Topic: Can we regulate the trust system ? (Read 1426 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.

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.

So you are saying my trust feedback was to shut me down (was planed) because I was investigating some merit abusing in the past?

Anyway, who cares about a non DT trust. When a non DT leaves a red or black - it does not reflect your trust score. We are talking about Default Trust system which reflects the trust rating. An irresponsible, a personally biased one can ruin an account. Tag me if I owe you a single Penney and I deny to give it back. Otherwise how it's relevant?

"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

  The idea behind the trust system is a very helpful one it can be used to alert others about a suspicious and faulting member of the forum well.

I think the forum has done well by establishing DT to dish out trust to members I don't have anything against the forum idea but the issue is that a DT should be a very neutral member that don't constantly get into and issue with other member with the immense power a DT has at there disposal it would be wrong that a DT fall on members that has high temper he/she might constantly abuse there power.

And again before any trust can be given to any member it should at least have the approval of more than one DT Thai would help in making decisions less bias

Did you mean staff like you is precisely why the trust system is fcked up big time?do you mean you are still in hope that you will get your position back?
sorry to be honest there are less people here cares about your opinion a hypocrite pretending like you arent one of those abusers,heh.no hard feelings i might receive a red from your friends.

That says the right one!
The other users red tagged due to guessing!
Just as you scream into the forest, so it comes back!

Even theymos is not happy with the current trust system,but this is what we have to save the fellow members from falling into scam.So we can't change the current trust list to be changed it may wakeup lot of scammers accounts to be legit.

Someone suggested to make the defualt trust list too often like in one month period but that will leave heavy work behind the admins,so I don't think it will be regulated now but in the new forum software theymos might have some other feature to find the scammers more easily.

- When I want to trade, the forum members are not considering their own trust list
- When I am trying to join a signature campaign, the bounty manager is looking for someone who do not have red trust from the DT

If everyone is here to build their own trust list then why do everyone takes DTs trust in consideration? A wrong red from DT can completely ruin an account. Who has time to read all those pages after pages against the red trusted member to see if s/he really was justified?

While the trust system is far from perfect, there isn't a significant amount of abuse on any level. Any system gets misused to some extent. As long as the amount of misuse is insignificant, it is acceptable.

Stuff like this is precisely why almost all threads complaining about the trust system are pure bullshit. Alts of busted people start pitching in in hopes that their accounts will return to non-negative levels.

This aint a gang its called oligarchy,theymos said by himself he is not happy with the current trust system.
He is not a fool not to know these DT members are somehow abusing it,look at the positive feedbacks were given for some absurd reasons

Only those DT members are powerful here,even theymos words arent that much powerful.
Theymos said trust should not be given to pure spam,nor merit abuse because there are no such thing as merit abuse..why would he say distribute the merits to those posts which deserves it? there are different perspective with each people,different standards which is why trust system should be taken down or atleast re-arrange DT members.We need to vote or elect each one of them so that these trust abusers wont be in their positions for too long.

Enforce how? Moderators are not going to touch it, that's pretty much the founding principle of the trust system. Because if that happens then moderators are in control of the system, and if you think current complaints are bad - it would be orders of magnitude worse if trust gets moderated.

So that leaves users themselves in control of it... which can be done, and yes, even the counter-ratings that you mention are an essential part of it. You can't expect everyone to have the exact same opinion. There are other tools too, like exclusions.

That's not to say that the trust system couldn't benefit from some changes. I'd prefer more push for users to build their own trust lists. Keep in mind, complaints target mainly DT (Default Trust), which is just one branch of the trust system.

There can never be a system that will be absolutely favorable to all and sundry,and that's applicable in this situation,most times you could disagree with a DT trust rating while some other users may not,the more reason why I'll have to agree with you that there be a specific reason for handing out negative trusts.

Since it's designed to brandish scammers, it's best to leave it that way,as I do not see any reason why I should trade with caution with an individual that's simply a troll and not a scammer,definitely I cannot come to bad over his or her useless trolls

Giving negative trusts for trivial issues such as that kinda makes its purpose laughable and one not to bad taken seriously,and if negative trusts are still given for matters such as trolls or simply cos you don't agree with such users,soon in the future users would go ahead and trade with red trusted scammers as they would not be quite sure what the red trust was for in the first place or if it was deserved

Even though you do not wish to be. I am starting to see you more of supporter of what I would like to see happen...

I want free speech and equality for recognition of value for every single person on this board. That is all I want NOTHING MORE. Forget using me or the gang as examples that is not needed. We just want ....what I just said. If you can attain that then gangs are going to happen.

I am completely happy to leave myself and gangs out of this discussion.

I 100% agree with some criteria for RED trust from DT and removal if abused. Any system of control needs clear rules.

However, what you do not see right now...but I am hoping that you will after a while is.

Merit is more damaging and cancerous than trust. It actually a more powerful control tool than Trust even because you can not see negative merit and complain or mention abuse. You simply do not get merit given to you and since it is totally subjective there is no proof of abuse (unless gross giving 50 merits each to your alts)

Ignore my gang assertion.

Please tell me how you find fault with my example backed by observable events  that merit is a control tool. I feel it is impossible to deny. The only way to deny it is to say nobody here wants to be PAID2POST or cares about their rates of PAID2POST. I do not accept that is even plausible.

Also why would you not think my suggestions for merit improvements are ...well big improvements for stopping abuse and making things fairer for all?

If I could get rid of trust or merit I would get rid of merit or uncouple it from rank after full member.

Anyway sorry to derail you but you did mention me and my theories so I just wanted to say I support your post here 100% but I hope you can join me on helping develop fairer systems for all and not even allowing a system to control speech to remain here.

Forget my detest of those I felt were trying to attack me (if you do not want to believe me on that point then I can drop that entirely) and just work for what I really want - no oppression of free speech  and fair recognition for effort given from everyone.

I agree that an unofficial guideline could be drawn out to govern the trust system.
The issue I think arises from the text associated with trust feedbacks; Warning! Trade with extreme caution. It makes it seem like it only concerns trades. But I believe it roughly covers interactions with other users.

If a user is known for giving false facts about bitcoin, this is not an offense worthy of a ban. But it could be misleading to other members. And could be worthy of a red tag.

I agree it should not be used against users who disagree with your opinion or are expressing themselves, in however eccentric a manner.

My trust rating:

From hilariousandco

Thanks to jackg that I was able to trade with him (using some special condition though).

 
 looking at the amount of complaints from users on both Meta and Reputation boards, you get to see that many people are not happy with how the trust system or specially how DT members use it.

 I have randomly checked a few examples of how DT members use the trust system and to be honest for the most part of it, the tag had a valid reason behind it "scam", but on the other side i see a few cases where DT members give a negative trust for someone for the silliest reasons.

 The issue here is mainly because we have no obvious and clear set of rules that regulates the use of trust system.

 also given the fact that a negative trust from a DT member means no more signature campaigns and most likely no more trading activities, so ti does carry a lot of weight.

while I totally do not agree with @cryptohunter that there is an organized "gang" that abuses the trust system for own personal benefits  " or at least this is what i understood from his multiple posts"  , I do not think that there is any sort of gang what so ever, but I think every  DT member uses the trust system they way they "see fit" which in many case could be the "wrong"  even to other DT members, and you can clearly see in a few cases where DT memebers disagree to one another decision and counter it by giving a positive feedback.

and of course the same thing goes for positive feedback, i see some DT members giving positive feedback also for "silly" reasons too, and no body will ever admit that they way they use the trust system is wrong.

I personally do not think it is right to give a negative feedback for someone that is not a scammer no matter how much of an a**hole they are, this goes also for giving a positive feedback for someone just because you like them or because they have been "helpful".

This is a very important matter as a feedback from a DT member could be a "life changer" for someone who spent years building a good reputation only to get tagged for disagreeing to some DT member's point of view.

although i disagree with the most part of cryptohunter theory, but he has a valid point here


while i doubt it is as bad as he describes it, but it remains  valid as long as the use of the trust system is simply defined by everyone's own view.


here is what i think the trust system is meant to be used for


------------------------------------------------------

so why don't we enforce some rules on the trust system to solve all this mess and live happily ever after ?