Topic: [FANT] Fight Against Negative Trust (Read 1299 times)

The default trust network is not randomly generated. It was set in place by theymos (admin), its root (DefaultTrust) is controlled by theymos (admin). Its level 1 members are 42% staff:

The old "scammer" tag was approved manually.
The shift to the Default Trust mechanism was precisely because the mods/admins didnt want to get involved.

To your reply minifrij, I would like to tell you that not all DT2 members can too watch that part or so and give their valuable positive/negative/neutral trust... So, what I have now planned is, I will let this thread alive and will question to those who have accused/negated/gave BS comments on other members' profiles without any reasons, ponder their references/proofs and will finally give a judgement based on community's help and reviews...
In the end, admins have the privileges to either remove that fake trust rating or ban the person who gave it, else this thread is meant to know about such decisions made by the whole community and not alone me...

What's the point though? What makes a mod's opinion any higher than those in DT? Because they have the word 'Global Moderator' or 'Administrator' under their names?

I see this argument over and over again from people who probably have no idea how the forum works currently. The staff of the forum are currently too busy to do much more than they already are.
In addition, it would then be who could do it. Since regular staff members cannot moderate the entire forum, only newbies and specific sections, I'm guessing that they would be out of the running for something as widespread as the trust system. That leaves the Global Moderators (Of which there are three, all of whom I imagine are somewhat busy already) and Administrators (Of which there are three, two of which are inactive/busy).
So, you expect four active users to moderate the entire trust system (that isn't just as simple as reading '2 or 3 lines of text')? Get real.

Random feedbacks that, as Lutpin said, can very easily be ignored? The only trust feedback that matters to I expect the majority of users is that of those on DT2 or above. These people are not random, they were put on to the system for a reason.

You're right, you're replacing people who want to do this and actually are doing it already with people who don't want to get involved with it in the first place.
The forum doesn't want to moderate scams, and hence moderators don't get involved with this (at least not in their role as moderators, what they do as users is something different).

I have random negative feedbacks for the best reasons you can imagine. I tend to ignore those, as every other sane user does.

It's not the same thing when you replace mod-wannabes with actual mods and admins. Are you saying that mods can't read 2 or 3 lines of text which a red paint usually consists of and decide for themselves what to do with the account in question? Or do you prefer to have random people giving feedbacks just because they think someone sneezed at the wrong moment?

Mods/Admins do NOT want to get involved in that.

So you replace DT users with Staff and get the same thing (or at least a very similar one) at the end, only that you will get way less activity from it, since you reduce the amount of people involved and further, mods are busy anway with moderating the forum/posts (their main purpose).

Remove the feedback system and disband all the default trust members. Create a ticket system where fellow forumers send in their accusations against suspects and let the mods and admins read the reports at the end of the day and deal with the cases objectively and according to the forum rules. There are too many vigilantes stirring the pot already and making the forum experience not fun for everyone else.

10/10 for the name  

Just call her, goddamit.

I trust your initiatives are on the right place. However, even in real life, if we want universal popularity and trust should go to neverland and there this could happen. Sometimes, when we go to places and we see homeless people, I myself, (sometimes only), I judge at 1st impression. I feel sorry now.

That's the main purpose, but people like you and other moderators might take a watch by being a Jury and as you are doing it against spammers, watching just a trust thing shouldn't be of such big business here, as many do leave useless trust ratings and never come back, and many others are online all the time but they don't even bother to remove such ratings from other users' trust leaving them helpless so they can't be trusted enough by others, as I have seen many people criticizing many just based on their trust... I know that it's not that easy to understand which one is the correct side, but why not chime in when such stupid ratings show up??? And as Mitchell said, some will be excluded in time, but what about those who got a negative feedback for nothing and are suffering and can't even give a f*ck with their accounts???
Sorry, no offense but still, what I thought, I proposed...

Have you ever watched Bull? We'd need to hire Dr. Bull to get an objective jury haha

No but seriously just PM the person that left you negative feedback or PM the DT1 member. If it's true trust abuse they'll be found out soon enough. That's what happened to DT members in the past and I'm sure at some point will happen in the future. (Canary in the mine as an example. He used to be DT1).


Idk shorena. How do we know if this is legit or not without a jury?


Yes in extreme cases the trust will be altered anyways so I don't see the huge concern.

---

@op how are these jurys decided? Just a random number generator that chooses 12 people to vote? What if 10 of those people are inactive and 2 are scammers? What if one is an alt of the other scammer and you have a hung jury because of it? Is it majority rules or does the jury need to be unanimous?

It just seems like exponentially more work for everyone involved. Why not just make a 'common sense while trading ' thread to help people out? Oh wait. We have those. Newbies asking for 5BTC loans will get negative trust. It's just going to happen. If there's a legitimate case where nobody knows what to do then DT members can sort it out themselves. They are the jury. If you don't agree with a negative then give the user a positive to counteract it. You don't see that very often though.

I don't think it is a good idea to make the trust system (more of a ) popularity contest and (more of) a system that allows people to lobby behind the scenes in order to get a negative rating removed.

I know of one or two scammers who have put a lot of effort into getting their negative ratings removed via behind the scenes lobbying and this type of system would only make this easier.

I do agree that the trust system is far from perfect. Maybe one solution would be to have the people that are trusted by DefaultTrust to rotate every x period of time, which would also cause those in the DefaultTrust network to change periodically. I think this will cause more people to create and use a custom trust list as they will see that someone gives "good" ratings no longer in their trust network.

While I agree that there are problems - basically people give negative feedback much easier than positive - creating a jury or give some people more rights is not a better solution.
Whoever you'll chose on that privileged list will have a number of people telling that they are not impartial, gave incorrectly ratings in the past, abused the system, tried to get gains or whatever you could think of ...

The current system is far from perfect, but is not very bad either. I don't have a good idea how to make it better, but please don't make it worse.

I see Negative traders making trades all the time using escrow and a valid collateral. D1 can remove anyone they have put on D2 at any time so I see no reason to add others to do that for them. D1 members can be removed by theymos or the other D1 members excluding them from their Trust manually, IIRC.

Yes it's easy for us to remove someone from our DT list , But in future when we talk with someone we want to trade with and he says " Dude f**k off you got a -ve rating and admin says to stay away from from red ratings or trade with caution "
It will be very easy for him to decline the trade and move on to another trader because he didn't removed the guy Abusing the trust system from his DT list and why would he remove him... He's unaware of the abuser and the trader who is innocent will suffer the loss.
So people like Vod , Ognasty and some other high trust users here should be given the power to remove someone from DT list.
If someone from them abuse this system then admin can snatch and their power.
This system will work.

Do we not already have a jury? All those on the default trust network high enough for their ratings to matter can negate and thus essentially remove ratings by others. All other ratings usually do not matter. I got some very obvious "false" trust feedback on my profile. At the very best it serves as a joke for some.

If you don't trust someone's rating, exclude them for the network. That is all the power you need. If someone fucks up royally they will be excluded in time. There is no need for a jury as trust feedback is a personal thing. If I don't trust you I have the right to leave a negative feedback.

Also, who judges the judges? Theymos, Cyrus or BadBear? All of them are busy enough as is. Pick people to be in the jury or judge the jury? Well, how do you know someone will be integer? It's a bad idea all around.

If you're targeting:
1) Trust abuse (blatant and obvious one, e.g. "fuck you")
2) Unresolved trust by inactive members.
Then this idea may not be that bad. However, keep in mind that solving the secondary problem can be done by contacting the DT1 people that keep the DT2 account in their list.

---

In most other cases this will likely backfire. Something like this is really prone to abuse and bias.

Unfortunately, the trust system is far from perfect but it's also the best possible system (for now), unless someone comes up with a better system. From your proposal about the jury, It would just add a lot of extra work for admins, that's why trust isn't monitored or being controlled here. In cases of extreme abuse, usually admins help.

I see where you're coming from but I don't think a jury's the solution.  Apart from adding even more responsibilty to DT members, like VOD said, who can really know a lot of the time which feedback is true and which is fake?

Another idea perhaps would be to disable the ability to leave trust feedback for members who reach a specified amount of negative trust.  Say anyone with a negative greater than -8 would not be able to leave feedback for other members until they have improved their own feedback score.  That could cut down on some of the trust abuse.

Jury? Are you serious? Who is going to vet and monitor this jury? There is already a mechanism in place to combat abuse.

I'll be on the Jury!   

Seriously, how is anyone going to know which feedback is true and which is false? 

If a member on DT is abusing trust, they get removed by their sponsor.  It's up to the community to make the sponsor aware.

I have been watching all the time, the people who have been giving shitty negative trusts to users who are innocent, sometimes guilty...
I want this thing to be eliminated of the forum to prevent the abuse of trust system...
I urge the admins to decide whether they would like to give this opportunity to other trustworthy DT members or do it themselves, but my opinion is to create a Jury who will see and decide whether such negative trusts are valid or not, and after the decision, (I think) admins have the privilege to remove fake negative trust from any innocent member's trust history, so they should do it...

There are many users who don't even show up after giving such trust leaving innocent accounts helpless due to which no one trades with them here, which is why I thought about this initiative to let the innocent people survive on this forum and guilty ones get banned...