Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 121. (Read 86349 times)

While we are implementing changes to the trust system can we give neutral feedbacks a visiblilty with a counter alongside negative and positive in the trust line. I say this as I think the trust system is going to have a larger reach and more users feedback may become visible to others.


I think this would encourage a better range of feedbacks being left throughout the forum. This way when someone does something you disagree with or feel should be noted about that user you dont have  to leave a negative.. This way we dont get stuck leaving red tags for personal or opinion matters, and can save them for scams or scammy behaviour.

Obviously there won't be any hard and fast rules, but by making neutral visible alongside the others people may appreciate having a third option with the same visibility.

And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust. Default trust would make sense but any trust. Non registered users are still being scammed by known scammers because they don't see the tags.

Let me know when you read the post.

The same way it is enforced now, only with less steps. The community, only we have a clear set of rules we all agree to follow as opposed to a murky equation with ambiguous terms and tons of exceptions.

I don't think that amount-risked should have any weight towards the Trust-Value. For exactly the reasons you mention. I understand the intention behind it, but I very rarely see it being used for it's intended purpose and see it being abused much more often. In addition to that, the amounts required to have any weight are unlikely be thresholds that are hit, so that increases the likelihood that it will be abused more than used. Am I missing something or is that more of a liability than an asset?

Using amount risked in any calculation does not work for several reasons:

Who's going to enforce those principles and how?

If you want to fix the trust system we need 2 tiers of trust. One for trade EXCLUSIVELY where a loss is incurred and can be documented in some way. The other for peoples opinions and feelings about everything else. Trade trust would be calculated into the average, and the other trust would not, simply amounting to a public notice.

The primary issue with the trust system is it is used as a political weapon to not only punish people for speaking out about bad behavior, it allows those same people punishing people for speaking out to destroy anyone lower than them for doing so. This is difficult to do if the trust is restricted to trade. People can retaliate this way all day with meaningless gripe trust and not affect their overall rating calculation. Anyone they trade with who is overzealous with a rating automatically has the same opportunity to leave their own negative rating that is calculated.

You could even potentially automate this to an extent by having an internal forum version of signing an agreement, enabling both to leave a rating at their will. IE I agree to enter into a trade with Bob, Bob and I both click a button confirming we are engaging in a transaction, opening the possibility of a weighted rating to be left. In this way the only weighted ratings left are from those with direct engagement, and not as a political tool by 3rd parties.

Solid, well defined principles that are followed as much as possible. Not more variables to an equation.

I agree. I think we're needlessly complicating an already complicated system even more and I don't see how much different this system is. I think it will probably actually involve more collusion and backroom deals to exclude people to get them off DT. Older users with friends here will benefit more from it whilst newer users will still be flummoxed by it.

I'd also like to see trust on all boards that show signatures. I'm mainly thinking about user Velkro, who advertises his scam site in his signature and mainly posts on boards that don't show trust ratings.

What is more centralized and untouchable authority than you unilaterally getting to exclude people from default trust no matter how many others trust them?

However, there's a small problem. Complete removal isn't possible without theymoses manual intervention, and this:

Yes. This thread (where I try to warn users to register before dealing, avoid locked or self-moderated threads and check others' trust) gets a lot of "I wish I had read this before. I was already scammed by [tagged/known scammer here]"

One thing rounding my mind. If a scammer make his won trust network and complete criteria to become DT1 then there is any other way to remove him from DT1 without theymos help ?

#1
As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination.

So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.

See here for live info on this "DT voting".

@theymos I think that you should tweak DT1 so that the exclusions from excluded DT1 members don't have any effect, the same way that their inclusions shouldn't. If the majority distrusts someone (e.g. a case example would be HostFat), then their trust list shouldn't affect DefaultTrust.
This to me seems like another possibly way to compromise DT over time: Keep getting accounts in that fit the criteria, even though the majority excludes them and suddenly switch once you have the adequate number. Or you could simply be a nuisance by maliciously excluding certain people from DT2 just for the sake of doing so.

---

While the possibility of DT1 members excluding each others creates more dynamic (by allowing consensus to form), it does not seem fully utilized until out actually means more than 'your ratings aren't trusted by default anymore'. Just a thought. Maybe that could/should also change in real time.

I thought that I had a good idea for limiting each individual truster when handling the last two criteria: set it up as a circulation problem as below, and then find the maximum flow. The "user tX"s through whom flow passes would be the DT1s selected.



(The orders of the users would be randomized on each run.)

There are efficient algorithms for maximizing the flow in problems similar to this, which is why thinking about it in this way occurred to me. However, it turns out that the "exactly 0 or exactly 10" requirement on the rightmost edges makes finding an exact solution too difficult.