Topic: Is it time to change some negative trust ratings to neutral or delete them? - page 3. (Read 860 times)

Does 0% still count as a chance?   

This would be the correct answer here for sure...

For the record, I've removed them both, however I'm now blacklisted from DT1 on my own request as of today,,, but I do still care about the forum.  

Cheers

Given how big DT has become, there should be no lack of duplication for any valuable ratings. Inactive person in DT is not a good use of the trust system. This is a position of some responsibility that should be taken seriously.


No, I'm still talking about excluding/not including inactive users. This is the tool that we have and we should use it. If you see any of Zepher's/TMAN's ratings that are valuable and would disappear with their exclusion, you can copy them... but on the other hand there is always a chance than any given user will drop out of DT due to lottery so it's a moot point.

I think the 1st case is a good example as to when the admins should remove a rating someone else left. This is based on the following:
*Zepher clearly stated the rating was intended to be temporary
*Zepher clearly stated he would remove the rating once the account was restored to its prior owner
*It appears the prior owner is now back in control of his account
*Zepher is no longer with us unfortunately

This may be a bit of a moot point in this case because the person in question has not posted since he recovered access to his account.

---

For examples 2 and 3, it is probably a fair argument that TMAN and zepher should reconsider their ratings if they were using their forum accounts and still with us, but this would be ultimately up to TMAN and zepher respectively. If the admins were to remove these ratings, they would be substituting TMANs and zepher's judgement for their own.

I have to agree with The Pharmacist on this one. When looking at the ratings issued by TMAN and Zepher, I don't think they should be excluded due to their inactivity unless they are no longer valid of course.  

Are you talking about counter-trust ratings? A positive/neutral trust rating is as invalid as the negative rating it's supposed to counter. It boosts a user's trust who would otherwise not have received that rating, so the user now has two ratings he doesn't deserve. One positive and one negative.  

It's debatable, sure. When picking out those examples I thought about how I would act in those situations. It's subjective, like any change in rating.

Lauda is no longer DT I believe, so her ratings wouldn't fit the profile.  

But if the no longer valid feedback just gets replaced by another invalid feedback, nothing changes. The problem didn't go away.

True, but those ratings bear no significance whatsoever. A rating by a DT member does.

I agree with the part about Theymos/moderators deleting or changing feedbacks, but I don't necessarily agree with excluding members who aren't active anymore--as long as the feedback they left is valid.  If a neg was rightly given, it shouldn't matter one whit whether the person who left it is gone.

It's only a problem if the member who's disappeared is somehow still on DT (unless you're bothered by any negative feedback regardless of its weight).  Look at my trust profile.  It's loaded with negatives from idiots who've long since abandoned the forum for whatever reason.  You either accept that that's going to happen or bitch about it or leave the forum.  There aren't really any other options, since I doubt Theymos plans to remedy the situation any time soon.

If those people are dead or are no longer active on this forum, either way, we won't be able to change their feedback on someone else's account. But we can make those feedback no longer reliable, I think that's the fastest and easiest way. Just remove those people from the DT member system. Like how Lauda left the forum, his feedback can be replaced by other. But I guess, need everyone's consensus to change the trust setting?

Trust ratings don't mean f#$k all unless they are tied to a real deal that took place in the forum and can be validated via posts, pm's and so on. A while ago I bought some hardware off a forum member. It went smooth (well with a hiccup - it took the package 3 months to arrive to my place, but it's the postal services to be blamed, not the person), I left positive trust for the guy, he didn't bother doing so back. Ok, no big deal. Then later we communicate again, he was looking for a picee of hardware and I knew someone who sells. So I let him know of the offer and the price, not offering anything. BAM. My correspondent replies along the lines "this price is crazy" and disappears leaving me negative trust and wouldn't reply to my pm's. Took me a while to finally make him take it off me, but the whole trust rating thing doesn't matter jack to me anymore cos I know it can be manipulated.

PS Things mentioned above took place few years ago and at that time I think I posted here asking for advice, if I'm a bit wrong in the details don't blame me.

We would need to have special council of all wanted, unwanted and wannabe DT members to discuss this matters, or just remove Default Trust system to fix this problem.

Imagine everyone coming from their hibernating caves to complain about all negative feedbacks Lauda (and other saints) left... and April 1st of 2022 when theymos and mods are manually changing all those feedback to neutral.
That is what we call community manual labor project, and it could happen on different days like Halloween maybe (All Saints Eve) or Thanksgiving.

I don't think 2 and 3 are particularly strong arguments. While others may have changed their own ratings, it doesn't necessarily mean that the user who left that rating has changed his mind though there really isn't anything to prove otherwise either. If the forum maintains its position of not interfering with trust ratings, I highly doubt anything can be done about that. There are probably tons of ratings like this and would probably result in people wasting loads of time trying to gather all the evidence and making an impartial judgement after.

Your post probably mainly highlights the shortcomings of trust system. Most trust ratings are not correctly used anyways; I have seen too many negatives that don't necessarily point to the fact that "trading with this person is high-risk". I agree that the first point could have some form of review though, it is not difficult to get the signed message from the hacked account and restore it.

The real solution is to stop including users who have passed away or are otherwise inactive, particularly after it becomes clear that their ratings are outdated. Admins changing ratings would open a can of worms that is really not worth it, since we have a tool to solve it on our own.

This has been discussed multiple times in the past. It's about the trust ratings left by members who are no longer with us. Members who have either passed away or left the forum for good. Whenever a topic like that came up, the OP usually suggested deleting the negative rating altogether. That would then create controversy about which ratings should be deleted and which should be left.

I don't know if theymos can change ratings from negative to neutral. How about altering or deleting only those ratings which would undoubtedly have been changed if the member was still alive and healthy. Especially if we consider that the ratings by other members were also changed for the same issue. One example are members who get tagged for having their accounts hacked. DTs usually add a negative rating, but this rating is later changed to neutral when the account gets returned to the original user.

I found a few examples of trust ratings that are no longer valid and meet the following 2 requirements:

- The problem and reason they were given have been solved/handled.
- Other members who wrote the same feedback changed/deleted their ratings as well.

---

1.

The negative feedback that was given by Zepher to SwingFirst. SwingFirst had his account hacked, so Zepher tagged him. Zepher sadly passed away, and his account remains tagged.
But the tag was supposed to be of a temporary nature as Zepher pointed out himself:


Since SwingFirst proved ownership of his account, Zepher's rating is no longer valid. The problem has been solved, and the rating should be removed. suchmoon and Lauda withdrew their ratings, and bones261 added a positive one to counter the negative by Zepher. In my opinion, neither the positive rating issued by bones261 nor the negative by Zepher should stay. Both of the requirements I mentioned earlier were satisfied.


2.

The negative feedback that was given by TMAN to Best_Change. We still don't know what happened with TMAN, but the fact is he hasn't logged in since March 2020. In January 2020, he left a negative rating to Best_Change because of an ongoing scam accusation. In the meantime, that has been handled, and other members have either deleted or changed their ratings to neutral. The only negative that remains is that of TMAN. Again, both of the requirements mentioned above were fulfilled.

3.

The negative feedback that was given by Zepher to Rux. This is a different issue than the two above, but one that still warrants a 2nd look.

In 2017, Rux made a post writing:
It was written in a thread where another user wanted to buy a Bitcointalk account. Zepher tagged him for wanting to sell his account while Rux claims that it was all a bad joke. suchmoon rewrote Zepher's rating after he was excluded from DT, but that rating seems to have been removed, and I can no longer find it.

owlcatz wrote that he was a close friend of Zepher but believed Rux after looking into the case. His response was a neutral rating. That means he believes the account was not sold. Vod also added neutral feedback stating that the account could have been sold.

In this particular case, 1/2 requirements are satisfied. There is no proof that Rux didn't sell his account, but there is also no proof he did. He is therefore innocent until proven guilty. Everyone else left neutral ratings or removed their initial negatives.

---

These 3 cases have one thing in common. The negative ratings that TMAN and Zepher left are the only negatives that those users have.