Topic: Can we regulate the trust system ? - page 3. (Read 1426 times)

who is enforcing all the other rules on the forum now ? who does the ban/unban any other types of things? rules will be enforced by the same people/person.  

if someone can get you banned then you shouldn't worry if they will abuse this one set of rules, for all we know theymos can ban the whole forum and he is not obligated to even explain why. so there has to be some sort of authority to handle the rules.

once those rules are set, DT members will have to follow the rules, and once they don't which will be rare then even theyoms can attend to that. it will not be an every minute job as we only have a handful of feedbacks that could be considered as a break of rules.

Honestly default trust imo is just a very outdated judge of a completely different forum. More than half the people on it are dead accounts, or people who rised to the DT status by the amount of time they spent on the forums.

But if there's one thing that doesn't make sense it's completely biased judgements that are in no way related to an exchange of goods.
Like, sure, I get that someone trusts another person and tags him accordingly, or that someone else doesn't trust another. But isn't trust supposed to show the financial honesty of a person? If someone can be charismatic enough to convince 5 other members to trust him that's great, but if another person with questionable opinions had over thousands of dollars in trades is less trusted than this charismatic person... It really skews the meaning of "Trust" on the forums.

Rules work only as far as you can enforce them. So who's gonna enforce the rules? Who's going to have the power to remove ratings or remove people from DT?

What I say makes sense. DT members do not get removed for all of their bad judgement, because there can't be universal "bad judgement", and DT is not decentralized control-wise. That's the problem of top-down authority.
Top-down authority is fine for moderation -- it's pretty much the only way. And that works exactly like that: "police department" doesn't cease to exist because of dirty cops.
DT list on the other hand is not meant to be any kind of moderation tool. Trust networks should not have any sort of central point whatsoever.

Btw Google up "vendor bidding" and educate yourself instead of staying incompetent regarding auctions.

The Pharmacist: I did the googling for you, as you won't do it as you haven't earlier. It's about time for you to learn about these vendor bids before talking about them more. So google up it yourself or see e.g. this or this or this.

this mainly because the DT1 members have no rules to based their judgment on, they will have to do a lot of reading and waste a lot of time to verify if it should be treated as abuse or not.

but if we have a list of rules, the complaint will be easy to read.

DT member XYZ broke rule 15 by giving me a negative trust after i posted a picture of my naked ass.

rules no 15 : you can not tag a person just for showing their ass on the forum.


DT memeber get's warned or unlisted or whatever the rules state.

but if we have to count on each person's own logic. do you think posting an image of someone's ass is offensive and requires a tag ? well AFAIK they could get a positive feedback  for that and it will still be valid as long as the rules don't say the opposite.

now of course that is just an example, rules don't have to carry that much of details  .

We currently have something similar to this but not working at all,since we have DT1 and DT2 level members,if the DT2 members are abusing the system means they can eliminate the person who abused the system from DT1 trust list.But the problem is not enough active DT1 members to analyse about the people in their trust list.

I do not understand why some people are now talking about an alternative method to the trust system? this is not the main point of my topic, the  forum is differently better with it "despite it's weakness" than without it.

what I am proposing here is a clear definition about the use case of the trust system.

as long as there is not a single rule that says  for an example " you can not tag someone because their username is funny" then if someone tags someone else for their funny username , then honestly they are not breaking any rules since non is stated in the first place !.

i also might have screwed up when i used the word "regulate" , excuse my mandarin   . i am not saying the trust system should be controlled by the mods as this will most likely make it worse, i am saying we need a set of rules, so when someone is not satisfied with the tag he gets, he can then complain or appeal based on an existing rule. it will be much easier to judge the case if we have such rules.

* this only applies to DT members as their feedback appears on the profile.

I do not think that any DT member is  abusing the the trust system on purpose, and that most of them are actually trying to "help" the forum but sometimes they go to extremes where they tag people for silly reasons that are far from fair. so regardless of the good intention there still some type of harm.

Anduck, that makes zero sense at all--not surprising since you think bidding on your own auctions is OK.  We've just agreed that DT members get removed if they prove to have bad judgement.  What you're arguing is basically like saying "there have been some dirty cops (and they've been fired); let's get rid of the entire police force because obviously it isn't working".

This is one of the reasons why DT should be removed completely. Scammers will and have found their way on to the list. The fact that there have been scammers on DT proves that DT isn't to be trusted, and the perceived trust is largely an illusion. DT list should only be a "people unlikely to scam others" list, and being on the list should signal nothing else.

Ponzis are designed to screw over gullible people. 

Do you think it's any less wrong if posted outside this forum?

DT isn't even a voluntary "service".  There are just some DT members who actively tag untrustworthy members.  You'll notice a lot of DT2 members don't.  They're just members that either Theymos trusts (DT1) or that members of DT1 trust (DT2).

There are a lot of members who've been tagged just for making scammy offers.  Vod, for example, tags a lot of people who ask for loans with no collateral.  I tag account sellers primarily.  Neither of us have been directly scammed by the members we've tagged; it's a warning to others that the tagged member might not be trustworthy.  That's what happened in your case when you offered to escrow that insane amount and got tagged by hilariousandco, and it's not much different than what some DT members have been doing all along.  If you're going to be honest with yourself, you never complained about the trust system before you got tagged.  

In fact, IIRC you reported a lot of abuse/wrongdoings by other members that never affected you directly but which led to members getting red trust.

So given what I just pointed out, how is it you're now being "bullied"?

That's demonstrably untrue--look at how many merits you've gotten.  Hell, even though I don't agree with most of what you said in your post here, I gave you 2 merits for it since you obviously put some effort into it and wrote it clearly enough to understand.  And the fact is that I haven't seen you a lot around Meta lately, so if you're making fewer posts you're going to earn fewer merits (don't know if you're posting in any other section I might not visit).

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that DTs are not necessary. DTs ARE the asset of the forum who are responsible to keep the forum clean from the scammers. It's a voluntary job they are doing and the community should be grateful to them. Mods are responsible to keep the forum clean from the spammer but the difference is - they are paid (I guess).

My question was, if I have never scammed a single penny from anyone then:

- How is the display of my trust rating is relevant?

"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

- Why people get scared and bullied me when I wanted to trade only £111 paypal? I have lost 100 times larger amount in this forum when I had my lending topic.

- Why some member think red tagged members like me should not rank up hence they usually skip meriting my posts.

- Yes I made a mistake offering an escrow of over $100k (I did not even know what is a 2/3 multi-sig, I was noob) and for that reason DT tagged me saying a ponzi promoter can not be trusted who offers $100k escrow? DT could have left me a neutral feedback without destroying my account. This should serve as a warning. DT could give me a chance for a mistake which did not harm anyone. Did I harm anyone by my noob offer?

- I got tagged for promoting ponzi (Even though I never promoted a ponzi in the forum).

---

DTs basically sometimes forget that one red could ruin everything for a member. DTs need to be careful when they make a decision to tag someone, no matter it's a negative, positive or neutral because your rating reflates the weight of an account.

Don't just leave a negative feedback based on your¹ personal believe, if you brought up in a slam and other guy bought up in an elite family then life experience between you and other guy will be very different. Leave a neg once the crime is proven else leave a neutral which should serves as first time warning, may be 2nd and third too. Then go for a red.

¹ _{means in general.}

I'm more concern with green trust that with red trust.

Red trust means people might be avoiding a person just because of a person doesn't think somebody is trustable.
Green trust (even if it's years old) might trick persons into believing the owner of that account is trustable or their business is.
And while avoiding somebody doesn't lead to financial loses, trusting somebody might do and we all know how some trustable members of the community ended.

Right now the owner of an exchange still has a green tag while he has been arrested and his exchange is frozen solid with all the money locked there just because of a successful trade two years ago...just saying

If it is going to be "regulated" (which I doubt it is going to happen any time soon), any tag without a reference should be concidered as neutral even if it comes from a DT member or simply any tag must come with reference..

There's no way of knowing, because it's up to Theymos.  I'm pretty sure he reads threads like these and knows what people are expressing, but if or how he's going to respond will remain a mystery right up until the time he changes something.

Back in January, actmyname and I were tagging shitposters because the problem had gotten so out of hand that it seemed like there was nothing else a DT member (or anyone else) could do--and no, it wasn't a good use of the trust system and I had to delete all those feedbacks eventually.  Then Theymos introduced the merit system essentially out of nowhere.  I certainly didn't see it coming.  So my guess is that Theymos has some ideas of his own in mind, and the changes that get made might be a fusion of those plus what everyone else has suggested.  But who knows? 

That would take too much time, coordination, and effort to get DT members to come to a consensus about something as simple as a feedback.  DT members don't get paid for tagging people, you know.  I think most DT2 members are either inactive accounts now or don't actively tag scammers.  There's only a handful of DT2 members who actually try to bust scams and various other forms of untrustworthiness, and there have been many disagreements among them.  Personally I don't have the time to waste on participating in a referendum for each feedback that's up for consideration.

How about opening a board opened to only DT members, or also staff members. And when a member is considering tagging a members (positive or negative), the issue is brought to the board and the entire active DT members can brainstorm and decide if it's what leaving a feedback.
This can be limited to only 'non scam' scenarios, to reduce the workload. If a user is proven to be involved in a scam or rip-off there is no issue to deliberate on.

Do these threads ever result in any tangible outcome? The merit system has been added in less than a year now and it already looks like its mechanics are set in stone. Do you think attacking the Trust system after so many years is going to yield any results after it's been here for almost as long as the forum has existed?

I'm not saying this to deny or disagree with you, I definitely saw a few times how the trust system was abused or how it defines some people as trustworthy whereas they might not be as much as people would think, but I can't help feel like you guys are beating on a dead rock.


Assuming we just brainstormed better alternatives right here and now, will they actually be implemented? This forum is genuinely just test grounds for the forum admins, users get little to no say, and our feedback is completely disregarded concerning any aspect of the forum features, that it makes me feel sad if the people who write these kinds of post do it for any other reason than to vent/rant.

Yeah, mostly it's a bunch of blowhards who got tagged by some member of DT and you can't expect those members to be happy with the trust system--having said that, I've always said it was broken from the beginning and still do. 

Funny how people whine hard about the trust system and what they see as unfair trust by DT members who likely are doing their best to keep the forum clean, and yet they don't whine about the simple fact that Theymos allows scammers to use this forum however they like.  It's not against the rules to scam someone here, in case anyone here hasn't noticed.  If there wasn't a system whereby some trust feedbacks counted for more than others, how could anyone get a reliable warning about a scammer? 

As broken as it is, I have yet to hear anyone come up with a better alternative to the trust system we're stuck with except to create your own.  And just because incorrect feedbacks are sometimes wrongly given by DT members, that's no reason to scream that the DT system should be scrapped.  There have been miscarriages of justice all throughout history, but if there wasn't a justice system there would only be anarchy.

This is all up to Theymos, however.  He did mention that he's thinking about making some changes to the trust system, but I'm hoping what results from that doesn't resemble anything most of the whiners are suggesting.

And I'd also point out that if a DT member is thought to be abusing the trust system, he'll get removed from DT.  That's happened numerous times (you got removed, but there was never a reason given that I saw).  The DT list is not set in stone and I've already been removed once, then reinstated.  Other DT members have been removed for scamming as well.  I don't know if there are any members right now who are using their DT status for their own gain, despite accusations being made.  Mistakes?  Sure?  But everyone makes mistakes and mistakes don't mean a bad feedback is abuse.

I agree, there should be NO ROOM for abuse in a system that controls the behaviour of others.

Remove the opportunity to abuse or may huge efforts to do so or remove the system of control.

DT misuse is not insignificant and not acceptable. Even if it was insignificant, it wouldn't be acceptable. DT should be removed.