Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 124. (Read 85606 times)

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?

My way of understanding was DT2 have the power to "kick out" other DT2.

How about other half  
Default trust Dept?

^^
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?

So my question was does the "kick out" power refer only to DT1 and not DT2?

Collectively other DT1s can detrust a DT1 to kick him out

Yes

Doesn't the ability of DT1 members to collectively exclude a member only extend to DT1?

To be in DT2 means being in the trust list of at least one DT1 member, doesn't it?

so technically I think it's impossible to be in DT2 while being excluded from DT1.

Yes

so technically I think it's impossible to be in DT2 while being excluded from DT1.

You're also on DT2 when include equals exclude.

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?

Yes. To be in DT2 you need more DT1 members to include you than 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.

Will user status will be DT2 or user will be expelled from DT2 too?

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.  

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?

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.

#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.

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.

“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.

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.