Topic: Are the negative trusts you have given so far really necessary? (Read 1145 times)

Do you intend to create this thread for the DT members only? if not, I would like to share my opinion.

Of course I can also give negative trust but the difference is that it will not reflect to account's profile since I am not a DT.
To be honest, I also see accounts with negative feedback which I disagree, but that's life, people give negative feedback based on their own judgment or evaluation but if the DT members that added them care for their system, they would certainly remove those who are abusing trust.

Of the numbers of DT here, I only have a small number of DTs in my list which I admire because I feel they give fair judgment and they use what the system is for.

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

...

In removing the post, what is wrong or untruthful about these posts? (Have you even seen those posts prior to today?)

I'm baffled why you would quote the very thing I've tried to get you to review and you claim you know not what I refer to.

You are confusing two separate issues.  

I was responding to a question concerning a flag.  If you genuinely had concerns about an exclusion as opposed to a flag, you would have voiced those concerns, but you haven't.

Which Cryptopia comment are you demanding I remove?

If you think mixing up a meme with Morpheus and a Star Trek captain (they're all the same to me as I don't watch the show) is a criminal offense, open a flag against me about it. It will fit in nicely with my 13 other inactive flags. Like me, you can't seem to find an interaction previous to this one, so yes, let's just declare it our first.

None of this is relevant to the topic of this thread. I know you could do this all night, but I don't really care to, so I'll let you have the last word.

Of course you don't remember now I pointed all of this out. How convenient that, as well as your declaration of irrelevance even though it clearly demonstrates your disdain for my political views as well as the suspicious timing of your antipathy with me in meta beginning mere hours after that post. You could have swore you asked me about it earlier? Was this our first interaction or not? Make up your mind. It is hard to keep your story straight when you make it up as you go along isn't it? Also, where does Captain Kirk come in to all of this? Oh right, in your imagination just like the rest of your fairy tale.

I don't really remember what you're talking about, and even though it does sound funny, its not relevant here.


Perhaps I confused Captain Kirk with Morpheus. I coulda sworn I asked you specifically about why you didn't like the trust system earlier, but I may be mistaken, as I can't seem to find the post.

What a coincidence 6 hours before you injected yourself into my conversation with another user there, I posted a thread about the attacks and threats on the Covington kids in Politics & Society. This was a thread you were clearly aware of as you later posted in it with clear disdain for even acknowledging death threats against children as being a serious topic of discussion just because they happen to be Trump supporters. I am sure it is just a coincidence...

BTW, where was the part about Morpheus, I was looking forward to that part of your narrative.

Incorrect. The first interaction I ever had with you was in Meta (feel free to prove me wrong if you'd like). I think our first disagreement (and one of the reasons I decided to add you to my distrust list) was because of your overall approach to the trust system. Then a few replies later you posted a lengthy meme about what the trust system meant to you. That may be the one I was thinking of; regardless, I felt your reply was overly pompous while simultaneously unclear, and it was then that I knew I didn't agree with your judgment.

Only after a couple of months of interacting with you did I realize you were always displeased and arrogant about everything, and in our first interaction you were only exhibiting your natural demeanor.

Actually the first time we interacted was when I was passing through the local red light district, and I saw you in an alley eating your own feces. I tried to tell you to stop, but you insisted it was delicious Belgian chocolate. Story time is fun isn't it? Why recall reality when you can just make up whatever you want without substantiation?

If you were being honest our first interactions were in Politics & Society where you got very upset at some of the ideas I discussed, then later saw fit to inject yourself into trust system related disputes I was involved in with concern trolling to fight your political battles via other methods since you can't muster a reasonable debate. You aren't a victim little girl, you are a perpetrator, as evidenced by your baseless accusations here.

Ok, I'll bite, since you keep bringing this up. What is this "last straw" you want to talk about?

There are many flags that are unsupported or opposed - the majority in fact which have not had their creator withdraw support. Perhaps you should go back and read the additional information concerning the connection that some are alts (which was proved by others, hence there aren't even 8 in total). We have seen at least two others prove their unworthyness to be on DT1 with their unreasonable posts.