so technically I think it's impossible to be in DT2 while being excluded from DT1.
^^
thats my understanding but would be good for theymos to chuck in and confirm
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 124. (Read 85461 times)
^^
thats my understanding but would be good for theymos to chuck in and confirm
So my question was does the "kick out" power refer only to DT1 and not DT2?
My way of understanding was DT2 have the power to "kick out" other DT2.
But I can be completely wrong.
Doesn't the ability of DT1 members to collectively exclude a member only extend to DT1?
Collectively other DT1s can detrust a DT1 to kick him out Quote
To be in DT2 means being in the trust list of at least one DT1 member, doesn't it?
YesSee this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview
Use this to see the trust setting page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt
Take OgNasty, zazarb, HostFat as example
Doesn't the ability of DT1 members to collectively exclude a member only extend to DT1?
Collectively other DT1s can detrust a DT1 to kick him out Quote
To be in DT2 means being in the trust list of at least one DT1 member, doesn't it?
YesDoesn't the ability of DT1 members to collectively exclude a member only extend to DT1?
Collectively other DT1s can detrust a DT1 to kick him out. Read this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49143128Quote
To be in DT2 means being in the trust list of at least one DT1 member, doesn't it?
Yes so technically I think it's impossible to be in DT2 while being excluded from DT1.
Why so
To be in DT2 means being in the trust list of at least one DT1 member, doesn't it?
Doesn't the ability of DT1 members to collectively exclude a member only extend to DT1?
Does my post even make sense?
Default trust List: Set the Trust Dept 2
Custom trust list:
Is this how it works?
Yes
Default trust Dept?
so technically I think it's impossible to be in DT2 while being excluded from DT1.
^^
thats my understanding but would be good for theymos to chuck in and confirm
Yes. To be in DT2 you need more DT1 members to include you than exclude.
You're also on DT2 when include equals exclude.You're right, let me rephrase that. You can't be in DT2 if more DT1 members exclude you than include.
Which is also how one gets booted out of DT1, so technically I think it's impossible to be in DT2 while being excluded from DT1.
Default trust List: Set the Trust Dept 2
Custom trust list:
Is this how it works?
Yes
I have this realization.
Default trust List: Set the Trust Dept 2
Custom trust list: Set any Trust Dept you prefer
Is this how it works?
Default trust List: Set the Trust Dept 2
Custom trust list: Set any Trust Dept you prefer
Is this how it works?
Yes. To be in DT2 you need more DT1 members to include you than exclude.
You're also on DT2 when include equals exclude. @LoyceV, @iasenko, @suchmoon
I can see where you are coming from regarding different depths and also different lists for trusting and voting, and I personally would also like to have this kind of control over my own trust list. However, trust is already very poorly understood by the majority of forum members, not understanding the difference between feedback and trust, not understanding how and why some feedback is trusted and some is not, not understanding trust depth, not understanding custom trust lists or default trust, etc, etc.
Anything that adds even more complexity to this system should be approached very cautiously, I would think.
I can see where you are coming from regarding different depths and also different lists for trusting and voting, and I personally would also like to have this kind of control over my own trust list. However, trust is already very poorly understood by the majority of forum members, not understanding the difference between feedback and trust, not understanding how and why some feedback is trusted and some is not, not understanding trust depth, not understanding custom trust lists or default trust, etc, etc.
Anything that adds even more complexity to this system should be approached very cautiously, I would think.
I hear you but what I'm with iasenko on this - we can have a sensible default and more options for those who need them.
On the other hand - not the highest priority. If we have to work with what have, we'll figure it out. I can see a certain benefit in being forced to use the same list for everything. This means that if I'm adding a person I better make sure I trust them enough to not only use green/red the way I like it but also to be a good DT2 member for others. And I'm also forced to vote for them so I better make sure they're a good potential DT1 member.
Will user status will be DT2 or user will be expelled from DT2 too?
Yes.
I just recently begun to use the trust list, so I'm far from being an expert but what I know is that I add people in my list with whom I had interactions or have observation on their behaviour.
That's pretty much the best we can hope for with this. With the exception of sig campigns, I haven't had any financial interactions to base my trust on. I've never done any trades with other forum members or bought/sold any items in the marketplace. That means I'm mostly limited to trusting users who appear to demonstrate sound judgement and who aren't embroiled in any scandals.
It's never going to be a perfect system, but the more people use it, the better it will become.
For once, I like the changes. Not necessarily the best iteration yet, but experimenting and acknowledging there was a problem means that at least we wont have to settle for trust abuse and biased ratings based on personal grudges. Going to quote myself from the past, my solution is almost similar to theymos's except I multiply trust by user rank / risked amount.
---
That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists.
It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you.
This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns.
Actually, using just 3 variables :
1. Account rank
2. Account current trust
3. Amount risked
I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :
If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady.
If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect.
This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter.
So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust.
This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring?
---
That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists.
If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.
It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you.
I'd say it depends on the situation. I've received some positive trust for being helpful. I don't think that's "worse" than someone who receives positive trust after a few small trades with DT-members. In fact, it took me many years to get this (and I appreciate the appreciation), while it's quite easy to gain trust by doing a few trades.
This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns.
Actually, using just 3 variables :
1. Account rank
2. Account current trust
3. Amount risked
I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :
If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady.
If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect.
This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter.
So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust.
This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring?
I suggested something almost similar before, i do not like reading feedback for reasons that are not related to trading aspects, when i want to enter a deal with a member on this forum be it buying or selling, i need to know if that person is a scammer / potential scammer / Legit or unknown.
i could really care less if he is an asshole as long he kept his end of the deal with other members, should i decide to have a boyfriend/girlfriend on the forum then i would like to see what people think of that person's personality and behavior, aside from that i think any feedback that is not closely related to a person being shady, scammy or trustworthy,should be on their own system.
try looking at active sellers/buyers profiles using default trust setting you will be as lost as Togomori.
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.
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.
but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.
Can we make the system that rating turns negative (otherwise it remain ???) if it is supported by 2 other DT1/or (2 other member of custom trust list) just to diffuse dislike. Obvious scammer will likely to tagged by everybody.
#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.
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.
Will user status will be DT2 or user will be expelled from DT2 too?
This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed.
Is that the quote:
Quote
“So somehow each functional peaceful society has worked out some solution to that mutual threat game.”
@LoyceV, @iasenko, @suchmoon
I can see where you are coming from regarding different depths and also different lists for trusting and voting, and I personally would also like to have this kind of control over my own trust list. However, trust is already very poorly understood by the majority of forum members, not understanding the difference between feedback and trust, not understanding how and why some feedback is trusted and some is not, not understanding trust depth, not understanding custom trust lists or default trust, etc, etc.
Anything that adds even more complexity to this system should be approached very cautiously, I would think.
I can see where you are coming from regarding different depths and also different lists for trusting and voting, and I personally would also like to have this kind of control over my own trust list. However, trust is already very poorly understood by the majority of forum members, not understanding the difference between feedback and trust, not understanding how and why some feedback is trusted and some is not, not understanding trust depth, not understanding custom trust lists or default trust, etc, etc.
Anything that adds even more complexity to this system should be approached very cautiously, I would think.
Well that's why is the Default Trust is applied to e everyone at the beginning.
Big part of the people don't use the trust functions at all.
They only hear about it when they don't receive their sig. campaign stakes after being tagged.
No need to talk about the trust lists at all.
Newbies often don't know who to trust and get confused, like I was in the beginning. If you read around the forum you can see some examples like Lauda, some said the best mod ever great scam catcher and many more superlatives, other said that she is extortionist and third part said that she and other members were hunting for a scammer and all this was setup etc. You just get lost...
Same happen with Vod, I've read that he was accused to be a pedofile by some people. Again no sold proof for that..
Then you hear about QuickSeller and all the stories there and again just rumors, same like in the politics....but c'mon how can newbie get oriented in this situation and add someone to his trust list???
There are many more examples with established usres here...
Then why Krogo added all the people he traded with in his trust list?? Because he had a confirmation by his trades that those people have no scam behaviour and he can trust them, even though the lists are not made for this kind of trust but he learned that only after he ended up on the DT1 list.
So if you are not familiar with the ecosystem and what is going on under the veil, you are just blindfolded when choosing a side and automatically winning some enemies ...
I just recently begun to use the trust list, so I'm far from being an expert but what I know is that I add people in my list with whom I had interactions or have observation on their behaviour.
Basically I don't trust anyone here,why?? The simple example is MagicalTux.
Back to the topic, keeping it simple won't make all the people understand it anyway.
But some extra options will help those who know what they do.
Since we have made out own custom list sometimes become confuse who is on really DT feedback. How it will be that I edited below button? So instead of edit url we can see DT feedback from our trust page.
Append ;dt to the URL. Create a script for it if you have to: it's not that difficult.
Since we have made out own custom list sometimes become confuse who is on really DT feedback. How it will be that I edited below button? So instead of edit url we can see DT feedback from our trust page.
Edited:
Or
Edited:
Append ;dt to the URL. Create a script for it if you have to: it's not that difficult.
I have not coding skill Jump to: