Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 126. (Read 86349 times)

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.

Append ;dt to the URL. Create a script for it if you have to: it's not that difficult.

@theymos, overview bug or did someone manage to make their username null?

That would work, except for when you're on DT1 and want to add users to DT2.

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

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.

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...

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.

Cool.

Nothing is absolute. That is why, in the justice system (at least in NA), the onus is to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

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?