Topic: Can we regulate the trust system ? (Read 1408 times)

Maybe, but if a DT feedback's pattern becomes too evident (like several dubious rates applied by a same DT minor group), it will be easier to spot who is acting in cartel, the exposure is higher than supporting partner DT's feedbacks only with words. Higher exposure is good, because it's harder to be omitted and trivialized.

Anyway, even with high exposure, if no one complains and express their opinion, nothing will be done and the abuses will continue.

It's not a definitive solution, but an improvement...

Adolf's post is factual. You don't like another user's post and you're trying to make it sound like it's a trust system issue. It's not.


A second DT rating would trigger the stronger message. My suggestion was just a small adjustment to the current positive/negative/red/green/orange/question mark scheme. I don't want to overcomplicate it with subjective details like what is a crime?

If I create a brand new account and if my first post is to offer a $100k escrow service or even the 10th or 20th post is to offer a $100k deals then there is something wrong. Since Vod was used for example then I have noticed most of Vod's tags are for a brand new account asking for no collateral loan. I am always saying when the crime is obvious then tag the user.

I said some members think red tagged members should not ranked up. By the way, I do feel the impact. I used to receive merits from the boards which shows trust rating but after getting the red tag I am not receiving much from those boards.

I did not promote any ponzi in and outside the forum while I am a member of the forum. I left promoting those business long before joining this forum because I was sick and tired of their terms.

---

I am saying the same thing like the other member that custom trust list is not solving the problem. Feedback from DTs are visible to everyone and forum member's count the DT feedback only.

May be this is a good idea (not red though, red looks scary, may be some other color) when the tag is not for a proven crime like troll, offering shady service, account selling, asking for no collateral loan from a brand new account etc etc.

For a confirmed crime like loan default, not posting products you paid for, reversing paypal once got the BTC etc etc keep the current warning text "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

okay you have just summarized the whole issue in a very nice short statement which i couldn't do due to the lack of writing skills .

i do not think anybody will debate over the "clear" red and green cases. but what's up with the gray ?

if you tag someone for being a scammer, not a single DT member will counter it and say " no allow this guy to scam others". it's  pretty obvious !

but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

who can accuse the lemon hater DT member of "abusing" the trust system when there is not a single rule that says "you can't tag someone for using the word lemon?

the tagged person will have his profile painted in red, he won't be able to make any deals with any sort of flexibility, he will be kicked out of any signature campaign even if he gets a counter rating "since most camp mangers clearly say that if you have a negative rating from a DT member you won't get paid".

who will protect say "me" from you giving me a random negative trust because i use this smiley   way too often ?

for all i know no are not breaking any rules for doing so !.

I'm still not following the logic here, sorry. There are already tools in place to remove people from DT. You can use those to remove specific members if you think they shouldn't be there.

Or if the existing tools are not good enough you can suggest improvements to theymos, who's already considering changes to how DT works.

Either or both of the above make much more sense to me than trying to force everyone into compliance with rigid rules, which would essentially create another hierarchy (mods able to override DT) and lots of new complaints. I mean I would be in favor of it if we could just add a rule "scams are not allowed" and have a feasible way to enforce it with zero-tolerance but we can't and we don't.


That's already happening and only 1 counter rating is needed (multiple would make the target have "+" trust, which is probably not a good thing). I don't recall any recent incident where a reasonable counter rating was not posted but if you have any examples please bring them up.

This is still missing the point. I'll give an example: I tagged Boplewww for posting this. As far as I know, nobody got scammed by this user. I don't think anybody would doubt this tag, it's just an example of what I consider more useful than waiting for an actual scam to happen.


Isn't it obvious DT won't always agree? There are clear red and clear green cases, but in between there's going to be differences of opinion at some level.

It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you.


This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns.

Actually, using just 3 variables :
1. Account rank
2. Account current trust
3. Amount risked

I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :



If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady.
If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect.
This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter.

So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust.

This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring?

Maybe i failed to give a proper explanation. the point here is not that a DT member himself has to be scammed, the accusation it self has to be based on a scam action. so if a newbie gets scammed by xyz  and you tag that xyz member for scamming, it is a very valid tag. this goes for all trading related matters, call it scam/cheat/ponzi/rip-off it does not matter. as long as it's not " this guy is stupid/troll , so i gave him a negative trust because i can".


i discused this with suchmoon but i will explain it again,  the trust custom lists is only good for my own use, it does not reflect how other members view my profile. since you are a DT member then you are on everybody's list by default, if you were to tag me now, even if i would exclude you from my list, everyone else by default will see your tag on my profile.
so the trust custom list does not serve any propose on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------

even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one because he thought that being a troll does not qualify you for a negative trust of which i am sure that 99% of members would agree to that . i am by no means defending the "way" that cryptohunter went about the "gang" and all the exaggerations ,but it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.



  

You must be in the list of the unluckiest guy here in bitcointalk.org though there are many users here like you that are being red tag due to a suspected activity that will probably lead to scam. Most of the members here had really matter about the trust rating even in bounty campaigns. We know that it is only a trust and should not be a part of the criteria for bounty hunting. So sad that a negative trust rating is always displays below your name when you make a post or a reply.

First: in general, most of the users who complain about the trust system, are the ones who got tagged. I agree with the large majority of all red DT-tags.
You're talking about the few that are debated. In general, I think the DT system serves a purpose, and some "collateral damage" can't be avoided.

This goes for all users, not only DT.