Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 76. (Read 85467 times)

but to neutralize Lauda need off trust system otherwise ton of scammers will get power as Lauda ( allready got )
i absolutely agree with Cøbra
disabling this system will better  for community

Excluded from the DT list (and therefore unseen by default) = not a DT member.

It doesn’t matter what I find or how it’s presented. Those with ulterior motives only know one way to respond (see below post). However, unless I’m vastly mistaken, I believe my thoughts and actions are in line with how the administration of this forum would like to see things being done. If I’m wrong, please theymos or Cobra reach out to me via PM and help me see the error of my ways.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

Then they're not DT members.

But I will berate you for not doing anything about it anyway.

 

Why would you say such crazy thing?

I am happy that you have found scammer and warned community about them. The way you have presented this, well, it is whole different story.

Sure there are. They’re just excluded by trust manipulators currently. The post was reported to the people tasked to handle such things (i.e. not you).

Or maybe it's because there aren't any active DT members who browse Mining forums, and no one bothered reporting it somewhere it will be seen?

I don’t spend my time looking for people to tag... However, it seemed a good opportunity to display how useless the current tagging efforts are, that they literally don’t even tag actual scam threats because they’re too busy trying to keep newbies off the forum. Don’t let that stop you from trying to find a way to turn my positive action into a negative though...

I responded to OG's "question".

It should be reported to moderator if user is spreading malware, but moderators won't ban account every time and sometimes thread will remain there. So, it is best to tag account, report them to moderator and post warning for guests who can't see -ve


If I am looking correctly, this is first account OG has tagged for spreading malware since 2011  

Go ahead, brag around, first time is something to remember  

Edit: https://www.virustotal.com/#/file/541b91f5074afb04d6749f10bb860d5a9035d73a22534cb73fe4f50b140b9c72/detection here you go OG, for better reference and if you want to report them to moderator. This is your big case fella.

Well, kudos to you. 

The trust system does more good than harm in terms of detecting scammers, look at the market place specially the digital goods, there are tons of confirmed scammers, members have a lead on them by seeing their trust score, there is a good part of harm indeed, but it's NOT bad enough to take over the good part.

 
most of those people are very likely the scammers who don't like to be tagged for obvious reasons.


almost everywhere on the internet where there is any type of trading, there is a trust system , they call it review and feedback, some different terms and some technical differences do exist here , but overall it's all the same concept, the only advantage / disadvantage the forum has over most other places - is that they give much more weight to DT feedback than everybody else, it's a great feature to prevent trust farming , but when used in the wrong manner, it creates the mess we have now.



this is simply because the trust system is being misused sometimes, some members base their feedback on personal b.s or self-interest. this can be solved by enforcing some rules on DT members to maintain the trust system and keep it on track ,whereby only scammers should be tagged.

it makes sense that the majority of complains come from non scammers, because scammers don't really complain, they just move on and create a new account, this again all comes down to how do some DT members use the trust system terribly.


Pierre Omidyar Founder of ebay probably has 0 positive feedback or no account at all on ebay, this does not mean people don't trust him, he chooses not to sell/buy stuff on ebay, the same choice you made by not really participating in the forum. if  someone neg tag you then your theory is valid, other wise it really doesn't make sense.


exactly, tweaking is important, in fact simple tweaks will do the trick, a single rule that states "any DT member who tag anyone for non-scam related subject and without a proper evidence will be unlisted from DT" -This will stop 90% of complains, the scoring will be more accurate.

---

i understand your concern about wanting to make everybody happy on the forum, but i rather be sad than scammed, i really think theymos should postpone the "hands-off" approach and involve a bit more in the DT, i am pretty sure there are many things he doesn't like about the trust system, and for a while he is being saying this but leaving it all up to DT members who never follow what theymos want the trust system to be and look like, therefore i think it's about time he get's a bit bossy and stand up for the wrong doings and put a clear guideline on how should DT members use the trust system.

there are many other things that can be done, but totally removing / disabling the trust system is the worst thing ever, i am pretty sure scammers are getting a lot of relief reading such a suggestion from someone like you.

Hence why I tagged them and reported the post for deletion. Good thing I didn’t wait until they successfully scammed and a post was made in the scam accusation section.  

Actually, shouldn't possible malware links be reported to mods for deletion?

Here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0.

The same applies for outside the forums, so not very forum/community-specific issue.


I guess that people generally understand "trust system" to be quite a strong indicator, when coming out of nowhere to deal with total randomers. See a red score, and you'll just move elsewhere. I think trying to improve or change the way people understand what is the intention of having trust system is a too big battle... People naturally weigh a lot on such things. Pretty complicated stuff.


Someone would need to make a proper analysis of the effects/consequences of having had the trust system here. For sure, it has increased drama and wasted loads of time, in addition to increasing bad blood around the active community of BCT. I think it largely boils down to having communication problems, misunderstandings and so on. People have different views (but still probably same goals) and (almost always) too little information to form a proper model of what someone else is meaning/arguing/thinking for real when they say something. Especially over the internet emotions play a large role, too. And there are no real consequences, so no real incentives to do everything as well as possible. People naturally form exaggerated views of others (for good and for bad), as all they see of someone else is text. These are somewhat studied subjects.
And of course accounts change hands, people change, trust system gets gamed, DT gets gamed, general misuse of trust system happens, people have different intentions when they rate someone from how the reader of the rating reads/understands it, etc.

So do the good stuff of this system outweigh downsides? It would be interesting to see an analysis about this, with some semi-objective measurements and argumentation and so on.

Btw, I think it's also worth noting that most of the users of these forums do not know or care at all about the trust system.

Instead of teaching new users to blindly trust ratings that could be on a hacked account, or that scam busters will always protect them, perhaps we should be teaching them to use the numbers as a quick reference and to do due diligence before trading. The bitching and bickering tends to happen when you take years of work some one did to build a reputation in an extremely hostile environment full of con artists and scams, and turn it in to a toy for children with modest amounts of authority to lord over you with fake internet points. It is like taking a mans prosthetic leg off of him and beating him with it. It is an insult by its mere existence as the status quo.

Someone had to say it : I can't help think that if these exact same words came from someone else on the forums, there'd be a radically inverse response. And I'm not even exaggerating. It really shows how much people here are severely affected by status and prejudice.

I would agree that both the old and current trust system create more drama and issues rather than solve problems. But I don't know about removing the system as a whole. In the end (for me at least.), Trust remains just as a simple indicator of a person's past behaviour, and I almost always check the feedback be it positive or negative before I trade with someone.

I dealt with people who have negative trust before, and also refused to deal with people who had green one. I've already learned my lesson several times that there is no such thing as absolute trust, because being "trusted" is not generally something that can stay forever. People change. So if anything, people just need to start understanding that the trust system is just an indicator, and you need to use your own judgement when dealing with people.

I have to agree.
The trust system does not do much in preventing scams, but it does lead to a lot of infighting.

That's where I'm at least a little uncertain.
It's true that most trust ratings are meaningless, but established traders who've done a number of trades in a trustworthy manner seem to be easily identified by substantial trust scores.
If that really justifies all the hassle with the trust system, is another question.


But the trust system is very good at one thing:
warning about accounts that might superficially seem trustworthy because of their long existence and e.g. "Legendary" status which either fall into the hands of account buyers or ruin their reputation by doing something fishy.

So, its really a glass half full half empty situation.
One real function of the trust system and a lot of bile, bickering and bitching.

Be careful now. You don’t want your account tagged as bought or ‘changed hands’. Opinions that go against the cults are generally viewed with suspicion, and it wouldn’t be long before you’re labeled a troll. I can imagine them already trawling through your post history looking for dirt.

I don’t think DT is a bad thing, however, it comes with some responsibility. I am certain that when Lauda was booted off DT for a few weeks, things were quieter on here and scams were still busted. Lauda and some members of her cult are the problem here not DT. And the sooner they’re out the better.


Yes, I copied and pasted the list. I’ve never had a trust list before now and I visit my trust page only when I want to leave retaliatory feedback. I don’t need a trust list to tell me who I should trust or not.

I can't believe I hadn't left you positive trust before this.  My sincere apologies on this oversight that has now been corrected.  I thought it was awful the way certain groups were trying to bully you into giving up the coveted domain you control, and applaud how you stood your ground.

I also echo your thoughts, specifically pertaining to Lauda.  I think this community needs to be more respectful of new members, and less threatened that some brand new account is going to scam the community out of all our funds.  Far more often it is "trusted" escrow agents leading new members into bad projects with a false sense of security that are to blame for community losses.  While I think scrapping DT might be a bit of an over-reaction, I can't think of a better way without appearing to play favorites.  Possibly remove all negative trust completely until these users see they aren't saving the world with their attack against newbies and are instead discouraging community growth.

EDIT: Where are all the scam busters when an ACTUAL THREAT appears?