Topic: Are we giving Red trust feedback too easy? (Read 506 times)

Good advise #bump.

That would be great if DT were not infested with double standards colluding scammers. Since it undeniably is then your solution is garbage. You only claim it is decentralized and working well because you are a beneficiary. There is no denying it is only centralized to a tiny tiny group who collude together to impose double standards and a 2 tier system.

Look at this latest issue with mosprognoz  DT lol

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mosprognoz-needs-to-learn-5207250

Anyone else acting like this would be having red trust for sure. I mean nobody has yet even excluded this scammer supporting, self diagnosed scam parternship seeking rodent because the trust system operates to FORCE collusion. You are the first one to demonstrate you will act against a DT as a DT you are clearly a threat.

Red trust is given tooooooooooo easily to non DT and DT pals and NOT given to DT scammers and scammer supporters.

The best part is when DT members give red trust if you present undeniable financially motivated wrong doing on their part.

This issue is already solved,  I just shared it here as example how some users giving negative trust to easy,  based on the personal opinion and feelings, not evidence or facts.
This user was DT 2  member and his negative trust was visible to everyone in the  forum.
When I applied for merit source in Meta and received very strong support from my local community this user tried to block my application and started fight against me.
After long public discussion most of the users agreed that negative trust is not justified and finally theymos accepted my application for merit source.
I honestly was schocked because at that moment I still had negative trust from DT 2 member and many members told me that I have no chance to become merit source because of negative trust.
This number is not any more DT 2 member but I don't have negative feelings toward him and forgave him.
I even gave him positive trust.

Negative feedback should leave when there is appropriate evidence of scam or abuse, just not if I am not agree with someone. But unfortunately sometimes we have seen that kind of case leavening negative feedback's with just opinion. Means sometimes DT's made their feedback's too cheap. But I think current system working fine because other DT members countering and distrusting.

So if you found something unfair feel free to open thread on reputation. So other DT members would check, but it doesn't mean I have to ask other DT members before leave feedback always. But if there is too sensitive case then that is different issue and you might create thread for others opinions. Trust system quite decentralized now, and there is good solution if any DT left retailonary feedback.

Personally,  I really had bad experience with negative trust.
In my case there was no clear evidence for financially motivated wrongdoing as you mentioned but simple fact that one business company collapsed because business was unsucesfull.
As we know,  it happens all the time and all co owners lost money,  including me.
We followed legal procedure for the dissolution of the company,  suggested by authorities, and they didn't find anything wrong with our actions.
But one co owner felt differently and gave me negative trust based on his feelings and opinion  that we should refund him money for the unsucesfull business.
Topic in reputation section or personal messages didn't help so it's obvious how easy negative trust can be used against somebody based on the personal feelings not facts or evidence.

Recently there isn't much drama on Reputation section, but I understand about what you're talking. Sometimes it's sad to see high ranked reputed members fighting against each other. I know that they have reasons why they hate each other, but I think it's more personal things and it's not a reason to leave negative trust rating. Such feedbacks makel ook trusted people like scammers, despite that they aren't. I believe that's missuse of trust system and leaving neutral feedback and distrusting person would be more appropriate thing. These wars leads nowhere and reminds two kids fighting for a toy in the sandbox.

Um, I think you should not include everyone when you say that.

Personally, I am not a "big user" of the trust system. when I use it, it's because I really know who I'm giving my "point" to.

You can see that for yourself:
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1305990

If you have clear evidence of any scamming a flag should be raised. Negative trust is a broken dinosaur that just destroys the forum and the free speech here. It is UNDENIABLE. If there is no direct link to financially motivated wrongdoing there should be no flag or tag obviously. Most red trust i see handed out has ZERO connection to financially motivated wrong doing. More likely is a DT throwing their weight around trying to crush free speech of other members.

Then they perform some mental gymnastics saying eating lemons when you know there are others around who may die because they are allergic to lemons shows you don't care about other people, if you don't care about other people then obviously you will scam them if you get the chance.

CLEAR DIRECT LINK to financially motivated wrongdoing or NO FLAG NO TAG....else you may as well say free speech is dead or that we are pushing to echo chambers of DT and their agendas here.

It is UNDENIABLE. I have seen NO credible defense raised ever. Just a lot of DT's crying trolling because they want to keep their fav weapon that allows them to punish people they don't like and ensure they get the best sig spots. Or in EXTREME cases you will find DT members use red trust to silence people who present observable instances of those DT members prior financially motivated wrong doing. The other DT will support this behavior. The entire thing is currently fucked. Hence the board turning into warzone and the trust system just getting diluted into a mess that soon will provide zero use at all in preventing the real scammers standing out.

It can happen if someone is advertising scam.
Trust is not related only to this forum, or to crypto, some users seems don't understand this. For example, if someone scam you on facebook, would you trust that person on bitcointalk or you will warn others?
You mean DT who can't do shit themselves? Doesn't look like a good DT material to start with.

I reported DT member and they are still DT.

Red trust has now NOTHING to do with financially motivate wrongdoing else it would be a FLAG

Red trust is simply a tool that DT members weaponize for personal reasons. That have NOTHING to do with financially motivated wrong doing in most cases.

Theymos has made a huge fuck up leaving the old feedback system there and grandfathering the OLD abuse in. The old abuse is what forced through the need for flags. I mean leaving it there and grandfathering it in is completely fucked up.

By leaving the old feeback system there BUT LOWERING the threshold for giving it to " you can give it for any shit you want NOT just to scammers or those strongly likely to scam"  but allowing the same punishment to be used against people that get red trust aka no sigs, trading issues etc.... he essentially crushed free speech further. Terrible design and poorly conceived.

The new flagging system has potential but it is impotent whilst feedback is negative or positive or has a score. It should simply be feedback with no scoring. People have to READ the feedback and decide for themselves. Campaign managers should ONLY be allowed to punish people according to objective FLAGS of clear financially motivated wrongdoing.

What actually happens also is you have a lot of DT members that realize to cut back on competition for sig spots they just find any reason to flag your account. The campaign managers find ALL KINDS of metrics that the DT scum control to ONLY ALLOW the DT members to join their highly paid sig campaigns LOL.


Or if you are a competing campaign manager (not dt) or running a competing project that places incentive for reasons to slap some red.  There are all kinds of incentives for DT scum to throw red around.

Red trust has ZERO positives and HUGE negative implications.

The feedback system needs deleting or removing of all scores and it is simply a list of comments people can read. The flags stay the same. The lemons flag MUST be only raised on clearly financially motivated wrong doing or STRONGLY LIKELY TO SCAM like the minimum threshold for the OLD feedback system.

I agree red trust feedbacks are given too easy now a days around here.

Just want to quote a recent example. I even think this is what OP is concerned about.

I don’t. I read and know more than you think. But when you criticize something, you also specify what is wrong about it rather than letting people try to guess what you are talking about. What negative feedbacks were given prematurely? That’s relative.

You don’t want to name them, nothing will change. If the red neg isn’t justified, you can always report it to other DTs so they can exclude the user if he is unwilling to correct its feedback.

And yes, I have seen some cases where I believe trust wasn’t justified. I even excluded someone from my trust based on that. But that was what I thought about it.

I am thinking more about Red Trust I gave to other people, and I would like to give everyone a chance to prove me wrong.
One mistake I make can seriously affect other member, so I am questioning and double checking everything.
I don't think that red trust or positive feedback is 'set in stone'.



I would agree with this 100%

If you feel that one of these reviews is bad/wrong, create a topic here ---> Reputation.
If the members feel that you have been wronged, those who wronged you may be excluded from being DT1/2 members and therefore them negative feedback will not affect you.

Generally, don't let it get you, everything is updatable in the future.

You must be spending time under the rock, and not on the forum.

High ranked members fight each other in weird red trust fights.
I will not continue this silly duels by naming them here.


I was one of them.
I will not mention others, but it's easy to locate them if you are active forum member.



Yes I did.
That does not mean that I can't change any of my given red trust feedback if proven wrong


Thanks. Corrected.
I wrote this a bit late



They can, and they are being abused.

I would just call everyone, including myself, to examine red trusts, and give everyone a chance.

I've always been (or at least tried to be) conservative in leaving (negative) feedback, so from my perspective, many others are indeed too "trigger happy" when it comes to tagging accounts.

I'll quote myself because I'm lazy this morning:

Thanks, I wanted to post the same thing

That is why we have rules here that is being implemented to all of the users here in this forum, if you committed a mistake that is needed to be punish according of what rules you have been broken, you must also accept the consequence about your mistake.

We have rules in this forum, it is our job to read it and agree with it, and I am sure that those who committed mistakes that got their punishments also knows about the rules, yet they went against the rules.

I just wanna point out few things from  LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system that i think people should keep in mind more often. In general I think that more people should read this guide , even more times if it is needed.


If this is used more often imho forum would be a better place. Ignore button is mostly neglected I think, as i see people constantly getting involved in endless discussions with same trolls. But then again, it is not a surprise as here you actually have incentive to engage in pointless discussions through signature campaigns.

Just to add that I don't know how good or bad previous system was, but from what i see here, seems like this was the move in right direction. With that being said, it doesn't mean it can't be used in a better way.

I had experience to receive negative trust simple because I was member in some signature campaign or because of some issues long time ago, before 7-8 years and not connected with this forum,  trade or crypto at all.
So,  negative trust can be abused by forum members and there is no way to prevent it.
Yes,  I started topic in reputation,  sent messages and everything already suggested here without any result.
Negative trust,  specially from DT members,  are like "death sentence" on this forum and nobody can protect you or help you.

I do not believe in giving neutral rating for positive or negative feedback, it should rather be used as a note when you are undecided, for example when a new user has a username similar to that of an older member, it's not a clear scan attempt, but it is worthy of note.

Also, trust flags are now mainly used for scam attempts, and feedback for overall trustworthiness and attitude of a user which should be monitored and recorded over a period of time before giving out feedback; positive or negative. I agree that there may have been some bad calls by DTs in the past but it's much fewer not with the new trust system.