Topic: Concerns with new DT1 logic - page 3. (Read 1019 times)

I think the point he was making is that regular users will go inactive and not maintain their trust lists. If you have 10 users all including someone in their trust list, and all these users become inactive and therefore do not respond to request to remove said person, then the only way to remove this DT1 member will be through other DT1 exclusions.

As I said in the other thread, it seems a bit strange that you could have 100 or more people excluding someone, but if 10 people include them then they become DT1 (unless the other DT1s remove them).



Ranking up does not increase your ability to learn or contribute to the forum, apart from decreasing some wait times, which are only a problem in the first place if you are a spammer. The only real benefit of ranking up is that you can then earn more money from bounty campaigns. If ranking up is your only motivation to continue to learn about bitcoin, then you are here for the wrong reasons.

Hmmmm this is a nice attitude ... or are you saying that people should act purely selfishly and not wish for a better fairer system for all because they themselves will not essentially benefit from it??

Explain

I can attest to this, was in the same boat. Lurker since 2013, member since 2014, never wore a sig until very recently.

At some point people stopped joining this forum as a hobby and started joining it as a potential profession, which I still find to be quite weird. It's pretty easy to tell which newcomers are actually a fan of crypto and which are here for the shit tokens just by the content of their posts.

Furthermore QT I don't see why you care what the DT is like because your reputation has been blown to shit regardless how you rejigger your trust settings. Frankly I don't understand why you continue to post under that account.

Wrong, not everyone is here to be a bounty hunter. I took 2-3 years more than needed to get to Legendary, I didnt wear a paid signature for the first 4 years on the forum.

Just because you feel a certain way it does not mean everyone else is in the same situation.

I agree with the OP with the merit system of letting a user to pay a fee to rank up. Then the accounts should be distinguish from ranking up due to merit and ranking up due to a paid fee.

My opinion about the forum now is not a user-friendly. Newcomers will just tend to have a couple of post then leave the forum. This because they need to get merit before ranking up. Ranking up is one of the motivation for a user to continue on learning about bitcoin and later on will invest. Base on my experience I do not really believe in bitcoin but later on I started to learn and invested a little bit on it. That was the time when a user can rank up to jr. member even without getting merit.

However, it will be hard now to get more bitcoiners here in the forum. The forum has set to be for the good and elite users that could easily get merit on their posting skills. Again it is not a user friendly anymore. I know that the merit system was to eradicate shit posting but this problem is not about the forum. The real problem is the bounty campaign and signatures so what to regulate here is not the user to rank up but the bounty signature campaign through the bounty managers. A set of guidelines will do I guess.

-edited.

It all sounds too complex to me. I'll continue to avoid using it, and I'll make my own judgements from my perception of activities in the forum.

Agreed. But I don't think the Merit requirement is meant to include users in DT, it's meant exclude users (such as spammers). Making good posts doesn't mean someone should be on DT, but making bad posts sure as hell means he shouldn't!


I too have some concerns, theymos responded to one of them saying this:
That's now. I can imagine other communities will make their own DT1 "clique": for example a group of Russians, a group of Indonesians and a group of bounty hunters. As long as they stay out of each other's hair, they can co-exist. The moment they touch, it feels like a black hole collision competing for exclusions.
The old DT-system felt like it meant something, the new system changes every few hours.

Just because you think something is a controversial rating, that doesn't mean that it actually is that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

I'm grabbing some popcorn for this thread.

While I do agree there are flaws in the current DefaultTrust system, and that improvements need to be made, I don't think the changes to the logic as to who is on DT1 are a step in the right direction. Below are my concerns:

Using Merit for a metric:
I am generally against the merit system, for a number of reasons such as I think it creates groupthink, suppresses descent/unpopular opinions,  many who have sMerit tend to receive a lot of merit, and the overwhelming majority of forum users do not participate in the merit system do to having no merit. I think a good alternative to the merit system would be adding a financial component to achieve each rank (exceptional users could rank up for free).

I would note that I am one of the most merited users on the forum, and as such, I have shown that I can "earn" merit as I wish, and if I wanted, I could create a new account and earn a lot of merit on that account. As such, I am a benefactor of the merit system.

If the merit system is here to stay, requiring a small number of merit to be eligible for DT1 is probably not all that bad, as long as the requirement is low. The 10 merit requirement is probably low enough.

The DefaultTrust system is something intended to gauge one's ability to be trusted in the marketplace, however the merit system is intended to gauge one's ability to make "good" posts. I don't think making a lot of "good" posts should give someone the right to have influence on the trust system via who is on their trust lists. Granted, one person with nefarious intentions will have difficulty personally get someone untrustworthy added to DT1, however a group of nefarious people (acting in concert or otherwise) may be able to get less desirable people added to DT1.  

Lack of Accountability of those on DT1:
This is an ongoing problem with the DefaultTrust system, however I believe the new DT1 logic makes this worse.

As it stands nowyesterday, if someone on DT1 has one (or more) people on their trust list who have no business being in the DefaultTrust network, they are more or less not held accountable, and will remain on DT1. Today, if someone is in DT who should not be, other DT1 members will need to be lobbied to get this person excluded (on a technical level, the DT1 member that added this person can also remove this inappropriate person, however this rarely happens in practice).

If there were major concerns with a DT1 member's trust list (and/or ratings), these concerns could be escalated to theymos, and theymos can remove them as he deems appropriate.

The above is still possible under the new system, however I suspect in many cases the response will be he meets the criteria and there is no manipulation to meet the criteria, so he will stay. Once someone "meets the criteria" it will be difficult to get this to not be the case, as those on DT1 tend to receive additional trust inclusions over time, and over time, people will become inactive, and as such will not respond to (or see) requests to remove controversial people from their trust lists. theymos would have the power to blacklist certain people, however I suspect there will be a high threshold for this.

Trust inclusions and trust ratings are entirely separate:
One stated goal of this new system is:

Previously, there were a group of people on DT2 who rarely traded, but would frequently give trust ratings to others (frequently negative, and frequently controversial). Many of these people are now on DT1. Many of these people earn incomes on the forum via signature campaigns that will not necessarily be sensitive to a rating that says "this person gave a controversial rating but did not [try to, nor plan on] steal money". Some do not try to earn any money on the forum. It is also not terribly difficult to explain to a trading partner that you are standing your ground on a controversial rating verses having to explain a rating that explicitly says they are a scammer. If someone gives a retaliatory negative rating that is a frivolous scam accusation (as often happens), they will not maintain credibility for very long, nor will they remain on many trust lists (and rightfully so).

As a result of the above, I don't think there is any real consequences to giving out controversial ratings for many who previously have given out these types of ratings.

Conversely, if someone who is solidly on DT1 (or in some cases DT2) will be well protected against being called out on scammy behavior that is not "vanilla" scamming. There are people on DT1 today who have ignored calls to explain six figure (USD) discrepancies in money they held in escrow, who have been involved in explicit illegal behavior, including extortion without any serious pushback.

There are a number of people who are now excluded from DT2 who previously gave ratings to powerful scammers

the new DT1 contains much overlap and many "communities" are unrepresented
Roughly a third of new DT1 members are in the same "clique" / "trading circle" and another 15% closely associate with this group. This group just so happens to collectively give out many controversial ratings, reducing accountability for such ratings when they support eachother (the support is not necessarily universal among the group).  
Most local communities do not appear to be represented in DT1.

This quote:
This should be fairly self explanatory, and is only asking for problems.

---

I have some other concerns, and I think I might have some possible solutions, however it is very late now.