Topic: If someone is a proven liar, do they deserve to be given negative trust? - page 2. (Read 983 times)

That wasn't the main point here because you didn't present your initial question in that manner.

So, to address your question once more: "If someone is a proven liar, should they get negative trust?"
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Please refer to my initial reply in this thread.

I think we are forgetting the main point if we are talking about lying without considering its effect.

A white lie which doesn't actually effect anyone in comparison to a lie that may increase a person's trade risk or trustworthiness would be very different to situations to one another.

The results of nearly all scientific research on the general population show that even honest people tell an average of up to two lies a day. These are mostly referred to as "white lies," but they are lies nonetheless. Approximately 75% of the total number of participants fall into this group. About 20% of people are intermediate liars, telling 3-5 lies per day, while 5% are prolific liars who tell 6 or more lies per day.

https://www.uwlax.edu/currents/how-often-do-people-lie/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/questions-character/202211/are-most-people-liars

Yes, the experience with JollyGood is where my curiosity has stemmed from.

I didn't want to carry over the drama to here, as I was wondering without involving that situation.


I suppose you are right. However that also a pretty big fact to drop...that the majority of this forum would be in negative trust because lying is apparently so common..

Sounds pretty terrible when you word it properly, ey?


If it's been happening for a long time then there is obviously a blurry line that needs to be corrected.

Anyhow, thank you all for your opinions. It has been good to get so much perspective.

I don't think so, well depending where the lies are coming from, like they say you'll never know until you know.
Before coming into conclusion about someone or someone's business is better you give it a try first other than base on speculations.
Someone can paint the name of a trader who you want to do business with in a bad way for you not to even believe and drop the negative trust when you haven't given it a try or know nothing about that individual, if you don't take a risk then you'll never know who's legit or not.
All I'm saying is life is a risk so take it or leave it.
So don't let your emotions cloud your judgment over someone you know nothing about and I don't think in some cases that lying indicate trade risk.

I think it is natural for a human to feel "less safe" with someone in a trade if they see that person as a known liar.

Personally, I'd rather trade, and would have a slightly safer feeling, with people I see as honest and having integrity, when compared to a random person.

Of course, I'd have my own criteria on the types of lies that might make me feel less safe trading with someone, and others may have their own criteria.

It's a subjective peer-reviewed system which can carry consequences within the system from those peers.. socially, financially and otherwise... similar to a reality TV-like social drama clusterfuck.

Yes, its already an overly complex system -- I agree that any additions would just create unnecessary complications. Some people continue to fail to grasp the difference between trust ratings and inclusions/exclusions, despite there being plenty of educational resources out there and years worth of banter about how they should be used.


Also seems to be the case. The trust system has taken on a special significance here because (from what I understand) it is used by campaign managers to help differentiate applicants. But at the end of the day I'm a firm believer that it should only be used to indicate trade risk and not as a tool to silence critics or promote friends.

You'll end up with cases where someone gives positive feedback for a successful trade in the trade trust system, and negative feedback in the reputation trust system because he thinks the other guy is an asshole. I'll order the popcorn

No need, BenCodie isn't on DT, and asking attention for this case has only brought him further away from DT:
I'd say (at least in this case) the Trust system works just fine.

I had left DT for awhile until I read LoyceV I think saying something like leaving DT wasn't the way to improve it because we just leave a spot open for a potential scammer to get in. Something like that anyways. So I decided to make myself eligible again.

Liar or not, I have been trying to be a little more mindful of who I tag these days. Since we don't have an appropriate trust system for reputation, I think we misuse the current system. What other choice do we have though? Alts of banned people get tagged, someone doesn't like someone else and a tag happens, or a guy cheated a campaign, or 100 other reasons.

It is a joke in a lot of ways.

That made me chuckle--not because it's ridiculous but because the trust system is so ridiculous that its absurdity is deserving of such witty ridicule. 

As to the statement above by EFS, I would have to disagree unless I'm not seeing all the evidence that the majority of the forum members are liars.  That's not to say that I haven't seen hundreds of examples of dishonesty by scammers, bounty cheaters, and the like but bitcointalk has multiple millions of members.  Anyway.

The trust system really, really needs an overhaul.  When Theymos added the flag system, I just scratched my head and then rolled my eyes.  When he made the default trust list a rotating system, I entered ~DefaultTrust and said I was done with it.  But given how deaf he is to suggestions from the community I don't expect things to change anytime soon.

I concur with you strongly. Not everyone does things with the intents that appears. Certain factors that do not entertain their honesty towards a particular demand might be triggered leaving the person helpless and in a situation of a liar but in reality, it was never so.

Some business people do understand that customers are not concerned with the inbetweens of transactions but results, hence, they leave their customers out of the details but it doesn't entirely mean that the details will align entirely with their expectations. On this condition, I do not consider negative trust a befiting compensation. Just my 2 cent.

It depends on how he lies If the lies result in a loss of money or probability of losing money then he deserves to receive negative feedback or even a flag, if he lies about the information he provided then he deserves neutral feedback Neutral feedback is a warning to provide the right information, we cannot be 100% correct on the information we provided but we need to be transparent when we are trading with funds.

You bet! The current trust system already leaves some folks scratching their heads. Can you imagine the chaos if we introduced another layer of complexity with a second one?  

But I agree, the current system has its flaws and definitely leaves plenty of space for drama. In my opinion, it should be fixed. Introducing some form of voting for negative trust ratings, similar to what we have for flags, might help improve things, even if only to some extent.

For instance, in cases like this one, where BenCodie made a somewhat bad judgment call resulting in an undeserved negative rating, DTs should have the power to overvote the OP and change the rating from negative to neutral.

Which is why i've said many times that we need a reputation trust system and a trade trust system. At least if we had 2 different systems we would have more things to complain about as people would misuse 2 systems instead of 1.

If someone got negative trust for lying, the trust rating of the majority of this forum would be in the red. It's not correct to use the trust system in situations unrelated to trading in this way.
It has become annoying that the trust system has been used for personal ambitions rather than trading in this forum for a long time.

No indeed.  There are liars who scam people out of their money--and those types deserve red trust, because if I remember Theymos's guidance from years back, that's what the feedback system (positive/negative, not neutral) is supposed to be used for, trade risk--and liars about other people because of interpersonal differences/dislike/outright hatred. 

There was a feud between Vod and OgNasty that went on and on, and each side told a different story.  That might have been one or both of them lying, or it could have been a misunderstanding of facts or a misjudgement of them.  Who knows, but just because you don't like a member, don't like what they write, whatever, that's not a basis for leaving them a negative.  That affects their ability to trade, and whatever your differences are (including whether you think they're a liar or even if they're giving out verifiable misinformation about something unrelated to trading), those should be handled by a neutral tag at best.

Disclaimer: Any discussion or judgement about the trust system or people's use of it should be given a lot of latitude IMO since Theymos set it up to be way too complex with way too much freedom in how to use it.  Even with that guidance he gave, nobody has to follow it if they don't want to.  I don't think it ought to be that way, but who the fuck listens to me?

For the record, I have not read any discussion yet.

No. Not until they failed in a trade. Feedback system is not your notepad. Stop copying JollyGood.

I can lie about my wife is beautiful but she might be a 60 stone lady LOL

IMO, it depends on the kind of lie that was told. I really cannot think of or describe any of anything now, but there are some kinds of heavy lies that are causes loss to a merchant, and such lies deserve a neg tag since it's going to be a risky trade than for an honest person.


I think it's not all lies that just deserve a negative tag, unless you are really aware that it would be very risky to trade with a person who is not straight-forward in their behavior.


To some extent, I think that a neutral tag is just like an alarm trying to warn people to be careful if trading with such a person, but a negative tag is a clear warning for other members to avoid trading with such a person. So, depending on what the offense is, that will determine whether it warrants the neutral or negative tag.

Let's not stir around it: you're talking about JollyGood. I took a random number between 3 and 3.5 million: 3302703. You can't honestly believe trading with JollyGood is less safe than trading with m.wizinger!

This is what I told OP:
He's doing the opposite.

Everybody lies, it's part of social behaviour. That doesn't necessarily make someone untrustworthy.

Let me put it this way: if OP reaches DT2 and still abuses the Trust system by then, I'll exclude him.

Not completely correct, if they're only lying in his post, but they always leave an appropriate feedback, flag, and anything that related to the forum, I'd say they shouldn't be kicked from DT network.

Most of proven liars usually get neutral feedback, aside from that what can people do are only report the post that contain misleading information or just click ignore on his account.