Topic: DT and trust lists, curious what everyone else thinks on the subject (Read 797 times)

As a newbie & lower ranks, all I did was argue about shitcoins with people 

I remember being slammed with a negative trust by a scamcoin developer who had somehow landed on DT. Yes I was a ferocious troll (also temp banned for that early on) and used to say nasty things to all sorts of people. Then I got them to remove it after a while, I forget how, but the trust system was a much more exclusive club back then.

I didn't join my 1st sig campaign until 2018 and didn't do many trades so I never really cared about the trust system until that point, which was around the time theymos "democratized" it.

Technically, that's incorrect. "Not being scared" is not on the list of DT1 criteria. But I get what you're saying, and that's easy to say from a position with many inclusions, but I remember how scary Bitcointalk was as a Newbie.

Who in their right mind wants to be part of this:
There's so much drama on a forum that's supposed to be about Bitcoin.

Absolutely you are right. They added those so that they are eligible for DT list. Many of these are arse-lickers. They don't care about the forum. On the other hand you will also find some users who have some low rank members or members they do not like in their exclusion list.

You are scared to do the right thing then you are not eligible to be in DT list. You are an opportunist, selfish and only think about yourself.

I do remember about the ignore list page, I had a problem at the time (which to my knowledge was never fixed and if memory serves correct I asked theymos to manually reset it for me) but that is a separate issue from the trust list. There is no problem at all, the page for the trust list opens fine without any lagging to the point if you open your trust list it should be no faster for page load time than what I am getting when I open trust with nearly 3000 names.

This was tested by a troll. It looks like the limit is just over 30,000. The real "record", by far, is held by JollyGood with 2936 exclusions. And that's not counting the users with zero posts (after they got Nuked).

I should have continued reading before hitting "Post". I'm curious: if you count the tildes in your Trust list, you'll know how many Nuked accounts you're excluding.

In the case of @Lightlord, i came across a thread by Poker Player some time ago about Lightlord's behavior in handling his campaign and i immediately went to his profile to check his trust feedbacks and saw that you and some other DT members have already given him a negative trust for his strange behavior towards his campaign participants and i also saw the neutral tag of @yahoo62278 and the negative tag of @suchmoon which stated clearly that ''anyone who joins his campaign will be at risks of payment delays for weeks and months'' so with such feedbacks from this reputable DT members should have given anyone who wants to join any of Lightlord's campaign the awareness of what they are to face while joining any of his campaigns so i believe a lot of his campaign participants have seen these feedbacks and are willing and ready to take the risk that's the major reason why they were unable to call him out when he couldn't pay campaign participants and moreover, i learnt in the past that if he delays payments for weeks that he usually pays all outstanding debts when he returns so people were literally waiting for a feedback from him with the believe that he will make payments when he returns even though it's not a good habit or practice for someone of his caliber who have been in this forum for a very long time now.

How do you even open your trust settings page? Does it not lag like the ignore list page?

This is probably another part of the forum that needs a full (if not partial) overhaul. Regarding DT2, the pertinent questions are why that large number and if it is not necessary why is it there? Many members would probably agree with DT rotations but members need to be active enough to have some degree of credibility otherwise it defeats the object. As for DT1, considering the size of the forum that number might be appropriate but no harm if theymos would consider restructuring the whole DT system or ask for a debate on it.

At the moment the distrusted accounts on my trust list is 2936 

Feedback should be reserved for successful deals and failed deals.

Respectfully speaking, all of those positive feedbacks about "good community member" and neutrals about "bad poster" will not do us any good. If you ask me, it should only be those feedbacks pertaining to deals that are shown in the trust score, because that is what matters the most.


They should not be purged - many historical feedbacks will be hidden if that happens.

Right now its 95 accounts on DT1 and 594 accounts on DT2, which yeah, is a lot, but I'd say less than half of DT2 is regularly active.

"The elites don't want you to know this, but your trust list can hold an infinite number of distrusted accounts. I have over 200 distrusted accounts in my list."

The disaster is that half the users in the lottery and on DT2 have no clue what the heck they're doing IMO.

The old system with 12 DT1 and a handful of DT2 was better, but of course had its flaws. Overall though, most that were in DT were pretty trusted. The people in DT had a clue and weren't scared to death to use the system correctly. Now we have 100 eligible for DT1 each month and all their inclusions which ends up being likely over 1000 users in DT1 or DT2. Of those 1000 (just a random number could be way more), 500 are scared to death that any ~ gets them disqualified from campaigns or gets them tagged by the person they put the ~ on. They're just using the system to add people, get +trust, and be accepted into campaigns easier. I don't agree with that at all.

Oh, I've certainly seen DT members abuse their positions for various reasons but because other DT members can keep abusers in check, any corruption of power (absolute or not) is--or should be--corrected by the system.

The way it is now, I have to wonder how many members on the list should really be trusted by default.  Maybe it's working out better than the old way, but way back when I was first put on DT2 it was a big deal to add any new members, and their trustworthiness and overall reputation were scrutinized before their DT1 "sponsor" included them on their trust list.  Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic; the rotating system has been in place for quite a while and there haven't been any disasters that I know of.

I kinda like the rotating thing. It doesn't correlate with any sort of democrat process, and we don't know for sure how "random" the selection is, but it prevents any single account from becoming too firmly entrenched in DT1. And you know what they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we've seen that more than a few times around here (not mentioning any names, you'll have to use your imagination).

Yep, that's why lightlord didn't get any neutral or negative feedback when he demonstrated that his campaign participants' needs were as low on his priority list as they could get.  People were meekly complaining in the Bitvest thread, but it was obvious that they were too intimidated to show any real irritation or to call lightlord out on his inaction.

If someone is on DT and sees a situation like that (and cares enough about it), they ought to use their power, i.e., the heavier weight of their feedback, to send a message.  But if they don't, it's not like they shouldn't be on the default trust list; it's never been a requirement for those members to be scam hunters or forum police or anything of the sort.  Some choose to be, others don't.  That's how it's been ever since I've been a member here.

The DT system ain't what it used to be, though.  I could look at the list now and I probably wouldn't even recognize half the usernames.  When Theymos changed it to be the rotating thing that it is, I tuned out and lost respect for it--and I'd always been skeptical as to its validity to begin with. 

As to DT members not excluding anyone on their trust lists, I think that might have to do with some of them lacking balls enough to take a stand against someone's actions because of fear of retaliation.  It used to be that most DT members had tons of retaliatory feedback, and they didn't give a shit.  Again, because of the rotating system there are a bunch of members who probably shouldn't even be on DT and who want to keep their trust page clean.  Ah, it's a bunch of crap anyway.  Theymos really should change the whole thing back to the way it used to be.

You can't force people to add or exclude anyone from their trust list.
Some people are using DT system for their own personal benefit, not for improving overall bitcointalk forum.
I decided to mostly stay away from DT drama, and trust list is a very controversial subject that is often used in a wrong way.

My understanding of "judgement" is a bit wider. Managers can have a lot of discretion in how they run campaigns, so if I don't trust someone's judgement to the point of "~" then I probably don't trust their ability to properly manage a signature campaign, even if I don't believe they would outright scam/steal/etc.


Not sure if you're agreeing with me here or disagreeing LOL, but my point was that trust lists should not be affected by signature campaigns in any way, shape, or form. Whether users are self-censoring their trust lists to avoid pissing off campaign managers, or managers are thin skinned, or managers perhaps farming trust - all of that is terrible, but almost certainly happening to some extent.

Saying that and showing that are 2 different things. Feel free to show your proof. If true it is sort of walking the line of ethically correct/wrong.

There is a manager who has more priority for users who have custom trust list. This indirectly indicates that "put me in your trust list".

I use an approximately similar methodology.

Only that I think that maybe the distrust list is more important, just for the reasons that yahoo62278 mentions in the first post. Fear of adding someone to the distrust list due to possible "retaliation".

I'm still not sure what to do with users who have been inactive for a long time, whether to keep them on the trust list or remove them. Some of them left a lot of feedback and did a lot of good things to clean the forum and prevent scams, but it's been a long time since their last activity. For example Lauda or TMAN

As long as you trust the campaign manager, I don't really see a reason not to join. Unless you're expecting a tag because of the campaign manager's bad judgement on others.

If someone excludes a campaign manager from his Trust lists and applies for a campaign, it shows he doesn't care about potential financial consequences. Even better if the campaign manager still accepts him (assuming he qualifies), to show his skin is thick enough to separate the exclusion from business.