Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 4. (Read 85467 times)

So this is where it all started. I saw BenCodie made a thread on the reputation board.. Looks interesting  

---

I have prepared a cup of coffee to watch this drama. Hopefully this is more interesting than the movies on netflix

Oh, right. I see. I don't see what the difference between nutildah distrusting me and BCG trusting me is then. To me it just seems like nutildah doesn't see eye to eye with my views and thus my judgement, while BCG sees eye to eye with my views and thus my judgement. That's my best guess...and to be honest, if I put myself in BCG's shoes and another member was randomly distrusted due to defending his reputation, highlighting facts about a scam, calling out power-trippers, gambling fiends, fake victims, etc. I probably wouldn't feel a need to balance any scales or trust them any more than another member, but I would definitely feel more obliged to support them if someone distrusted them for no reason if their judgement is ultimately right in my eyes. That's just me though

He has positive default trusted you, not given you positive trust feedback which is why you cannot see it. (And it's still there)

Here it is: https://bpip.org/TrustLog?&trusted=bencodie&chtype=All

I don't think anyone can certainly say who's feedback will and won't show up by default in the future (you can't be talking about the present as my feedback never has been/was default). Your opinion on my rationale is different to others as the trust system is subjective, as is how much you trust someone (especially online). The future is not static or known either. The only thing that is static/known is the formula used to make up everyone's trust score.


I believe I'm using it in a way that is reasonable, and helpful, and takes into account "trade risk" by considering the outlook of someones future actions based on their (proven and referenced) misdeeds (both financial and non-financial) in the past. If my rationale (explained mostly in last post) and referenced feedback is not valued by the community, that's nature. As long as I'm not being unreasonable then it's fine by me (I don't believe that my use of the trust system to-date has been unreasonable).

That's okay. It's how the Trust system is designed. But it will also mean your feedback won't show up by default.
So it's really up to you: do you want your feedback to mean something to the majority of users, or do you want to use your own interpretation of the Trust system?

For pretext of what I will say following; I know that the use of the trust system seems to be something widely agreed on, however I am someone who looks at things as they are, excluding the politics and general consensus, and making my own judgements

TLDR: Does finance really need to be involved before giving someone who is showing potentially threatening characteristics and behaviors a negative feedback? I don't think so. If I believe someone is dangerous, twists the truth, lies, etc. based on a negative interaction where these characteristics are clearly provable/visible and where it's clear that the same could happen to a worse extent or is already happening to others to a lesser extent, I think a negative feedback is warranted. This is my rationals for the negative feedback.

A debate or heated interaction which involves some name calling or any bs outside of messing with reality and factual information - I'd say that's a neutral at best. Messing with factual information is the line for me, hence negative for Jolly.

I'm not asking anyone to join me in my opinion and to do anything to JollyGood. I just think that my rationale for leaving a negative feedback is well justified. I only elaborated as I was prompted to. I was happy to put the situation to rest otherwise..

TLDR /off
My opinion is that if the way you've interacted with someone shows cause for concern for other users and their future interactions, people should definitely know about it.

A negative interaction which shows no reasonable concern for others in the event of a transaction in the future, might warrant a neutral feedback if absolutely necessary and if the sender of the feedback thinks it's something people should at least be notified of. If the consensus disagrees and believes that even the neutral feedback is completely unreasonable, I'm sure it will be made known. Are neutral feedbacks necessary? Probably not...like you said, the trust system shouldn't be a personal journal, it should be used to help protect other users from potentially threatening users.

On the other hand a negative feedback should reflect when someone does pose somewhat of a threat to other users in the event of a transaction taking place, or where the user holds power to effect negatively effect users or the community if they suddenly chose to.

A side note: I am really watering down my words to-date in terms of what JollyGood actually is, for the sake of avoiding drama. Though even after more thinking, I think that there is absolutely no doubt that JollyGood can pose a threat to the community in the future. That comment isn't just based on my experience with him, but from what I've seen before I interacted with him. It also doesn't mean that JollyGood will, it's saying that if he did, he could cause a lot of destruction before he is stopped.

Let's get hypothetical...

Say JollyGood gets into a transaction with a new user. The terms are negotiated and the new user sends some bitcoin to JollyGood. JollyGood delivers a bad service, product, or something entirely subjective to a third party. Though it's factual that JollyGood has done wrong by the user.

Of course, the new user gets infuriated with what is going on. JollyGood then uses this to invalidate any publication of the situation and that user eventually gives up.

This is a completely realistic scenario, whether or not people think so or not. It is clear that he/she is not only capable of this but has actually committed it on numerous occasions in non-financial situations around the forum, with myself included.

From my experience, it has been shown that JollyGood is entirely capable of making that new user look like he is the wrong doer...and get away with it. Heck, he and another two users got several members on the bandwagon of labelling me as a hypocrite, narcissist, etc. mostly because I said he had a stick up his a** (which is a very common saying, which JollyGood definitely fits into when you look at how he carries on here). He even has LoyceV up in here saying that I knew about the WW scam before it happened and was wrong for not saying anything about it...freaking LoyceV! If you can convince LoyceV of some BS like that, anything is possible.

Touching on the Whirlwind crap for (hopefully) the last time - Growing suspicion and red flags while avoiding drama and effort in justifying unprovable red flags does not = me knowing about a scam before it happened. The fact is if I knew about a scam before it happened with concrete evidence, I'd post about it in an instant. Check my thread history for proof. I've done it before. I'm not posting updates about my growing red flags ESPECIALLY if there is a herd of people who are arguably powerful AND being paid up to $150 by the service I am posting about. That's temporary suicide until actual scam occurs. Or at least, A LOT of posts just like this long-ass one...and for what? For people to keep using it anyway, for my posts to get invalidated, for JollyGood to and people like him to turn me into a villain for speaking against the current forum darling....etc.


To address it, I agree. Giving positive feedback over "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a bit too much. I understand it, and understand why someone would be prompted to do that. Obviously if BitcoinGirl.Club had negative interactions with JollyGood and he/she is a like-minded person to myself, then seeing the situation and my opinion on JollyGood would bring a sense of trust for a short period of time until that feeling passes and some rationale is restored. I think that's just human nature/psychology for most. Me included. Clearly it didn't take long for BitcoinGirl.Club to restore rationale and remove the positive feedback, because I didn't see it happen.

I don't always agree with JG's trust ratings, and I wish he'd use the trust system a bit more sparingly than he does. But in your particular case, its just a neutral that doesn't really have any effect on your standing. Having said that, its also a case of "using trust feedback as your personal journal" mentality that we should all try to avoid.


Not necessarily. The proper maneuver would have been to leave him a "retaliatory" neutral feedback rather than upping the stakes to negative. Everyone is entitled to have bad takes that have nothing to do with their trustworthiness when it comes to executing trades on-forum.


Definitely an improper use of the trust system.

AFAIK using the trust system is about whether or not you trust someone based on your experience with them. Right now, all I have seen from JollyGood is internet-nazism (for better lack of a term) and on top of that, my recent direct experience of him twisting truth into stories that would be incriminating if they were true.

This is a serious violation of my trust, hence I have given him a negative one.

The reason why JollyGood has not retaliated is because he is not entirely bad, he does know that his feedback is based on misconstrued facts and hence, it's neutral and not negative.


I think that the feedbacks I've left are all good descriptions for those whom which I left them for.


I didn't know about WW becoming a scam. I saw red flags, which grew over time, there is a huge difference. Put short, jollygood's accusation is that I have been concealing evidence and facts, the reality is that I was quietly under growing suspicion.

If someone misconstrues, lies, gives negative labels, etc. Their trade risk is higher than that of a person without these trusts. Negative feedback is justified IMO, but if I'll give further consideration at another point.

It's updated (reading millions of data files took hours. I'm looking forward to your graphs

Actually agree with you on this one. It's not trust feedback that I agree with or approve of as it certainly shouldn't be negative based on some opinion. Ideally BitcoinGirl.Club would re-consider this inclusion.

When you get neutral feedback you don't like and retaliate with negative feedback it never looks good, despite how you might try and paint it, re: BenCodie

BitcoinGirl.Club's DT trust of BenCodie in the last 24 or so hours is more to do with their mutual distrust of JG than the *cough* quality of BenCodie's trust feed-backs given BenCodie has slapped JG with negative trust feedback...

Oh yeh, that. Had forgot about that. An update would be useful though cheers, that's the data I should logically be using for overall DT inclusion/exclusion.

You mean this one? I can get you an update if needed.

147 in total with 1 exclusion. Roughly 72% of the time since first inclusion (203 weeks ago), which is slightly less than the odds of getting onto DT has been during that time of roughly 75%.

Still trying to get a graph for most inclusions / exclusions but having issues for some reason, unless there's already been a list made?

@BenCodie: read this:
You can't use "Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk." because you don't like his posts about you.
Also, he has a point: your posts about WWM (claiming you knew they were going to scam, but not saying anything about it) didn't make much sense.

My advice: stay out of the forum drama.

So does this:


As well as these:



Glass houses and all that...



How long were you asleep for?

---

---

And lastly:

https://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-02_Sat_05.07h/404695.html


The real reason you've spoken up...

Great to see that you removed feedback you sent to one member stating that they were advertising a scam casino, yet there were quite a number of other members advertising the same casino but were untouched. It was looking so bad, especially given that fact that around that time you were not happy about how other members use their DT power. It was as though the feedback was a "punishment" to just that one member for whatever he did to you 

That explains his attitude then lol

JollyGood has been on DT1 many times. See DT1-strength of 258 users in 241 weeks:

There are other DT 1 users who can eliminate someone if they abuse the feedback system. If someone abuses the system, they won't be in the system for a long time. If you don't trust his sent feedback, feel free to ~ him. That's the best solution you have.