Topic: Can we regulate the trust system ? - page 2. (Read 1408 times)

that signature campaign was an example of how USELESS the custom trust list is .the problem is indeed with the trust system.
and there is no confusion, as everyone seems to have understood the point and disusing it on point.

 it's not a good idea to remove the whole DT altogether as for the most part it is accurate and helpful for all other members, we are not discussing the existence of DT ,but the use case.

as someone who is a DT and their feedback appears by default to every member there has to be a set of rules, if the DT is not happy with the rule and wan't to use the trust system the way they want then they get removed from DT and can still tag people for saying "apple" if they want.

This just wouldn't work unfortunately. The scammer could easily delete his posts, and then the system fails. Or post a scam thread and immediately lock it - then no one can post in the thread and therefore no one could leave feedback.



Many scammers try to avoid detection and tagging by sending their scams out in PMs only. Then there are no posts and no links for verification.

I don't mean to be discouraging here, but there are just too many holes in this system for it to work.

1. System will check whether both of them have replied in the respective thread. For example, I have created a thread in marketplace for buying something. You as a NON-DT member can only provide feedback if you have replied in that thread. Now, if some random person gave feedback, it will be same as of now. No one gonna care.
2. If a scammer don't create a thread even, or don't make a reply in any thread, how will we even know that he is scammer. Also, DT can provide feedback. And the link will verify the proof.
I just have mentioned that I have observed this system in another forum although there was no DT in that forum, lol.

Again, point 2 can handle this. If someone offers such kinda ROI with a thread, feedback can be given easily by DT.

While I don't agree with this for reasons similar to what TP stated above, this gave me another idea. Most of the complainants seem to be upset by the red "Warning" label. What if the score still turns negative/red on first neg trust but the warning label doesn't appear or has a softer wording (Warning: click to check user's feedback) or is not bright red if there is only one neg.

1. impossible to monitor does not null what I have demonstrated clearly needs doing or needs scrapping
2. Disagreeing with observable raw data is up to you
3. Deserved it compared to what ? in a subjective system how can you deserve something objectively ? this is fine if it's just a bit of subjective fun but if you start trying to put value to those scores against other peoples scores it is ludicrous.
4. I can not ascribe high value to ludicrous statements and broken logic.


But sure continue with the trust system here. I am certain there is no room for different rules for different people in any system of control at a low or mid level. For grey areas and context only the highest level must have some freedom. This highest level is generally voted in or out my the populace depending on how fair or unfair they perceive them to be.

If sub layers of control (consisting of multiple people the more the worse for subjectivity) have freedom or even no guidelines the entire thing ends up a mess of different individuals getting different treatment depending on the collisions with different "system controllers and those "system controllers" views towards them and their actions at that given moment in time.

a subjective system for trust  is open to abuse.

Of course. The people affected by the wrongdoing are the loudest about it, naturally. See e.g. banks, politics or whatever subject. On the other hand, the people being most supportive of current DT list are the people on it.


Indeed. It is not a commonly accepted practice here but e.g. in my country it is. Nonetheless, it's a practice which is common in some communities/countries. In any case, arguing that vendor bidding is untrustworthy, unethical or scamming is simply ridiculous.

The bitcointalk auction standard is not defined anywhere, and is very vague and only learned by watching what others are doing. It simply didn't even cross my mind that vendor bid may be not cool, as it's common in my country. Of course after seeing how community reacted to it, I learned that it's not part of the auction standard here, and I've kept numerous successful auctions since, for 2-3 years already.


It doesn't surprise me one bit that people are incompetent regarding auctions. Auctions are not simple at all. There are loads of assumptions etc.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction. Later on that same day his opinion changed 100% to the opposite, because I provoked him by telling him that I don't specifically trust him. He also threatened to red-rate me unless I removed my rating to him. I didn't remove my rating, so he proceeded in red-rating me. It's incredibly stupid for people to think that Vod rates me because of the auction, even after he himself told me that he will rate me (for completely other reason). Obviously he will not state e.g. "he pissed me off, this is me wrecking his account" in his rating. All the sources are public and verifiable, so go see yourself how it went. The PM conversation is the thing in there, and shows very poor conduct by Vod, conduct enabled by him being on DT.


It was a single case ~3 years ago. Why would I bid on my auctions here now that I know it's not part of the auction standard here? That's ludicrous.

Great, I can finally get double the amount of "Lauda gang" complaint threads.

We do get incorrect feedback being left by DT members - they are only human. You can't expect 100% infallibility from anyone. However, when people open threads appealing their red trust, we also see lengthy and reasoned discussions amongst both DT members, non-DT members and the accused, which generally either results in the red trust being removed as the consensus is against the DT member in question, or the red trust being reinforced as the consensus is against the accused member. It isn't some grand conspiracy, and the people who suggest otherwise are invariably those who have had their red trust reinforced after an unsuccessful appeal.



1 - Who is going to verify that every link is accurate?
2 - So if a scammer just ignores that thread, they can't be tagged?

I'm afraid your suggestion would essentially remove the ability to pre-emptively tag a scammer before the scam takes place. If someone is offering a ROI of 50% a day or advertising a bitcoin doubler, you don't need a trade to take place to know they are a scammer.

Can we please not derail yet another thread in to Anduck's personal beef.

That will make the system even more inefficient to the point where I bet DT members would stop tagging anyone.  What am I supposed to do when I find an account seller and want to tag him--drop a PM to another DT member to request that he cosign my negative trust?  Wait for a response and if the answer is no, then move on to another DT member?  What if I get scammed myself?  Am I then not allowed to leave a neg unless I have approval from someone else on DT?

There are so many problems with that suggestion that for me it's a non-starter right from the get go.  DT members aren't paid staff.  The ones that do tag scammers do so on their own time, voluntarily.  The ones who've shown themselves to be untrustworthy or use bad judgement when leaving feedback (or for whatever other reason) get removed.  That's a fact, as evidenced by all the ones who've already been removed.  

The people I see railing the hardest against the system are the members who've been tagged by DT members for their untrustworthy behavior.  

And Anduck, you can argue that self-bidding in auctions is allowed by certain auctioneers, but it is not a commonly-accepted practice and I think you learned the hard way what the bitcointalk community thinks about it here.  The only thing you have going in your favor as far as that goes is that there wasn't a rule against it here, but Vod wasn't alone in thinking it was very shady of you to do it.  I do recall some sort of attempt at bargaining that Vod did about feedback removal (I don't know where that thread is now), and I do recall thinking that it wasn't something he should have engaged in and isn't the behavior he typically displays.  

Even if he was wrong in doing that, I think his feedback on you about the self-bidding is absolutely correct.  If I wasn't familiar with the situation, I would definitely want a visible warning that you might be bidding on your own auctions.

Edit:
Yes, sorry about that.

Fair enough, but I would like to add that I do think the trust system needs to be revamped and I've always said it was broken as well.  If Theymos were to make changes that affected the weight of my feedback, I'd be totally OK with that except for the fact that all the negs I've left wouldn't be much of a warning to anyone else.  I don't like the trust system the way it is, but there should be a mechanism by which members can be warned about scammers and so forth.  Unfortunately I don't have any great ideas on how to improve the system we have now, and the vast majority of suggestions I've heard so far either wouldn't help or would make things worse.

I can't see a lot of problem with the current trust system. We might have a little portion of invalid feedback from DT (I'm not sure if it exists in realityI'm not sure such kind of feedback exists, I have edited this sentence since people may think I have talked about DT existence, lol.). Despite this little amount of invalid feedback, we the normal member are getting a vast number of valid feedback which is vety helpful for us. I would prefer to stay with the current system with a little edition if theymos/community agrees.

1. You must have to provide a reference link, of course it will be from marketplace.
2. The person whom you are going to provide feedback must have to reply on that thread, it ensures a deal was happened. Applies for DT only.
3. If you are not in DT, both the person have to create a reply on that thread so that a 3rd party can't provide an invalid feedback.

I got this system in another forum and found it quite nice where invalid feedback can't be given.

If someone is talking about moderating feedback-
1. Everyday hundreds of new post will be created in meta.
2. Theymos have to trust a few moderators (a few can't cover it though) which seems impossible. If you look at the current recovery system, you will realize why theymos will not give the power to someone for moderating the trust system.

This would give even more power to this DT structure. The goal is to encourage people to make their own trust lists and giving DT any more perceived legitimacy is not helping.

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

In this case at least we can stop/minimize the abuse in which people are tagged for saying "lemon".  I guess 3 people will not be having hatred for lemon simultaneously.

Same goes  for +ve feedback too, where people get +ve for doing a $10-20 trade, at least  you need to be trusted by at least by 3 people to get the +ve rating.

Since many of the DTs are inactive, we need to expand this network but at same time it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.

Of course the system (DT list) is the problem. There's no place for central authority in a trust network.

The system isn't the problem. It could work perfectly if unfair, bizarre or inconsistent feedbacks were nulled by the judgement of another DT members, it's possible in the currently system.

Or a little change would be useful too, for an example: to make a feedback valid, more than one DT member must sign it.

That's a problem with signature campaigns, not with the trust system.

You seem to be (and your thread title definitely is) confusing trust system with DT, which is just one pseudo-user in the trust system that is put into users' trust lists by default. So if that's your problem you should try to change that instead of messing with the whole system. Petition theymos to remove DT altogether and/or make some sort of push towards widespread use of custom trust lists. Petition to remove DT members who you think abuse the system. Petition signature campaigns to have a different approach to trust ratings.

that does not solve the problem of how other members see my profile  "the main point of discussion".

assuming just to "explain my point" you were now going to give me a negative trust say for " The way i am debating with you", and then the signature campaign i am in " am not in any just assuming still" kick me out of that campaign. what will be the use of my OWN trust list?

the fact that you are by default on EVERYBODY's trust list is the reason why you need to have a few rules to follow, as your opinion reflects on everybody else eyes and not only yours.


* i am referring to "you" just for the simplicity of speech, but what i mean is DT members is general and not related to you as a person.















 

Here is what you can do: add moderators to your trust list. You have a moderated trust system, and I get to keep mine too.

Trusting moderators with enforcing rules on spam etc is not the same as trusting them on evaluating nuances of every scam. I would prefer those systems to stay separate.


I certainly don't subscribe to this hive mind thing so we'll have to disagree on this. Not everything is black and white. I prefer to have an occasional counter-rating or some other dispute than make the whole system rigid.

the control is already in the moderators hand, if someone can ban accounts then it's not the best argument to say that putting them in control is not an improvement. since we can not have voting , elections or anything of that kind then moderators must have control. in fact someone with the power to ban accounts can ban a DT member right now for no reason so we are not actually giving the mods any sort of extra power. and even if we were to assume so, i personally rather see a moderated trust system than a random trust system, at that point the majority of the feedback will make sense to the majority of people.



"The variety of opinions" is the root of the problem. you can not have a "The variety of opinions" in a trust system. especially that DT member's tag is the THIN LINE between a usable account and a non-usable account[1].

[1] -almost every signature campaign states that if you have a negative trust  you can't join.
      -the majority of people  will not be willing to trade with someone who has negative trust from a DT member

I mean look at the contradiction of DT feedbacks on the same members, this would have not happen if the rules are there.
-------------


I do not agree with the merit part, it will be impossible to monitor , plus i totally disagree with your theory of that the top merited people got their merits from each other "at least this is what i understood" even if that was to be true, this can simply be due to the fact they actually deserved it? also if you look at most DT members merit score, is just an average, except for a few like suchmoon  whom i am totally against his/her way of describing the use of the trust system, i honestly think he/she deserves all the merit it due to the quality of his/her posts.

so please don't take this off-topic. merits are a whole different thing. we are talking only about trust system only here.

Of course you can not have a control system that is subjective.

That is exactly how abuse takes place.

Take away subjectivity and enforce object set of rules for everyone they bye bye abuse. At least abuse that is reported.

Anyone requesting subjectivity inside a control system is asking for the ability to apply different rules to different people. That is called unfair.

NO way.

DT trust needs strict set of guidelines.

So does merit.

Any system of control needs strict criteria or it is wide open for abuse. How can you you appeal in a subjective system unless there is such unreasonable behaviour that most people recognise it is unreasonable enough to speak out about and the person who was unfairly treated has enough energy to go through reporting it and presenting his case to convince others who will subjectively evaluate the situation. A total gauntlet. Or you just demonstrate how the red trust was outside of the criteria and that is reversed and DT member remove after x bad red trusts given.

Even worse when the people in the control system are of the same pool as the users competing for all the same things. Not to mention disagreements and personality clashes and well just bad moods whatever.

Subjectivity = no comeback for messing up or abusing

The excuse I want to add a new reason for giving red trust because I feel it is a good idea is not the point. It is not for lower level controls to decide to operate under different mandates. The central point of authority develops new rules and hands them down to the lower levels of control to enact upon everyone fairly.

If someone gets a red trust they need to know it is a fair decision, they have clear right of appeal if there is abuse and that anyone else who had done the same thing would have got red trust in the same context.  There will always be grey areas but they should be small and more details to broad rules can be drilled down as you go and as grey areas arise. These can be taken care of by moderators if needed.

 



 

That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists.


So this would put the control in moderators' hands. I don't think that's an improvement at all.

Even assuming the enforcement can be super fair, it's still not a benefit to have the trust system conform to a rigid set of rules. The variety of opinions is part of what makes it usable. For example when The Pharmacist started tagging account traders I added him to my trust list because I wanted to see which users are account traders. That was before he was in DT. It looks like your suggestion would take away that flexibility if everyone is allowed to tag only for trades. It would also remove the ability to warn about ICO scams etc.