@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.
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 125. (Read 85467 times)
@theymos, overview bug or did someone manage to make their username null?
Not sure if this will solve your problem, but I've gone ahead and changed to depth 1 since setting my own custom list. Allows you to have "subordinates" without having some of the stranger ratings.
That takes away the current DT2, so it's not what I'm looking for. I would like to see depth 1 for "my subordinates", while seeing depth 2 for the subordinates of DT1.
Code:
theymos /default/
iasenko d1
LoyceV d2
Cyrus
iasenko d1
LoyceV d2
Cyrus
You can have a default depth like now in the settings and custom ones for those you want to edit
Not sure if this will solve your problem, but I've gone ahead and changed to depth 1 since setting my own custom list. Allows you to have "subordinates" without having some of the stranger ratings.
That takes away the current DT2, so it's not what I'm looking for. I would like to see depth 1 for "my subordinates", while seeing depth 2 for the subordinates of DT1.Not sure if this will solve your problem, but I've gone ahead and changed to depth 1 since setting my own custom list. Allows you to have "subordinates" without having some of the stranger ratings.
That takes away the current DT2, so it's not what I'm looking for. I would like to see depth 1 for "my subordinates", while seeing depth 2 for the subordinates of DT1.Then the only solution is to create two accounts and add all your subordinates in the trust list of second account, then add the second account in the trust list of the first account and then add this account you your current list together with the DefautTrust account
With Depth 2 you gonna have the DT1 + DT2 and only Depth 1 of your Subordinates
Not sure if this will solve your problem, but I've gone ahead and changed to depth 1 since setting my own custom list. Allows you to have "subordinates" without having some of the stranger ratings.
That takes away the current DT2, so it's not what I'm looking for. I would like to see depth 1 for "my subordinates", while seeing depth 2 for the subordinates of DT1. 
So right now on DT2, we have one user who has passed away. One banned user. And a guy named mike that nobody knows. Funny times... 
Penny is asleep, slow or both. If I trusted JohnUser's ratings (just an example, does not represent my actual thoughts), but not the users on their trust list, I would add DarkStar_alt to my trust list, and add JohnUser to DarkStar_alt's trust list.
Optimally people would be willing to discuss these things and open to changes, but your suggestion is sound. I guess I'd have to add someone to suchmoon's list, as that's my alt. @theymos, overview bug or did someone manage to make their username null?
just did in edit, thank you.
Cool.I didn't tag anyone cause i'm not 100% sure, only 99.99%
before being dt1 (yesterday...) I already have red trust them...
Nothing is absolute. That is why, in the justice system (at least in NA), the onus is to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. before being dt1 (yesterday...) I already have red trust them...
Like I wrote to you on Telegram, the DefaultTrust system has been enlarged to the point where feedback has become more diluted. Obviously, we don't want egregious feedback about any little disagreement to become the norm however I believe the voracity of sending feedback should increase, at least by a little bit. Since DT was built to tackle the grey area of scam/not, we should have more thoughts spitting around now with the expanded community rather than less.
I will still counter any "opinion-based" feedback where the recipient isn't shady (or worse) at best. Perhaps a change in the guidelines is a good idea?
Ok I get it, thanks man.
From France, where revolution is on the way.
10 users with 10+ merit in addition to the requirement that at least 2 of them have at least 250+ received merit should be sufficient. I think requiring 20+ is overestimating the amount of custom trust lists that will be maintained, but I am only speculating with little information.
The pool of 250+ Merit users is rather small, but it’s a reasonable requirement to trim down on some potential “accidents”.
The pool of 250+ Merit users is rather small, but it’s a reasonable requirement to trim down on some potential “accidents”.
Good to see a new update by @theymos which could just make the disordered trust system more feasible and dynamic for all the users.
Also, I respect the work of all the new and old active DT members that are doing their job to maintain spam-free and healthy trust list so that they should not trust any scammer mistakenly. Keep up the good work
. But even after reading most of the updates here I still think there are some changes needed as many users which hopped into the DT list have no previous knowledge working with it and as everyone knows trust is unmoderated so it should surely have some bonded system.
Also, I respect the work of all the new and old active DT members that are doing their job to maintain spam-free and healthy trust list so that they should not trust any scammer mistakenly. Keep up the good work
. But even after reading most of the updates here I still think there are some changes needed as many users which hopped into the DT list have no previous knowledge working with it and as everyone knows trust is unmoderated so it should surely have some bonded system. 
E.g. there are users whose feedback I trust but not their "subordinates" so I would prefer to not vote for them but still keep them in my list. Not sure if there is an easy solution to that though. Certainly don't want to force everyone to maintain several different lists.
This isn't the best solution and it has no effect for anyone using only DefaultTrust, but you can make an alt account. Add that user to your alt account's trust list, and add your alt account to your own trust list. If you are using Depth 1, then your alt account is Depth 0 and the user is Depth 1. Any users on their trust list would be Depth 2, and not shown to you.
If I trusted JohnUser's ratings (just an example, does not represent my actual thoughts), but not the users on their trust list, I would add DarkStar_alt to my trust list, and add JohnUser to DarkStar_alt's trust list.
Good point. But what if I'm in DT1. Because then my list has 3 functions:
- DT2
- voting
- my own visibility of red/green
I don't think these can be separated via alts.
Edit: unless I create another alt for voting with +250 merit... but I have a feeling that might be frowned upon
E.g. there are users whose feedback I trust but not their "subordinates" so I would prefer to not vote for them but still keep them in my list. Not sure if there is an easy solution to that though. Certainly don't want to force everyone to maintain several different lists.
This isn't the best solution and it has no effect for anyone using only DefaultTrust, but you can make an alt account. Add that user to your alt account's trust list, and add your alt account to your own trust list. If you are using Depth 1, then your alt account is Depth 0 and the user is Depth 1. Any users on their trust list would be Depth 2, and not shown to you.
If I trusted JohnUser's ratings (just an example, does not represent my actual thoughts), but not the users on their trust list, I would add DarkStar_alt to my trust list, and add JohnUser to DarkStar_alt's trust list.
I got a nice encouraging message from suchmoon regarding my last post..
Thank you.
+ Respect
Thank you.
+ Respect
So right now on DT2, we have one user who has passed away. One banned user. And a guy named mike that nobody knows. Funny times...
I'm thinking that having the same trust list serve multiple purposes (trusted vs untrusted feedback, DT2 level, voting for DT1) might be a problem. E.g. there are users whose feedback I trust but not their "subordinates" so I would prefer to not vote for them but still keep them in my list. Not sure if there is an easy solution to that though. Certainly don't want to force everyone to maintain several different lists.
I have the same problem. For example: at the moment my trust setting shows theymos with 1 red tag. However, if I were to become DT1, my "subordinates" on DT2 are only the ones I picked directly. The annoying part is that my own trust looks different because those "subordinates" are counted towards my own trust view. I would like to see the same trust settings as a user without a custom list, while at the same time being able to create my own list of "subordinates".This. Then make it 300 merits next month and keep stepping the requirement up monthly
That would eventually lead to a centralized system with old users on DT, which I think is what theymos is trying to change.Not sure if this will solve your problem, but I've gone ahead and changed to depth 1 since setting my own custom list. Allows you to have "subordinates" without having some of the stranger ratings.
just did in edit, thank you.
Cool.I didn't tag anyone cause i'm not 100% sure, only 99.99%
before being dt1 (yesterday...) I already have red trust them...
Nothing is absolute. That is why, in the justice system (at least in NA), the onus is to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. before being dt1 (yesterday...) I already have red trust them...
Like I wrote to you on Telegram, the DefaultTrust system has been enlarged to the point where feedback has become more diluted. Obviously, we don't want egregious feedback about any little disagreement to become the norm however I believe the voracity of sending feedback should increase, at least by a little bit. Since DT was built to tackle the grey area of scam/not, we should have more thoughts spitting around now with the expanded community rather than less.
I will still counter any "opinion-based" feedback where the recipient isn't shady (or worse) at best. Perhaps a change in the guidelines is a good idea?
Please can I say what's wrong with new DT as I'm ? I ask before, here it's sensitive...
There's free speech: say what you will.just did in edit, thank you.
Please can I say what's wrong with new DT as I'm ? I ask before, here it's sensitive...
There's free speech: say what you will.
Please can I say what's wrong with new DT as I'm ? I ask before, here it's sensitive...
Edit : no answer, you all think I don't deserve it, don't worry I think the same one!
so :
before, 2 days ago so, I red tag as soon as I saw someone who cheated, it was so easy.
Now, with this DT, I have to take care, I have to read 10 times before "red trust" someone.
an example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095475.0;all
I didn't tag anyone cause i'm not 100% sure, only 99.99%
before being dt1 (yesterday...) I already have red trust them...
Edit : no answer, you all think I don't deserve it, don't worry I think the same one!
so :
before, 2 days ago so, I red tag as soon as I saw someone who cheated, it was so easy.
Now, with this DT, I have to take care, I have to read 10 times before "red trust" someone.
an example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095475.0;all
I didn't tag anyone cause i'm not 100% sure, only 99.99%
before being dt1 (yesterday...) I already have red trust them...
So - has anyone created a "DT for Dummies" guide yet? ~
I think THIS is the the closest one to what you are looking for.
I guess more changes will come soon as the system is still under development. For sure more guides will pop-up soon
Jump to: