Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 93. (Read 85467 times)

Did you say you'd promote Quark and get it on the reddit front page? Did that happen?
What work did you acutally do to justify keeping the Quarks sent to you in good faith.

Wouldn't returning the 10,000 Quarks (perhaps 1000 more!) be the right thing to do?

Which is a lie (neither is there any urgency nor is this place near the state of being a mess of that type); stop pushing false narratives using a hacked account. The end goal is to make account trading non-taggable again, and that is not going to happen. Your lies have really become tiring to read.

Yes, every tag should have some standards of evidence, there is no achievement in giving tag based on assumption which further relates to trust abuse. I cannot see any type of decentralization in the judgment as there are no fix rules to run the community or atleast not people with good judgment knowledge to run it.

A community with proper guidelines to what is right or what is wrong makes the things more clear and easy to handle as there is a base of rules to follow. An unguided moderation by DT just make it more worst not only for normal accounts but also for the DT in many cases when they need to explain every action they take. And I think this is obvious from the community to protest as they just don't know what things can lead them to a tag.

I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.

It takes a few months before adjustments on Trust system been made.
By now, around 3 weeks after the activation of new trust algorithm, I saw some things, both positive (in green) and negative (in red):
(1) A new generation of self-made higher ranked members voted into new Trust list
They are inspirational stories that constructive and trustworthy users can play important roles in the forum, no matter what where they come from.
Around one year ago, at the start of merit system, some DT1 members were Members, Junior Members or even Newbies.
Within more than one year, fully contributed to the forum, they got acceptance and trust from forum community.
They deserve for all their dedication to the forum.
I congratulate them for their achievements! [Let's call it achievement]
Case studies: iasenko, Coolcryptovator, ICOEthics, asche.
The new DT1 Trust list (update on 29/1/2019)

(2) There are abusements on Trust votes.
I known that the Distrust mechanism will play a role here for abusement cases.
However, it always takes time to discover abusers. It means that in early hours or days after get new Trusts, those abusers can scam forum users.
In most cases, they often get distrust after found by other DT1 members or forum users.
It is risky for forum users at somewhat extent.
For me, I tend to careful when see someone who got a little bit Trust points. I admit that they are potentially better than me (of course, I don't have Green Trust, LOL), but some of them are potential Trust Abusers.

Let's see how theymos deal with it by next improvements.

and TMAN calling me crazy it a DefaultTrust negative feedback rating because in my opinion i not agree with him or Lauda, also owlcatz copypasted and from some time deleted text of TMAN rating
all of this shits without proofs

A major point would be restoring normal trust to accounts which haven't done anything wrong and have been falsly tagged as scammers

I think you will find when addressed rationally and with intellectual honesty I will respond in kind. There are a lot of people who go around here who only speak the language of intimidation, inquisition, and relishing their authority over others over anything else. It is easy to say just lets agree, but the people who will continually derail don't have the principle to even honor that agreement as they have no incentive to. I am not aware of anything you personally have been up to that I object to, I am sorry if it sounded as if I was addressing you personally.

As I stated in previous posts we need this core set of principles because it is what will ultimately achieve those goals of preventing abuse, scams, and general degradation of the forum. It is not rocket science. Look at any society without a rule of law and see how it is controlled. This forum is not quite that chaotic, but operates under systematic arbitrary enforcement.

Arbitrary enforcement results in not only confusion of what the rules are but creates a feedback loop of disregard for the "rule of law" or observing rules on the forum in general. You combine this with a small handful of cliques that have made an industry out of going after scams or manufacturing them to then "bust" them with various levels of complication, and now you have direct incentive for abuse without recourse for those abused. This again breeds disrespect for any authority around here, as well again creates a feedback loop of driving away constructive users who simply didn't understand the arbitrarily enforced patchwork of rules, while actual scammers are back in seconds with a bought account.

There needs to be a standard of evidence for negative ratings of some kind of documentation of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. This would cut out SO MUCH of the bullshit we are seeing right now. The sky will not fall. The forum will continue. There will be less drama, more cooperation, more constructive users, less scamming (because they can't hide in the noise), and most importantly people can enjoy the peace of mind of generally BEING LEFT THE FUCK ALONE if they haven't harmed anyone else as is traditional in this community.

Don't change anything for my benefit. I believe your ratings offer a beneficial indication of your character and how you use the trust system. If I start PMing you, TECSHARE will have a heart attack screaming about "compliance" and I can't have that on my conscience.

Thank you.  It is a start.  I actually reviewed my sent feedback the other day and didn't see anything incorrect in them (but did remove a couple that I felt were repetitive).  If there is a feedback of mine you don't believe is accurate, feel free to reach out to me in PM.  I try to leave references so they are clear, but in some cases there is too much to list in the small box.  However, I'm usually happy to clarify if I have the time.

Then I'm not sure where we went wrong.

Let's avoid the tirade of drama and talk about improving DefaultTrust as a system. The individuals can come later (or in separate discussions). Agreed?

---

There was a post by someone when explaining negative trust. Paraphrasing here, but I believe this is critical: "Is the negative feedback worth ruining the user's reputation?"

This should be mainly for preventing the degradation of the forum. Scams, egregious abuse of forum systems, etc.

I don't usually send out negative feedback based on dissenting opinions. (if there is feedback that I sent of which you disagree with, please let me know.)
There are some cases in which consistent blatant lying that is not outright scamming (i.e. does not involve any monetary transaction) might deserve a strongly-worded neutral or at worst, a negative.^*

Owl's rating is not there anymore. Mission accomplished on that front. Any chance we could expect similar self-reflection from you?


I'm happy to see that we're on the same page with this one.

Yes, I am sure your comment about my use of language had nothing to do with casting anyone as a victim.



I would call what I linked a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here.

That's where the deflection starts because I brought up owlcatz calling me a faggot in his trust feedback, and thought it didn't belong in the DT network.  The issue we're supposed to be discussing is the new DefaultTrust changes, but the new DefaultTrust folks are instead attacking anyone who actually tries to discuss the topic or point out things that shouldn't be there, like owlcatz calling me a faggot in a DefaultTrust negative feedback rating.

I'm pretty sure people came to this thread with pre-existing judgements and opinions on each other. I tried several times to keep the discussion on topic and discuss DT, and trust related problems, despite the interventions of some members. But at this point, all of them started having a go at each other, and this thread has officially gone to shit.

I don't feel I'm a victim and I don't mean to imply that I am. Our disagreement doesn't mean anything else to me. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding.

Cheers. This is a different thread (might have some relation) and roughly going through it I don't see any problem with setting a foundation for negative feedback. In fact, IIRC, there is a thread about ongoing discussion relating to that very issue.

From what I see, this local issue starts from this post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49511282

Am I correct? If not, where should I start reading on this thread?

You've treated me far worse than I've ever treated you.  Difference is that I don't go around making threads about it or derailing topics with nonsense whining.  The bottom line is that you didn't understand how the trust system worked, and then got mad at me because you wrongly thought I somehow empowered some user that left you negative trust.  You're mad at me FOR YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING.  Grow up.  Take responsibility.  Stop attacking me, asking me for free stuff, buying my raffle tickets, and spreading lies about me, then we would never have had or ever will have any interaction whatsoever.  Understand?  

Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.

I don't keep up with this thread because it is long. I'm sorry that I have not yet read your replies. Do you have a synopsis that I can follow so that I may further educate myself in order to understand the situation? I would be delighted to truly capture the situation and create a well-formed and developed reply that is founded on facts.