Topic: DefaultTrust (DT) Network - DT1/2 Members - page 4. (Read 1810 times)

That's fair, being a DT requires you to be professional and set some standards based on the forum rules, what actmyname did was that he is painting red for most accounts here in the forum whom he think are abusing the forum doing some shitposting for money. I may not be fluent in speaking English but I believe I can contribute to the forum as my worlds are understandable. I want to call the attention of actmyname to please review the accounts you tagged so you will not be called by some members that you were abusing trust.

Actually, based on the definition of negative rating as per forum guideline it means "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." which I think I does not fit to the rating he gave, in fact in my experience, I have  successful transaction with "minerjones" ,"hilariousandco ", and "AT101ET", these people are trustworthy and I don't think they will transact with me if I am a scammer or untrustworthy.

Lastly, let us be objective, please think twice before making a decision as it's your reputation is at risk here since you are a DT and maybe some would think those who choose you to as DT has low standard which in overall will affect the forum's reputation. You should be focus more on people who are scamming than focusing on shitposters as your definition with your own judgment, let the staff do their job as they have the appropriate power to do so.

I  think that you are being bias here because you are wearing signature and you are also making money from it, so how can we expect that you are not making it for your self interest to minimize the competition.

Very true, It's so hard to why those one end up on those since scamming is I think the main reason why DT network has been build on. Neutral trust is indeed the besy solution for that since It's so hard to build those account and those shitty one sided minded guys just  red tag it and ruined those guys up.

Shit posting can be corrected, But scamming will not so they should have different criteria.


And this current issue is sort of abuse.

Actually, this was one of the things I was thinking about after the addition to DefaultTrust. A sort of 'dilution' in terms of the impact of red trust. Though I agree to a certain point that tagging should be reserved for scammers (and particularly bad spammers) I believe that there has to be something to properly act as a deterrent to spam.

Perhaps we should discuss this and come to a compromise.

Perhaps, but a neutral feedback is going to be overlooked far more than a negative one.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

I agree.  I only tag accounts as shitposters if it is obvious to even the brain dead fool.  All one or less liners, no contribution to the post.

To date, I have left negative feedback for 61 shitposters, and most, if not all, have never complained about it.

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

People are normally added by merit. Not only that but DefaultTrust members have to be active and have made contributions towards the trust system, for example leaving trust on accounts. It's also beneficial that the DefaultTrust members have unique trust lists and aren't just listing the same people.

You don't get on the DefaultTrust by agreeing with existing members on it. We've had many disagreements in the past and for certain not everyone on the list agrees with the current situation going on with the negatives for spammers. I will say though, generally the members which are on the list are rational when leaving trust.

Try finding trustworthy members willing to put in the work to moderate those sections for every single local language out there. It's simply not possible. There is a section for people who speak a language which hasn't got a dedicated board though and if there are enough activity of that language theymos normally tries and finds a moderator suitable for it and make it a dedicated board.

The forum does not have automatic measures to place negative trust.

People PM me and ask for help. I need to investigate and make a conclusion.

I call that work, even though I am not being paid.  Some of these investigations can take a while.    :/

I am aware you're not staff. I am also aware you don't get paid.....

....well, except by benefiting from promoting discussing cryptocurrency, which is what this board was set up to do, right?

I mean, had it remained unheard of, there'd be a few less arrogant millionaires here, hmm?

The recent surge in popularity is going to bring new members. Many of them are going to be from countries that do not have English as their first language. And surprise, surprise, you do NOT have a child board for every language. NOR is it OK of you to expect people to not ask newbie questions until they "go learn english".

And what work are you talking about? I am not trying to do work here?

But wait how does actmyname enter on DT network? Does he/she do any good contribution on this furom? Or he became DT Just for the fact that he his turn coat, sticking, praising, agree what DT says and make his name beautiful his his sponsor.

That is exactly the problem.  People think DT members are staff.  We don't get paid.  We are under no obligation to do your work. 

So where did the 80% number come from? No logical sense to that either. I have extrapolated shit from shit. Not hiding it. Go back to the source, though.

Where do you get your "usually" from, by the way? It's your opinion?

In that case, it's no more valid that my opinion that you're full of shit.

Good point there ibminer these furom will look crap if chosen member will abuse the system.

Certain abuse will continue if this issue will not address by same as you since (no good ol'' boys club) has one sided mind and they doesn' t listen to any explanation unless the one who explain are guys who have benifits the same them.

This is exactly the problem.

You sit there with your title of Legendary member - legendary for what? Posting shite for a long time?

And then you lie back and allow this forum to turn into a fucking despotic bro-fest?

Cretin.

There is not really much communication between Default Trust people that I am aware of (no good ol' boys club). I have reached out the Theymos to get his opinion regarding negative trust and shit posting. This forum has become pretty much useless with the mindless posting for pay that happens. I do not think campaigns will start adding negative trusted users, but eventually they will probably stop advertising here since it is all garbage posts and good users will keep leaving.

Personally, I won't be leaving negative feedback for low post quality, but I can understand why some feel the need to. Low post quality is definitely a big problem for the forum, but it's just not what the trust system was intended for. In my opinion, negative trust should only be left for people you feel are actually untrustworthy- scammers or would-be-scammers. I try to be fairly reserved with my ratings as well, since they carry more weight than your average feedback. Being unable to speak coherent English doesn't meet this standard in my eyes, although I would consider leaving neutral feedback if signature campaigns took note of it. Overall though, I don't have a problem with others in DT who feel stronger towards it and leave full negative ratings.

DT members are basically just users of this community that are trusted by theymos or the various DT1 members. They are not held to any different set of rules or requirements because they are not admins or mods of this forum, they do not get paid, and they really do not have any obligation to respond to you at all. Your chances of being responded to are reduced quite a bit when you are red from negative feedback by other DT members.


This did cross my mind... they certainly could remove their 'no red trust' rule but with the current conditions I'd foresee campaign managers being fearful of doing this because then they would then be running poorly managed campaigns that encourage or support spammers, which I assume would justify this same type of feedback being left on their own accounts, damaging their own reputation. It might be more likely that campaign managers themselves start excluding specific DT members from their own trust view to de-validate the red from those members, which may result in some of the outcomes you mentioned... but I assume would still lead to DT members tagging the managers.



I guess I'd like to know who is neutral to it and who supports it then... if the majority of DT1 members are neutral to it given the current circumstances of post quality, this is good information I'd like to have.


I'm mainly trying to evaluate my own guidelines/criteria for leaving feedback but I'm fine hearing from A), B), and certainly C) in your list... although I'll likely not react to most of the B) group.
And what's wrong with libertarianism??  

I repeat my suggestion:  Keep  censorships about post quality away from feedback system as it was considered by theymos.

 

Those numbers are a clearly an assumption.Over hypothetical as I call it.The said 20 accounts are always free to ask the DT members and get the feedback revised if at all it is unfair according to the community standards.

Depends on the consequences.Let's not get too technical.I would beat you to it.

Who Am I to judge ?  

I concur.

How did you get this number?

"80 of them think the feedback isn't fair because they can't participate in signature campaigns anymore" ≠ 20 of them were unfairly tagged. There isn't even any logical sense in your statement.

Selection bias. The loudest ones will complain. And they're usually shitposters.