Topic: DT1 users may be artificially increasing their own trust (Updated March 26th) - page 4. (Read 2114 times)

I don’t think someone “tagging” scammers should be a criterion to include them in your trust list unless they have nearly 100% accuracy and you can otherwise trust the person. I have seen a number of accounts over the years that were used to call out scams, however they often had very low accuracy, relied on conjecture, and often parroted what others already said, and many times turned out to be less than trustworthy people. Adding someone who “tags” a lot of scammers without substantial trading experience will also lead to poor ratings quality and it will be difficult to authoritatively say they can be trusted.

As mentioned previously, having people on your trust list that left you a positive rating should not necessarily be a bad thing as this is evidence you know the person well enough to trust them.

Also, someone no longer being active is not necessarily a reason to remove them from your trust list as prior trust ratings are not invalid because of this.

Why on earth are you so stubborn? Can't you see the bloke is trying to help the community?

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.


Your exclusion may cause someone to be effectively removed from DT2, if another DT1 member excludes that person. I don't think that applies to anyone in your list though.

I think all of the users you listed are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members and I am happy to have played a role in decentralizing the default trust network with their inclusion.  If you feel otherwise, please give a relevant example of why you feel that way.  Them having left me trust is NOT a relevant reason for someone to NOT be included in the trust network, but displays your mindset fairly well.

I'm including all users added to DT2 by you, every single one of them. I only left out users also added by other DT1 members. They would be DT2 anyway without you doing anything

You didn't comment on any single one of them, no even nonnakip who left positive trust only to you and nobody else. Why did you add him to DT2?

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

You seem to have singled these users out as having showed some sort of behavior that would put in question their ability to leave ratings that I would find beneficial to have added to my trust network.  Whether or not they have left me trust or tagged scammers aren't valid reasons for them to be in/excluded, as much as you want to make it about that, so please stick to valid arguments as to whether or not they deserve to be DT2 members.

Please give examples of ratings left by the listed users that you feel warrant them not being included in the trust network as you seem to be implying.

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

Obviously you do that. You've added 14 new users to DT2 (i.e. not added by other DT1 users, they're DT2 only because of you). 10 of them left positive trust to you so it's obvious that's the main factor for you to add someone to DT2. That's 71.4% of them, actually some progress versus the 83% before I started this thread but still 94 points (100 soon)

Here are all 14 users added to DT2 by you along with some comments:
allinvain: Left positive trust to you.
molecular: Left trust only to 4 users, last one 3 years ago, no scammers tagged
naypalm: Left positive trust to you.
mdude77: Left positive trust to you.
Bees Brothers: Left positive trust to you. The last trust left was more than 2 years ago
bigtimespaghetti: Left positive trust to you.
nonnakip: Left positive trust to you. Actually he's left only one trust and it was to you. The only change adding him produced was adding 10 more points to you, nothing else at all
MarkAz: No scammers tagged at all.
FiniteByDesign: No scammers tagged at all.
ManeBjorn: Left positive trust to you.
bithalo: Left positive trust to you.
mindtrip: Left positive trust to you.
Rmcdermott927
Finksy: Left positive trust to you. Last trust sent one year ago, but has left a few

I didn't find any really active users in your list at all


I know you're the user with the most positive trust (http://dev.martinlawrence.ca/bpip/). You trust manipulation was enough for this, no need to go to the thousands and make it even more obvious. Of course you wouldn't be #1 if you weren't DT1
However the fact you've made a lot of successful deals and thus received positive trust doesn't have anything to do with how well you decide which users to add to DT2. That's obvious, I'm sure you really know this

Please argue (with arguments) instead of just bragging. Have an open mind to realize and correct your faults instead of just blindly denying them

This the problem with any form of trust system, any "visible" signs are taken at face value by people so your average joe would see a green trust and not check why the green trust was left and would blindly trust them irrespective of whether they are really worth the trust given. Things I  personally check and recommend others to do is when you want to check someone's trust first open their trust page and check the following:

• Check who sent the trust, if a very responsible user leaves a rating then I'd weigh rating with much greater importance than a rating by a random user  (the DT system reduces the issue but I'd still recommend adding reasonable people who leave ratings accurately to your trust list since a lot people arent in DT due to politics, not being well known, etc)
• Check the details of the trust - In bold because this one is important. Being cooperative with an escrow where the risked BTC is 0 absolutely worthless in my eyes. I've seen some DT Escrows leave neutral feedbacks which is better IMO since it gives the details while not tampering with the trust system. There are DTs who seem to leave positive feedback for using them as an escrow but I feel that's abusive in a way similar to how people accused The Butter Zone for his email forwarding related trusts. People are more likely to pick you for the cheap and quick trust from using you as an escrow (again not taking names but just something I noticed)
• References, see this always if it's present. A lot of the retaliatory feedback is for what I feel are just dumb misunderstandings between some users or ego clashes or whatever and all resulting feedbacks can be safely disregarded

It's pretty refreshing for a DT1 to quickly respond with appropriate action since I've seen most DT1s seem to be quiet in the shadows and just lurking and rarely posting unless forced to.


The entire problem as I mentioned above is the average user (who are the ones the trust system is supposed to protect) never sees anything beyond the trust number. The only ones I ever see who do check the ratings thoroughly are the ones who are smart enough to not need really need the trust system.

For example you're a veteran user, pretty sure you have a fair idea of the list of people you can place a decent amount of trust in without seeing the ratings, but the average user? They just see a green + beside the name and think that the user is probably a good guy and assume the opposite for anyone with red trust.

As an example of the strong colour based mentality, anyone remember Alia and her search for dark green trust members?

Obviously I don't do that, or my DT rating would be in the thousands.  I can give more examples of me NOT doing that than nearly anyone, because I have received far more positive trust ratings from different members than most.

Actually your trust went down to 328: -0 / +34
Probably because of someone removed by philipma1957
Your abuse rating seems to be still the same

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you (as 83.3% of your list when I started this thread), and avoid the conflict of interests

Yes absolutely, allowing someone to respond to allegations is the most basic ethical considerations that should be made when something is published that affects their reputation.

Until that happens, it would be more appropriate to leave a neutral rating rather than a negative. Also, many retaliatory ratings do not in any way address claim supposedly in dispute, they are more accurately described as them saying “you said something bad about me, so I ruin your reputation”. To be honest, giving retaliatory feedback really is evidence the person is trying to cover something up, and is very clearly evidence they are willing to cover up bad behavior in the future.

Thank you for making your thought process public.  I looked over some of your comments and added a few to my list also as they seemed to use good judgement in their dealings thus far.  I guess my abuse rating is probably higher now that I've expanded my network (as all DT members should be doing so things aren't as centralized).

Again. You should check at my arguments and decide for yourself. It shouldn't matter who I am

Here are some comments about some of the users listed by you:

CrazyGuy: hasn't left any trust in a long time
kano: no conflict of interests as he hasn't left trust to you, but has left only one single trust and it was 5 years ago. I don't see why you consider he should be on DT2
Cablez: hasn't left any trust in a long time
davecoin: no negative trust left at all (no scammers tagged)
buysolar: only 3 positive trust left, 2 of them to you. The last left feedback was 3 years ago
not.you: not active during the last year but has tagged some scammers
btcxcg: Only 5 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent. Last feedback was 4 years ago
generalt: No negative trust sent. Last (positive) feedback sent was one year ago
Mikestang: Last feedback was sent 2 years ago, but he did tag 1 scammer at least
vg54dett: Only 6 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent at all
AriesIV10: Positive trust only to 2 users, including yourself, only one negative sent

I'd appreciate if you can check again kano, buysolar, btcxcg, vg54dett and AriesIV10
(other users, post your comments about these members. I don't want philipma1957 or others to believe I have personal issues against any of them)
And you may consider adding users who leave much more feedback after you verify they're not abusing as I didn't find any really active user in your list


I'll check OgNasty's and Tomatocage's lists later

I put in
~
as a tracking method as it does the job on lowering the ratings the same as a delete

If there is an issue I will delete instead.



I know the op did not want to get tagged but since I have no idea now of whom he or she was I did not fully prune my list as I see that there are 3 to 4 more I could remove.

I have always stated in these threads  when they pop up a few things:

1) I Never asked for default trust 1 rating
2) pm me with issues on my list.

here is something new
[email protected]  is my email  send me emails if you want privacy  since pm's are not private



So  I will just delete them  rather then ~

-ck
CrazyGuy
kano
Cablez
davecoin
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin



~pcfli
~MoreBloodWine
~Stratobitz
~TookDk
~Chris_Sabian
~iluvpcs
~crashoveride54902
~champbronc2
~Unacceptable
~TheButterZone
~nicehash
~philippma1957
~Cryptotradenz

Fair point. ill back away can QS please let the grown ups continue to be productive here?

We have a nice thread going here that is getting results, ideas are being exchanged, and people aren't fighting with each other. Would it be possible to prevent the fighting before it begins? You guys have your own threads going.

*edit*


Allowing retaliatory feedback or not, what I mean is that I've often seen people who receive feedback, mainly neutral or negative, respond to that feedback on the other person's trust page. Having a place to respond to it on your own profile, so you can dispute the claim, maybe leave a reference link with your side of the story, without having to post it on the other person's profile would be beneficial.

Oh the irony in this statement lol.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

I'm pretty sure that the reason for which they did that, given the sensitive nature of this subject, is because they are afraid of a negative rating for speaking out. It's what this place has turned in to, censoring via negatives and exclusions.

Actually, he shouldn't be adding a ~ prefix.

You don't necessarily have to exclude users from your list (~) unless you distrust their ratings. In most cases, just deleting them from the list entirely will accomplish the same result.

---

It's not particularly fair to blame the forum in it's entirety for the actions of (mostly) one user. Not naming any names of course.