Anyone knows how to exclude TradeFortress with his shifty name?
If I'm not entirely wrong, it's TradeFortress 🏕
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 141. (Read 85606 times)
If I'm not entirely wrong, it's TradeFortress 🏕
Public request: Stop adding https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/xian01-58223 to DT2, it's killing the admin's rating (is inactive anyways). 
I've noticed, yeah.
People who you add to your list are DT1 for you. The people that they have added to their lists are DT2 for you. Feedbacks from both layers are visible by default.
This has a strong recursive effect: adding theymos for instance turns certain users red and others green.That's why I'm just hoping someone excludes Timelord2067 on the basis that he's tagged lots of other people without actual evidence too. I guess it's just a regular thing he does. (I'm sure there's legit tags too, but it's an obvious problem) So this is sort of a litmus test for me regarding whether this system can be just or not.
Who added him to begin with? He has some very good ratings, but also some others that I can't even remotely agree with. 
It looks like - as LoyceV found out earlier in the thread - that existing DT members were at a slight disadvantage in this initial DT1 reorg. Being in DT means that other users are less likely to include you in their custom lists explicitly. This should change next month. I expect the next list to be bigger and more diverse so brace yourselves and work on your trust lists. I have reviewed mine and I think I'm ready except for one scammer. Anyone knows how to exclude TradeFortress with his shifty name? Or perhaps he's already on theymos blacklist.
Sweet, there goes my account.
All it takes is some unhinged ramblings from Timelord2067.
I can see the intent behind this, but I'm definitely feeling screwed over by bullshit feedback.
All it takes is some unhinged ramblings from Timelord2067.
I can see the intent behind this, but I'm definitely feeling screwed over by bullshit feedback.
I hope that current DT members look into these feedbacks and fix them, either by countering them or by asking the DT member who gave the negative trust to remove it "if it's a false accusation with no solid proof"or by untrusting / tagging him as a last resort.
i don't see that happening too fast and easy, but the current system kind of allow current DT members to tweak the list , i hope it gets used for a good purpose to defend the innocent and punish the guilty.
People on Default Trust are under no obligations. So I'm not getting my hopes up. They might feel the need to clean up their own feedbacks left for others (like TMAN was saying above), but exclusion or countering negative feedback is a whole other issue. There's a lot of social pressures there. I think that usually only happens among prominent members or in really egregious and visible cases. Most people will probably just be ignored.
That's why I'm just hoping someone excludes Timelord2067 on the basis that he's tagged lots of other people without actual evidence too. I guess it's just a regular thing he does. (I'm sure there's legit tags too, but it's an obvious problem) So this is sort of a litmus test for me regarding whether this system can be just or not.
100 earned Merit is kind of low?
Edit - After reading through the OP carefully it doesn’t seem overly difficult to get into DT1?
It’s certainly a lot more achievable than before?
Edit - After reading through the OP carefully it doesn’t seem overly difficult to get into DT1?
It’s certainly a lot more achievable than before?
Before was almost impossible.
Now is possible for sure now everyone is incentivized to set up a custom trust list, this can be also exploited but with more people on DT2 we will get more people tagging for exploiting.
People who you add to your list are DT1 for you. The people that they have added to their lists are DT2 for you. Feedbacks from both layers are visible by default.
This has a strong recursive effect: adding theymos for instance turns certain users red and others green. 
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.
And what say you Lauda on the above?
Should the hatchet be Buried or Sharpen?
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.
And what say you Lauda on the above?
I'm sure we are gonna see some dick measuring at 1st, but overall I think this is great for the forum
If Anduck is willing to remove his rating if I remove mine, what does that say about his rating?
Well: If you view every "dispute" in which parties exchanged negative ratings, then you can never "burry the hatchet" with anyone. No? 
That would make the rest of my trust ratings questionable.
It would certainly not, no.Of course it would!
If all it takes for a scammer to get away with scamming is to tag me back and then negotiate mutual removal, no one will trust my ratings anymore.
If Anduck is willing to remove his rating if I remove mine, what does that say about his rating?
@vod @anduck - please touch each others helmets and move on
For what it's worth, I agree with you on that one. The self-bidding thing was wrong, but as Lauda pointed out it was a long time ago, and even though Anduck is still justifying it I don't think he'll do it again.But not this one:
penis measuring contests - we all know that Thepharmacist will win anyway
Flaccid, it could be mistaken for a bellybutton.I don't think I have to do much adjusting to the trust I've left, since I was already on DT2 anyway and I don't make it a common practice to leave feedback without either a reference link or an explanation, and I don't think I've left retaliatory feedback. I'll take a look at the trust I've given out, but man...it's quite a lot.
That would make the rest of my trust ratings questionable.
It would certainly not, no.He scammed and I mark scammers. I guess now scammers can mark me. 
I'm certain that a lot of different people see his actions and the dispute very differently. There have been too many posts about it to begin with. Either way, he won't do it again (I hope). Either way, it's been a very long time now.@vod @anduck - please touch each others helmets and move on - big change here, lets not have trusted members get into penis measuring contests - we all know that Thepharmacist will win anyway
Would be nice. This dispute is very difficult for anyone who trusts both of them for very different reasons.All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.
You both remove the ratings. There are bigger problems to focus on. 
That would make the rest of my trust ratings questionable.
He scammed and I mark scammers. I guess now scammers can mark me.
My reformed list seems good. You're -1/+27 to me.
I added too many of Jet Cash's alts though and I think that scews it a bit. Ah well, I can change it as and where necessary.
I will go through all my trust ratings when I get time, I do realise the impact they have on people - anyone with a tag from me without a reference or wanting to bitch please chill out and give me a week
@vod @anduck - please touch each others helmets and move on - big change here, lets not have trusted members get into penis measuring contests - we all know that Thepharmacist will win anyway
@vod @anduck - please touch each others helmets and move on - big change here, lets not have trusted members get into penis measuring contests - we all know that Thepharmacist will win anyway
For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority, but I was reluctant to change it because the alternatives seemed too messy. However, I've finally decided to try some changes, and we'll see how it works.
I have also been unhappy with your useless badly designed Default trust system.
However recently it actually worked and banned your worst offender/abuser of it.
Your recent changes have returned that individual to a point where she is again able to continue her harassment of people ,
that only crime is they have a difference of opinion and won't buckle to her extortion of them.
Since your changes have once again turned her loose on the community,
it only infers that you personally support her actions, as it was a major undertaking to exclude the bitch from DT.
Your changes are bad , your default trust system is utterly useless.
Want to really improve it, then scrap the whole damn thing.
Continuance of DT , shows the truth behind your character by the villains/criminals that you support with it.
You both remove the ratings. There are bigger problems to focus on.
That would make the rest of my trust ratings questionable.
He scammed and I mark scammers. I guess now scammers can mark me.
If I understand correctly the default trust list is useless now since it will change periodically?
No; it's just much more dynamic (and going to get much more bigger/wider).@theymos, can that default trust extension stay up indefinitely, it means I can remove default trust from my trust list if so?
You can make any changes to your own view as always.
@theymos, can that default trust extension stay up indefinitely, it means I can remove default trust from my trust list if so?
I'm not sure I agree with the force adding of 10 people. At a push I have probably 5 I'd definitely trust, just my 2 cents though I'm not fussed about being added I'm sure my reputation speaks for itself anyway and anyone who makes a reputation argument without a reference (under most circumstances) should be distrusted anyway.
@le, that's how I take it. Or it will at least be diluted.
I'm not sure I agree with the force adding of 10 people. At a push I have probably 5 I'd definitely trust, just my 2 cents though I'm not fussed about being added I'm sure my reputation speaks for itself anyway
and anyone who makes a reputation argument without a reference (under most circumstances) should be distrusted anyway. @le, that's how I take it. Or it will at least be diluted.
If I understand correctly the default trust list is useless now since it will change periodically?
Jump to: