedback would vary between members. If any agreement were to be reached it would help the forum but unfortunately it is not as easy as that.

I had put this section on ignore until 2025 but I remembered I had this thread so I will respond without going into the other dramas in the section.


Why? I do not deduce it from the following you comment.


I am not surprised. Of course tagging someone when they have already scammed and disappeared from the forum is not going to save you from anything.


For me you give too much importance to being a nickname. I rather see it as me being a shitty nick on this forum if I can help naive people before they are scammed I do it, I think that helps more than waiting for them to be scammed and leaving the red later.

Assuming I (or TSC) enjoy being a sadist or something for leaving a red tag is giving much more importance to typing on a keyboard in an anonymous forum than I do.


No, you still don't get it. So, I who am known to be aggressive with tags why haven't I red tagged all the casinos that have any accusations on the Scam Accusations board?

According to your argument I should have left dozens of red tags.

Taking a preventive approach does not mean dropping red tags at the slightest accusation. And, in fact, of all the cases that you can find listed here:

Scam Accusation Cases Against Betting Platform on The Forum

I have not red tagged any of them. So the apocalypse you predict has no foundation.

I have, and I also pointed out why your approach would make most members take the feedback system and trust flags less seriously with time, since many profiles would be carrying flags and negative tags due to any accusation that come up. Maybe you are the one who hasn't understood my point.

I have seen some services, especially casinos take a few weeks or months to get the issues that come up resolved. To immediately tag them when accusations come up because you are trying to use a preventive approach can turn out to be harmful in the long run. It could also make the forum a much more toxic space for most services trying to announce themselves here.

@OP: Please don't interpret what's below in terms of the specific case you've mentioned. Really, I'm just responding to TSC's general remark.

I'm basically on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to this issue (as in, I think "predictive" scam-busting, and "aggressive" tagging is more harmful to the community than helpful, by a wide margin).

The thing is, I've never, not even once, been "saved" from anything by the trust system. (And assuming that I'm an OK choice for a "representative" user, then the thoughts that follow from an earnest appraisal like that are worth reflecting on, IMO.)

I honestly think that under the guise of protecting others, some fraction of the DT membership simply enjoys being empowered to attenuate behaviors that they personally find upsetting (while either ignoring or maybe being unaware of the collateral damage being caused by their imperfect senses, and the knock-on effects being produced by them not really thinking much beyond their own private scales of justice). In my experience, almost all people (and especially sticklers) like to engage in activities that make them feel better, without paying much attention to what's actually being accomplished.

Slightly OT: While I don't have a big sample size, I can say that every person that I've seriously regretted crossing paths with, and also had the misfortune to get to know really well, has been possessed of not only an untrusting mind, which is ordinary in this day and age, but also a deeply suspicious one (as in, they model others after themselves, which is sometimes natural, and because they're often up to something shitty, they believe everyone else must be, too). Conversely, the people I tend to admire almost always have the opposite outlook, and believe that most humans are fundamentally good, and that they should be treated well and given the benefit of the doubt until any evidence of wrongdoing has become completely clear-cut (and even then, they're sometimes still inclined toward leniency).

---

While I'm on the subject of over-policing being a contributing factor to Bitcointalk having such infertile soil, I may as well share a related thought I once put in a PM:

You have not understood anything at all, my friend.

Unlike the obvious case where one who shares phishing links, defaulted a loan or tried to promote a Ponzi schemes can get tagged immediately, I believe it's important to give the accused party time to prove that they are not scammers. As far as I know, even civil courts that handle civil cases give the accused time to defend themselves.

Poker Player if you are to go by the assumption that it's OK to tag any profile here based on any scam accusation that comes up because you are using a "preventive approach", then at least 80%  of the services actively advertising themselves here should have already been tagged by DT members. Just look at the first page of the scam accusations board.

This would make the Red trust way useless. It would be reds everywhere and people would even stop believing in the feedback system and it's accuracy

If there were multiple trust systems it would explain a lot but to implement it is one thing but to simplify it if it were implemented would be another. This would add more work for the admins and I doubt they will contemplate adding this as a feature.

This is true but there are problems to face if/when other members do not accept a scam was in the workings therefore would query and question the feedback. If scenarios such as those were to be played out it would empower scammers and would-be scammers knowing they could get DT and non-DT members to fight and argue between themselves. If that were to happen the eventual winners would be the scammers not the community trying to protect this forum.

As matters currently stand, I definitely agree with you however, sometimes that aggressive approach creates more problems when sufficient back up is not forthcoming. Rather than run the risk of getting bogged down in the quagmire of forum politics, some members would prefer to take a much more lenient approach.

Yeah, and it's funny you should post in this thread because when Poker Player wrote this:


I immediately thought of you, because while he and nutildah may have been the coal mine's canary with respect to freebitco.in, neither one is the first to leave prophylactic paint jobs on people's trust profiles.  You've been doing it in the Currency Exchange section for years.  BTW I'm not knocking you, Poker Player.  I know you didn't mean to imply you discovered the value of tagging potential scammers, because that's been S.O.P. for quite a few DT members, also dating back a number of years. 

Personally I think DT members need to be aggressive on this forum; if they weren't, all we'd have is an enormous lineup of scam victims and other assorted fires that needed to be put out.  You know that old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?  It's absolutely relevant to bitcointalk and scam busting/prevention.

This is the most important part of "preventive" feedback. The user would have to be neutral enough to withdraw negative feedback if it turns out that it was left excessively. I saw earlier that not everyone was ready to admit a mistake and withdraw negative feedback.

It is often very difficult to prove a scam beforehand and I think that we shouldn't be easy on the trigger. Getting out of a negative rating can be a very tiring and long process, certainly demotivating for services to stay here.

I have been reading your comments but as I think I made clear in the OP this is not a thread where I am going to fervently defend a position but more to invite reflection.

yahoo62278 , yes surely many inside and outside the forum disregard the warnings but we with the tool we have must do the right thing. If someone sees the active flag and negative feedback and deposits a lot of money in the room there he is.

The system surely could be improved but seeing how infrequently he makes changes to the forum theymos and how much he likes to think about it, as it more or less works, I don't see him making any changes any time soon.


Yes, some people see it as “aggressive”.


I would say that neutral but negative-spirited feedback is more useful in people, not businesses.


It depends on the case, IMO.

Vod, with respect to preventive feedback there are cases and other cases. In the case you mention, you know that many of us do not see it as you do.


As I have explained other times the “innocent until proven guilty” to which we could add “beyond a reasonable doubt” is joined in criminal cases, where sentencing someone to 30 years in prison or the death penalty for a murder is very serious. However in civil cases this does not apply and probability is used more. I believe that forum cases are more similar to civil cases, and that negative feedback for a short period until things are clarified generally doesn't hurt.

KingsDen I think what I have said, which coincides with what others have said I have adressed.

I don't say anything about the rest of the comments because I don't see them focused on the general discussion I was raising.

For this particular case, I do think dealing with freebitco.in is risky, it feels like they're going out of business. Beyond that, there's too many unanswered problems regarding payouts to long-time users. Once I see some progress being made on those, I'd be more inclined to remove the negative.

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.