Topic: DefaultTrust Suggestion (Read 350 times)

Correct. Not only can you have your own trust list, but you should have your own trust, once you feel you know which users' judgement you value.

Also correct.

I wouldn't say "the community". It is only other DT1 users who can exclude DT1 users from being DT1. If you aren't a DT1 user, you can exclude a DT1 user from your own trust list, but that would have no effect on their position within DT1.

Those are the correct criteria, but I wouldn't say theymos "selects" users. The first 5 of those criteria are easy to achieve - be a member, have a trust list, don't be banned, be active. Anyone except spammers can achieve that easily. The two criteria which are important are the last two - be included by 2 users with 250+ merit and 10 users with 10+ merit.* So although theymos sets the rules to operate within, it is the community which picks DT1 users. theymos doesn't choose users anymore than anybody else does by setting their own trust list.

---

*Even then, that might not be enough to get you on to DT1 depending on how much merit those users have earned and who else they have on their trust list, since these votes are limited.

It's already similar to what we have now. Like what LoyceV said we can already identify people who are being added into the trusted list thus becoming a DT member. If DT members feel that the new DT cannot be trusted all they have to do is to put that member's name into their distrust list. What you suggested will just complicate things to an already similar system with yours you will be forcing new DT additions to be put in different screenings which I think will be a hard one especially if you consider the biases involved on reviewing every new DT.

Theymos uses an algorithm that follows the rules you quoted, then does a random selection if there are more than 100 DT1 members. It's not as if theymos hand-picks the users, it's up to the community to vote for candidates.

I got confused. I thought I know how the trust system works.

My understanding is as follows. Please correct me. (Sorry if the post is off-topic.)

Any user (even an ordinary user like me) can have a trust list.
DT1 members can exclude each other from DT1 list. If number of DT1 members that have distrusted a DT1 member is higher than number of those who have trusted him/her, that user will no longer be a DT1 member. (I guess this is what you meant by voting)

So, the community have the right to exclude anyone from DT1 list.
But the initial list before voting (the nominees) is determined by Theymos. Am I wrong?

And the criteria Theymos uses for selecting these users are:


For being a DT1 member, first you should be chosen by Theymos. Otherwise, in the best case you can be a DT2 member.  

Sorry again if the post is off-topic.

That is the old system though.

The old system was theymos chooses a handful of DT1 members, and then between their combined inclusions and exclusions these users constructed DT2.

Your system (correct me if I'm wrong) is that theymos chooses some "trust moderators" (who are essentially equivalent to DT1), and these moderators then vote on people to add to default trust (which is the same as including/excluding).

You are describing the old system. At present, DT1 members are voted in by the community by being included in trust lists.

The current system constitutes hegomonia.
The system you recommend strengthens hegomony.
There is a need for a decentralized arbitral tribunal to reduce the hegemony effect.
This is the judicial system. There is also a need for a system of punishment and amnesty.
No punishment should last forever.

Here is the thing, is your suggestion bad? No, definitely not. But, at the same time, the suggestion involves revamping of the entire trust system(again), it is gonna take a lot of time to make changes, and DT members will have a lot of work on their head in addition to doing normal DT stuff(tagging others, voicing flags etc). It causes redundancy to some extent, and costs a lot of time and effort.

I feel like the current trust system with the setting of flags incorporated alongside is actually not so bad, and its entirely community driven. There isn't really an immense need for the trust system to be changed all over again.

Nothing will be changed.

In the case your suggestion is implemented, moderators will do what DT1 members are now doing. As, moderators are chosen by Theymos, so nothing will be changed.
Now theymos choose DT1 members and DT1 members choose DT2 members. If your suggestion is implemented, Theymos will choose moderators and moderators will chose other DT members.
What's the difference?

If your suggestion is implemented:

moderators ---> current DT1 members
Those who are chosen by moderators ---> current DT2 members

collective? I say that! a collective gang is even displacing DT1. why? for not thinking like them. That's why I say there's a gang. this gang feeds on merit, grows and becomes a bigger gang. There is one right: themselves
since only themselves are considered "right". Let everyone ban, who think differently.

Not really. Theymos has to start with the initial selection, however, after that initial selection, it's all out of Theymos' hands. If the DT members choose to add or remove anyone, as long as there is consensus. It's possible. With no interaction required from theymos.


The activity does not equal merit. One member can have lots of merits that they earned with the minimum amount of activity. It all depends on their worth. While I do agree that the trust system is subjective, that's why it is collective. You can go ahead and inspect every trust one by one for anyone you want, the DT just offers a simple "feedback".


1 - If the mods were to abuse their powers, then they wouldn't be a moderator in the first place. And rest of DT can root them out if so.

2 - This is true, every member of the DT would have to be active more or less, otherwise it'd be hard to reach consensus.

3 - There can be elected "moderators" (not forum mods, DT mods) which are respectively "objective" people who can take care of any "red vs blue" situation.

Nonetheless, is it foolproof? No. But at least it'd give members a bit more power over DT.

I don't think about your high council assembly. I don't care what you do. Your gangs have no value in my eyes.
I'm a lonely man for a gang. trust and merit gang, you can check the entire forum but never me!

When there are bad apples, the good ones will cut them out. Recently, a guy got into DT1 and he didn’t look very trustworthy or with a good and stable head (to say the least). Less than a week later he was out of DT due to other users excluding him.

What you said is basically what we had before (theymos chooses DT1, which choose DT2). The point of the new system is to take all the power out of theymos’ hands and let the community have more power on who is in DT.

Here are the possible arguments, some of them at least:

- Mods might abuse their power, depending on the case.

- Way too time consuming for DT members, might not be worth.

- Some of the current DT members, while they may be good when it comes to tagging others, might have a controversial opinion when it comes to adding someone. So the controversy will more or less lead to adding people that may not be good for the system itself but rather for the people who make the system aka the pre-existing DT members. This will only lead to more rivalry, and soon the whole system you propose turns into a red vs blue war.

The trust system is purely subjective. If you bring the best system in the world, there is no solution because people will always find a way to exploit.
someone is more successful in expressing themselves and finding supporters. someone is thrown into the corner and is waiting for the day will be damaged reputation.

The merit and trust system has become a monopoly. to prevent this, "anti-monopoly laws" need to be passed. but I still don't think there will be a definite solution.
For example: Navigate globally, you'll see a lot of activity missing but merit-rich members.
point to the lokale, plenty of activity but don't merit! There is a crew enriched with merit, they are becoming valid members. legitimate members also take over the trust system.
the rest will be either pro or guerrilla

If we all agree on your point and assume that rebuilding the trust system is the only way to make it flawless and better than the previous version. We still have to face the same challenges that we faced with the default trust system. At some point, people will find two separate ways over some points.

Starting from the beginning will have some severe effects as well.
--Already tagged people get a chance to pull another scam on someone.
--Efforts will be required from people in DT. They have to work continuously to make it stable again.

The current DT system is prone to abuse, no matter you like it or not. With it being almost randomised with some algorithms, there are bad apples among the good ones.

I know that the removal of the trust system would impact the forum greatly, therefore, I would like to suggest a compromise.


Now the idea: Theymos and several moderators of the forum start with the "genesis block" of the trust system. They will be the first ones on the DT. Then, they can vote for people who they deem are active and worthy enough to be on the trust list. After the first X amount of members of the list is gathered, new members can be added (or removed) to the DT list by reaching a consensus among the current DT members.

User A, B, C, D and F are DT members. User F nominates User E to become a DT member and creates a discussion. As a result, User A, B and C reviews the user and comes to the conclusion that this user will be a good addition to the list and approves them while User D rejects. Because there is a consensus with the majority, User E is added onto the DefaultTrust list.

It is just a suggestion I came up in a jiffy. I believe it'd be a lot better than the system we have now. However, as everything is on this forum, my suggestion is open to discussion and criticism. Looking forward for your replies.