Topic: DT1 users may be artificially increasing their own trust (Updated March 26th) (Read 2114 times)

I've been reading this post for quite some time but did not comment for primarily two reasons :

1. I don't trade with anonymous accounts.
2. Noone trades with me.

But this post has come closest to expressing what has been crossing my mind since I have begun reading this post.

I think to call it a manipulation is an exaggeration; I dunno how it can be a manipulation unless they have begun adding members with whom they've not had trades or provided false feedbacks to add them, unless the OP has adequate proof of this I think this is a slanderous attempt by selective highlighting of facts with incendiary thread headlines.

Also, I do think that even providing DT status to one scammer is enough to be a manipulator; if you do it while being in the know and you don't need 100s of DT additions for it.


P.S. If I'm not wrong theymos had TradeFortres on his DT and he came out as the most legendary DT member.  So, better trust your judgement and not other trusted and experienced members or BMs; for it is your money you are putting at risk; although a quick look at ratings (both trusted and untrusted) is a must.



P.P.S. @philipma1957 change your jurisdiction; if complaints can be filed for such frivolous issues and you can actually be held liable, apart from that I think you are doing nothing wrong.

While I do agree with this to some extent, no good will come out of too much unsupervised freedom.

DT1 members are rarely under "attack" in comparison to DT2 member, thus they are surely not constantly defending themselves.

That won't happen due to fear of retaliation.

The whole point of the trust system is that you appoint a group of people to DT1 - because they are trustworthy.
It will then be up to them to add people on DT2 to extend the default network.
It is not a perfect system - but it has worked well for many years.

But in order for the system to work - then must the DT1 user be free to add/remove anyone on their trust list - without having to constantly defend them self - they havde been appointed to DT1 because theymos trust their judgement.

I do not se how any DT1 users would be motivated to manipulate their trust score?
They are already been proven trustworthy and every veteran user here know exactly who is on DT1.
The trust score means nothing for these users.

Op basically imply that the DT1 user is not allowed to have feedback from someone on their trust list - this is nonsens, as the people ending up on DT2 most likely did some type of business or trade with the DT1 user in the past - which ultimately lead to being trustworthy and be on DT2.

Basically OP just point out how the trust system works, there is really nothing useful in the information listed - maybe there are some academic interest, but that's all.
Obviously Annon001 is a shill account - if you want to discuss this core matter, then plz use your primary account.

You have a history of being a liar.

Your statement still doesn't make sense. You're the one treating everything (including DT) as a sockpuppeting opportunity.

In order to be on DT2, you should be very trusted, because you can potentially make other accounts, including undisclosed sockpuppets, look very trusted when this is not appropriate, and can use the threat of negative ratings to obtain things that they are not due. Having a little bit of positive trust is very far from being sufficient to be on DT2.


Suchmoon has a history of acting in bad faith. I very clearly said the DT1 member should be able to trust every single person on their trust list with a hundred thousand+ dollars [if the opportunity arose] without hesitation. Suchmoon responded to my statement as if I was saying this kind of transaction would need to have actually happened.

Are you trying to imply I advised DT1 members to include untrusted people, scammers or users with red trust to their trust list? Read everything I posted, including this

Exactly. And just being trusted enough to hold x amount of money doesn't necessarily mean the trust they send can be trusted or is helpful, unbiased, with good references
Leaving good, helpful feedback and being trusted enough to hold money are different things. Some users can have both qualities, others none. But it's completely possible to have only one

My largest escrow was about 45k
My biggest trust was having 75k in gear at buysolar's solar array

That doesn't make any sense. Many (perhaps most) DT members never even approach the amounts of monetary risk you're talking about.

I think he probably means that merely being on DefaultTrust doesn't magically give them a gold seal that they are trusted to hold x amount of money. Once you get added to DT 1 or 2 this isn't a guarantee by theymos or anyone else that they're trusted to hold massive amounts of money but more that they've been trusted to be a valid member of the trust network for whatever reason. I personally don't think there would be many DT members that I would trust with millions of dollars and at the end of the day most people here are just a username on a screen and the ratings you've left and activity amongst the community should be taken into consideration more than how much money you have handled.

I disagree.Considering how members are selected does matter.For instance, The Pharmacist was added to the DT because they actively tag scammers/spammers which somehow adds to spam reduction.They can certainly be trusted with their tagging skills but not with the money as they don't have a history of doing so.Having said that,I'm not sure where you picked that definition of being on the DT from but atleast in 2018 it does not mean a DT member should be blindly trusted with money unless of course they have had records of doing it successfully.

Not to mention but MasterP's case is quite evident.

What ? That is absolutely wrong.Speaking practically,you mean only people who can afford millions are added on the default trust ?

Huh, you did, indeed, change the thread title to something less inflammatory.

Okay, I get your argument here, that a person who is entirely trustworthy in a transaction might not necessarily be trusted to leave unbiased feedback, but given that no human being is truly unbiased or immune to favoritism, etc., this may be a distinction without a difference, so to speak.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal.

Maybe theymos didn't send any guideline to you but he did send at least a very short one to Blazed and, hopefully, other DT1 members. His instance is very clear:

If you mean that as the only parameter to add someone to DT2 then that would be the worst idea! But that could be a good start as long as you check feedback left by every of those users to see if that trust helps the community and is left with proper arguments, references and without abuse. Or you can check the Marketplace and find users who leave trust there. Those seem better ways to start than those you've dealt with or have exchanged trust with. Of course those are just ways to start, proper checking of their left trust is required

Good suggestion. I've updated OP

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money. It should mean their feedback can be trusted. It should mean the trust they leave helps others see who can be trusted with money.
Those added to DT2 should help the forum by leaving accurate and helpful trust, not just by making good deals
Of course you won't add a scammer to DT2 under any circumstances as he will abuse his power but just being trusted to hold money is not reason enough. Just leave positive trust in that case

Don't take this as an attack. You seem to forget I said this after you actively began to re-check your list:
I have updated the title of OP so hopefully you and other DT1 members don't take it as a personal attack

Sure, random  Coincidentally that metric tells the exact change each one made to their own trust by setting their own list. The difference shown there is the exact effect each DT1 had on their own trust by being DT1 and adding others to DT2. But I was just lucky because the metric was chosen at random

Absolutely, as I've said before. As long as the reason to add those users to DT2 is because the trust they left helps the community, not just because you've dealt with them or even because they can be trusted with money (in that case leave positive trust to them, don't add them to DT2)

Yeah guess it is a case spring fever  caused by the 4 easter's we had here in NJ

I normally don't take it that badly but  this time I did.

Please don't further centralize DT1 by leaving.  We need to include more trustworthy people in the network to get better accuracy.  Those of us who have been trustworthy for a long time and interacting with lots of users will naturally have high scores and other longtime trusted members on our lists.  The OP took a random metric and tried to make it something that it isn't.  The effect has been the exact opposite of what we should be seeing.  Add more people you trust to your list.  Be thankful you learned a few things about how it works as a result of this thread, and keep doing what you've been doing.  You are appreciated around here and too valuable to spend your time greasing the squeaky wheels.  Welcome to the 'you've become a target of jealousy over your trust status' club.

Doesn't matter; you improved on it even thought you could have ignored it like some did. That's what matters. I don't see this as a direct attack on anyone, yet.

You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to).

@philipma1957

I am a total outsider here regarding the issue, I'm just expressing my opinion.

Just do not take this thread personally anymore, forget this thread and concentrate on your work.

You, philipma1957 have proved that you are one of the trusted members of our community. And your actions regarding the issue also confirms how trusted and serious you are.

Whether you stay at DT1-4 or not, that actually doesn't matter anymore... What matters here is your name philipma1957. Peoples will remember you with your name, now and in future.

Well  there is the crux of the issue.  Because I normally  don't bother with  Meta at all.

But  at this point in time after reviewing all the op said  I realized  I am exposed to litigation due to his or hers accusation.

I am active in :

  the DragonMint sha 256 thread
  the 16 gpu industrial miner thread is my review thread for the gear
  the 13 gpu autominer.at thread is my review thread for the gear
  and  I may be doing a canaan thread
  along with an orion miner thread

If any of the above turn out to be a disaster   I could be looking at consequences   for saying the gear is worthwhile  and as op said here faking my ratings

I simply don't need the aggravation caused  by a ghost (op)  even if his or hers real agenda was to go after OgNasty or others named  and they tossed me in to make it look good.

Basically  as I have have stated in a few meta threads I never asked to be put on the DT1 list.
Since I don't know the op at all I don't like what was done here.  
So I don't think I am unreasonable at acting this way.

The truth is I don't know much about the people he accused other then OgNasty
but the list has me as 11x worse then anyone else



philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

OgNasty
338: -0 / +35
244: -0 / +25
+94: +10 (40%)

hilariousandco
57: -0 / +7
50: -0 / +6
+7: +1 (16.7%)
dooglus
134: -0 / +14
114: -0 / +12
+20: +2 (16.7%)

Maged
30: -0 / +3
30: -0 / +3
+0: +0 (0%)
dserrano5
10: -0 / +1
0: -0 / +0
+10: +1 (inf%)
(Huge percentage, but only one unique trust)
Tomatocage
220: -0 / +22
160: -0 / +16
+60: +6 (37.5%)

SaltySpitoon
140: -0 / +14
120: -0 / +12
+20: +2 (16.7%)

Cyrus
62: -0 / +7
42: -0 / +5
+20: +2 (40%)
Blazed
334: -0 / +34
285: -0 / +29
+49: +5 (17.2%)

theymos
160: -0 / +17
140: -0 / +15
+20: +2 (13.3%)

HostFat
40: -0 / +4
0: -0 / +0
+40: +4 (inf%)
(Huge percentage, but only 4 unique trust)

---

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation


I blank my list to just default I have

Trust:   105: -0 / +11

current list is
-ck
buysolar
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17

Trust:   126: -0 / +14

if a combine and go to

DefaultTrust
-ck
buysolar
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17


Trust:   146: -0 / +16

now base on op's criteria

I go to

146:  -0  / +16
105:  -0  / +11

+41     +5  still a fail

as 5/11 = 45%   which still makes my list the worst one.  So frankly  I do consider it to be a direct attack on me and  I don't even know the op's name.

What  really annoys me is many of the names  were done before I was even on the trust list.  I don't add a lot of people to the trust list anymore.

And the op is saying  that no one should ever add a person to the trust list if it improves their score.

So I can not put anyone one the trust list I got a feedback from even if the feedback was before I was on the Dt1 list.

So in effect I am listed as the biggest villain  in his first post when  10 of the additions were done before the I was on the Dt1.

Even though  I now pruned the list   the original number of 440% remains  and  this effectively is a barrier to my ability to function  as a DT1 member .
even though I mentioned in numerous threads  I am open to   dt1 alterations
even though I have multiple feedbacks  saying I have changed my dt1 list  when asked

and @ lauda  how do I know  the op is not you? or anyone else

 @ all I never marked an unfair tag on anyone here
 @ all I have never been marked negative by anyone
 @ all I never cheated anyone
 @ all I have promo'd coins across the world
 @ all I gave away  many btc in the diff thread picks
 
 @ all I am really pissed at the op
 

 

Well, at a guess it might be the overly inflammatory title of the thread...

Re-titling it as, for example, "Possible manipulation of trust metrics by DT1 members" would express much the same without the incendiary aspects.

Or less incendiary, anyway.

Why are you taking this thread, which isn't even solely directed at you, so personally?