Topic: DT1 users may be artificially increasing their own trust (Updated March 26th) - page 3. (Read 2114 times)

You said there was no explanation. There was one and it's as good as any when it comes to DT1/DT2 inclusions or exclusions.

I can see why you don't like it but that's another story. Feel free to come up with evidence of wrongdoing. The mere fact of nonnakip being in DT2 does not show that.


No. Ask QS, he's tight with Tomato.


I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

No.



I would trust nonnakip to hold every cent I have and value his judgement more than any other human being alive.  I've removed him because as stated, he doesn't leave trust for anyone so there is no current value there, but make no mistake that he would be on my trust list if he left any ratings for anyone other than myself.

Two people : The Pharmacist and Loyce V have been added to the DT network recently. And nonnakip has been excluded. Maybe even more, I might have missed out on something as Philipma1957 did remove someone. OP has made this thread just three days ago, and DT1 members should rather take more time on deciding who should actually stay on the list before excluding someone. I see Philipma1957 has already evaluated their list,but it would rather be better to take a good look at their previous list again and think rationally. Though this thread is helping in giving suggestions on how DT1 members should improvise their lists,using the term "DT abuse" is not going to help. And like ibminer said, I'd like to see what theymos has to say on this whole DT networking and how exactly he wants the system to be decentralized. A lot of DT1/2 accounts have been bought and sold in the past and the more decentralized the network gets, more easy it becomes to get hands on DT member's accounts.

Do DT members get some sort of guidelines sent to them by theymos when they are added to DT1?  Blazed mentioned theymos said "Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback", which makes sense to me, but I'm seeing a few comments here which seem to imply DT members are being added based on trades, in general. DT1/DT2 members leaving positive trust for someone is what I would see as someone saying "I trust this person, based on this particular trade/reason/comment".

nonnakip should have just gotten positive trust, and maybe multiple, based on various work or trades with Og/Nasty*. I feel like Og's response to nonnakip being added to DT2 may just be "Well, I trust him!".. which he may, but does the inclusion of nonnakip help the DT network, no. Does it hurt it? Short-term probably no, long-term may be debatable. Unless there are specific guidelines sent to DT1 members like Og* specifically stating all of this, it seems tough to deem this "DT abuse". Maybe I've missed it but I'm not sure I've ever really seen any public guidelines involving DT1 members and why they should or should not be adding people to DT2.

It seems like the real question to be asked for inclusion by DT1 members is "Do I trust this persons feedback and/or judgement of other members on this forum?" If the person has not left feedback for others, there is nothing to go off of. Even if the person added has left good feedback on eBay and gives you good feedback on your product/services directly, it doesn't mean they are going to have useful or accurate feedback on this forum towards other members, and so while they may be trustworthy to you, I'm not sure they are beneficial to the DefaultTrust network which serves an important niche of the community.

As for centralization/decentralization of DT. It makes me nervous to think of many more DT1 or DT2 members being added to the DT network as a way to decentralize it, as I believe this increases the percentage of shadiness/scams that may occur within DT, and DT-level shadiness IMO is the worst kind because of the power it creates, whether the power was intended or not - it exists, and higher-level scams may likely occur more often when those percentages of DT members suddenly increase. Adding more DT members in the name of decentralization feels like a double-edged sword to me.


It would be nice to hear theymos clarify what he meant when he referred to the DT network becoming centralized, as maybe I have misinterpreted this. My take was that centralization of power was occurring around the activity level of a handful of DT members, as opposed to being related to the count of DT members. Additions and/or exclusions may need to happen, but educated decisions in a slow and controlled manner.. not just add a bunch of new DT1/DT2 members and say we are more decentralized now.

You really should stop taking someone's word for it without a proper explanation. He hasn't explained why he added nonnakip in the first place, or anyone else for that matter
They clearly do not help the community. Maybe they don't hurt it either but the fact none (or almost none) of them helps the community rises the question why they were included then

He removed nonnakip because it was too obvious his addition was wrong but it was always wrong, even the day he added him, so why did he add him?
This wouldn't matter if there were only a few cases but that appears to be the norm. So explanations are still required, or at least openness to feedback and improvement

I can't PM him, he doesn't receive PMs from newbies. Would you?


Please don't lie, don't insult me, and don't insult my and others intelligence

Do you really still don't understand the issue? DT1 users should add more users to DT2 but they should do that to help the community. They must choose users whose ratings are valid and help others. It must not be based mainly on private trades with them (making a successful deal doesn't necessarily mean they're good at leaving feedback) and even less so by the fact they left positive trust to you

The difference is not huge but there is a difference. That difference is just enough to make him be the user with the highest trust for example. But of course there's a possibility that was not his intention

Maybe it didn't hurt anything. But it does raise questions when almost all of the users added by him do little good to the community, not just him or a few

This exactly. DT1 members should add users to DT2 if their feedback helps the community, not just because they were trading partners or received positive trust from them
If this rule is applied then it's not possible 10 out of 12 users added by OgNasty left positive trust to him and none of them significantly helped the community
I only see 2 options. Worst case scenario: OgNasty added them to boost their own trust. Best case scenario: OgNasty really doesn't know the role of DT1 members and doesn't apply this rule

I appreciate you checked your list and are open to suggestions. I'll check it too and post only if I find something


I encourage everyone to check Blazed's and also philipma1957's lists and post comments.
While the decision of how DT1 members handle their trust lists belongs only to them and the decision of which DT1 members are excluded or included belongs only to theymos, because those decisions affect everyone in the forum we all must check it and provide feedback

I really doubt Og was adding people to boost his score since it makes no difference overall to him. I agree Nonnakip's being added did not help the network in anyway, but it also did not hurt anything. The way DT was explained to me years ago by Theymos was pretty simple... Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback. I have gone over my list and feel it is pretty solid, but if anyone has a legit concern then by all means let me know who I should review.

I missed that post. It wasn't about trouble it was about having a decentralised trust system. My personal feelings about our back and forth are being held back here

Then you need to add more members who are actively tagging people and trying to fight the scams.

Btw great work with QS.

They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why.  So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network.  That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.

maybe if we just focus on the nonnakip inclusion as OG has totally ignored this, other than his personal credibility boost for the fanclub I fail to see what the benefit to the forum is, I could be blind but maybe OG could "educate me" on this.

from an outsiders perspective there is no gain to the DT network as the only positive rating is to OG and he has made 0 effort in tagging people or trading with people to give positive ratings - so in short what is the point of him being in DT?

I'll take Og's word for it (and I'm not a big fan of his), seeing that nonnakip has been removed anyway. I'm not really neutral since Og has excluded me but I don't do DT butthurt drama either.


I did provide some arguments as to why focusing on a narrow set of numbers the way you do is wrong in my opinion. Here is another one courtesy of Phil:


All other things being equal, interaction IRL beats forum numbers any day.

If you want to dig deeper - look into timing of feedback, interactions between the involved members (butt kissing vs real trades), that sort of thing. Number of feedback ratings is a dead end. IMHO.

Og said this about nonnakip, not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation:


Have you contacted Tomato?

I know that. I insist, I just want to understand why DT1 members added those users
Do you find any explanation why nonnakip was added? You seem neutral, of course I'll really consider your possible explanation

I know that too. I'm still digging deeper and help is much appreciated. Discarding everything is not helping, digging with me is

I'm open to be corrected and I'll admit if I'm wrong. But I'm not open to be discarded without arguments
philipma1957 is suspicious of me and that's perfectly fine. But he's really checked his list. Of course it's fine he keeps the users he considers must stay after his checking
I no longer believe he is abusing the trust system

OgNasty has just denied everything, even straightforward cases like nonnakip, and hasn't given any explanations about that at all

Tomatocage hasn't reacted yet. Let's see what happens


I appreciate you re-checked them

Feedback from other users would be helpful here then. It seems you're very open to listening to them

Do check what happened by your deletions. Do verify what would happen if you remove more users. Do keep your exclusions if you've checked them and don't trust the feedback they've left. Do leave negative trust to those whose trust stopped being red because of your exclusions (if any). Do not trust me. I'm happy you did check your trust list, whatever the result

I don't see how I could prove I don't have a hidden agenda, even if I disclose who I am

I really appreciate you didn't take this as an attack to you (even though you're suspicious) and instead were open to check your list

The solution to that is somewhat simple. Go through the sent ratings of the user you're going to remove, and back up the negative ratings in case that they are valid. Shouldn't be a problem with the claimed (by OP) inactivity/lack of activity of said users.

Well  here goes
 
  CrazyGuy --- is a good seller  he stays
  buysolar ---- is my partner in the solar array he stays he will also be doing the Canaan  training with me. he stays
  generalt ---- has purchased from me multiple times I meet him in person many times he stays
 
  Kano-------- goes

 

  I could argue that the people below could be removed but since I don't know why the op created the thread (other then the claim in the first thread)
I now need to leave these for a while.

 Cablez ------ stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  davecoin ---- stays because you the op "       "     "   "
  not.you ----- stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  btcxcg ------- stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  Mikestang ---- stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  vg54dett ------ stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
 AriesIV10 ------ stays because you the op wants to be anonymous

  I need to leave them just in case the op has an agenda not revealed in his opening thread.

I have not reached or discussed the 70 on the list of  feedback given to me and not on the list.

All of them were left off basically because these thread pop up.

I will get back to this thread in a bit and check the ones I bolded and left up just in case there was or is a hidden agenda by the op.

@ op  I realize you don't want to get tagged  and left you real forum name out and did a newbie post.

Maybe or maybe there is something else about the real you and you have agenda  against me or OgNasty to anyone you listed.

I know enough to know  that  I left all those names removed intact because you may be trying to scrub a negative off someone  and that is why I am at least suspicious since I now removed as many as I did has someone been  lift from negative to positive?

What assurance do I have that my actions did not help someone today by pruning the list?
.
You also gave me more work to do as I will need to check what happened by my deletions.

Yes,It was for trading but now some signature campaign doesn't want an untrusted user .So a dt user can negate the possibility to partecipate in campaign with their power abuse

"Never" is a long time. "Rarely" is enough if that person tags even one scammer (or a trustworthy person) in 100 years. My point - it's not like that DT2 member is taking the DT2 spot away from some superior scam buster. The number of DT2 positions is not limited so the DT1 member trusting the judgement of someone who rarely sends feedback does not cost anybody anything or deprive anybody of anything.


Correlation does not imply causation. Don't be Quicksy.

I doubt that DT1 members are concerned about green trust to begin with, not to mention that there are too many ways for them to run a con without drawing attention to it with something as simple as padding their trust rating.

If you really want to uncover abuse you need to dig deeper and you also need to be able to accept the outcome even if it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm starting to doubt that you're up to the task.

What does quota have to do with anything?... It seems we're misunderstanding each other
The issue here is that it seems a few DT1 users abused the system and added several users to DT2 only because they left positive trust to them

I'm just trying to understand why DT1 users really added the users they added. They should be added because the trust they leave is helpful to the community
I'll illustrate this with the most extreme example I've found: nonnakip. He left trust only to OgNasty. So, why was he added to DT2?
If I fail to find any explanation for this then I conclude the reason is exactly that: he left positive trust to the DT1 member who added him

The counter argument is what use is trusting the judgement of that person if that person never/very rarely exercises that judgement to leave trust ratings (positive or negative).

Just playing devil's advocate.

The DT1 member trusts the judgment of that person. What's wrong with that?

You're really starting to go off the rails with this one. What difference does the number of feedback ratings make? Is there a quota that a DT2 member is supposed to meet? Does the DT2 spot cost money to the forum?

How exactly does the inclusion of nonnakip help the community and decentralizes the trust system? He left trust only to you, no one else at all

Explain why you think all of them are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members. You haven't explained that at all. They have barely left a few trust among all of them
The only thing most of them have in common is leaving few trusts and including you in that feedback

While of course leaving trust to you is not a reason to automatically exclude them it's definitely not a reason to include them either


No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place


It is definitely a bad thing if they left trust only to you and you are a DT1 member
And it is probably a bad thing if they left trust only to a few users besides you