Topic: Is it time to change some negative trust ratings to neutral or delete them? (Read 869 times)

I am happy I was able to convince Lauda to change his/her feedback on my account before he/she left.
It would be very hard or close to impossible.

How to resurrect Lauda:

Maybe this would work.

"Bone of the father, unknowingly given, you will renew your son. Flesh of the servant, willingly given, you will revive your master. Blood of the enemy, forcibly taken, you will resurrect your foe."



source:

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Return_of_Lord_Voldemort

Bump

I get a bunch of my posts deleted and then suchmoon wants to deflect to a new thread after her abusive behavior is explained for everyone.  This is exactly the type of behavior this thread was made to "out" amongst the troublemakers.  I make an honest effort to remove a bunch of feedback, point out that suchmoon's behavior is wrong for including users like Vod due to her own irrational revenge scheme, so she insults me and tries to direct the conversation elsewhere...  So typical.

In the end, as a result of his lies and trusting users like ibminer and suchmoon, Vod's reputation was ruined, he lost ownership of his project, and he had to leave the forum.  He wasn't the first to try and spread lies about me until it eventually consumed him and I'm sure he won't be the last as this thread makes clear.
Lauda
TMAN
Vod

As I stated before, all you guys have to do is stop spreading lies about me and I wouldn't care you exist.  The first thing you do is go make a new thread to whine...  You'd have to be an absolute idiot to think it's me that keeps these feuds alive.  I honestly wouldn't know or care you guys exist if you stopped spreading lies about me.

It might be because there was no drama. I'm sick of this shit, let's not derail this thread anymore.

New topic dedicated to OgNasty's greatest achievements on this forum: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ognasty-is-a-lying-piece-of-kaka-5330546

I don't foresee the mods/admins are going to ever moderate individual feedback's like this, or they'll get flooded with requests that they'd then have to analyze and look into. If any changes occur, it would probably need to be something that effects all feedback's in some fashion, like some sort of expiration... but I'd say that would further dilute the feedback system and make it more scammer friendly.. which I think is a bad idea.
  
I think the best bet right now is other DT members adding counter/positive feedback to sort of off-set the negatives as a way of showing they think those feedback's are not relevant anymore.



If you want further disclosure, on top of the announcement link Pmalek provided..

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54112531

In addition, this is where OgNasty claimed suchmoon took it over after it was hacked (not true)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55275056
edit: I'll add that the 'hack' was way before suchmoon ever came onboard. I helped Vod due to the hack, and that is when I got involved.

Nowadays he claims it was due to his stroke, or mental decline, or whatever... lies.

Og makes it up as he goes, whatever he can make up to smear the person to cancel out what they are ultimately saying.. is what he will say. The reality and facts of the situation (or any situation) do not help him keep his narcissistic supply flowing.

Again, you can't cancel me, Og.

It happened back in 2019. ibminer announced in his opening post that he and suchmoon are now responsible for the development and are also the owners of bpip. suchmoon pays for the hosting expenses.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bpip-bitcointalk-public-information-project-back-in-action-5213618

If you take a look at the About section of bpip, you will see that the team is only made up of ibminer & suchmoon.
https://bpip.org/about.aspx

How the F did I miss that happening?  I usually read most of the drama threads but don't recall anything about bpip's ownership being transferred to suchmoon (although suchmoon did set me straight yesterday about Vod not being the administrator of it anymore).  I'll cop to being a dumbass if someone will provide a link.

Lauda, TECSHARE, TMAN, and Vod are gone from the forum, so you'd think the level of hatred and malice would subside just a little bit, yet we still have threads like this going on.  I'd like to pull Rodney King out of the grave and have him ask if we can just get along, but I'm afraid even that wouldn't help matters.  This forum thrives on spite and drama, doesn't it?

I can confirm I've received harassing PMs from OgNasty.
As for how much I care: see my personal text

I don't really want to fuel your drama, but since you dragged me in again: Do I have your permission to publish the last 2 (unsolicited) PMs you've sent me?

Cute. Now do it in the right topic.
I've sent 21,473 Merit in 8,609 transactions to 2,188 users (data from last Friday). My Merit doesn't necessarily mean I agree with a post, but with these numbers, it's quite likely not everyone will agree to every single Merit transaction. That's okay, really it's okay.
But while you're at it, try not to Merit plagiarizing shitposters.

Not a fact, and parts of it are provably false if anyone cares to look at my sent feedback, since every positive trust rating that I sent out before you excluded me (late 2017 or early 2018 I think) was a result of a deal, so to claim that I "repeatedly [left] trust ratings for users [I] didn’t deal with that [OgNasty] personally considered untrustworthy" is incorrect, since the first part is false and the second part implies you're talking about positive ratings.

As for "not leaving feedback for trusted members you did actually trust with your funds"... no idea whom you're talking about and why that is a bad thing. Not all trades must result in positive ratings but feel free to elaborate. Preferably in a different thread since this one is about changing negatives to neutrals or deleting them.

BITCOINS DISTRIBUTED:


How much BTC is your mining operation sitting on since you and suchshame seem to think I did such a horrible job managing mine?  For you to harass me for the value I was able to create for others, you must be sitting on at least a million dollars worth of BTC, or if you want to ignore USD value like you seem to these days, more than the 700+ BTC I've been able to help distribute, since you know so much more about running a mining operation than I do.

Again, notice how I point out suchmoon's horrible behavior, then her partner immediately runs in with the deflection tactics.  The reason is because suchmoon's behavior below is so blatant and wrong that it is indefensible any other way. 

LOL. Anyone who took their job seriously on DT would have left feedback for someone who apparently "stole a miner" from you. But alas, you've never left anyone feedback for such a thing...


I've already explained the signature, multiple times, and OgNasty has recently just decided to throw a blatant lie in that I was gambling with MoneyPot, which never happened, he talks out of his ass to smear people and mixes in small percentages of truth (like the fact that I didn't like him supporting a scammer I had recently identified and asked for his opinion on).  It seems to be a common tactic for narcissistic sociopaths.

Also, pointing out your inability to manage a mining operation to actually make BTC for your investors, like you had claimed, is not 'harassment'. It's only harassment in your mind because you're a narcissist, and anything that hurts your grandiose view of yourself is instantly going to be wrong, no matter what facts are presented.

As for your PMs, they are just pathetic, incoherent, child-like rants. They got to me at first because it was completely unexpected.... now I realized your disorder.

It isn't a narrative, it is a fact for anyone who cares about those...  Funny how you can't even quote your horrible behavior (I fixed the quote for you).  Whenever I mention the truth of why you started your hate campaign against me or how you robbed Vod of his ownership stake in BPIP as a result of his mental decline, you can't even quote the text you are in such shame over your actions.  I don't know about you being the worst person on this forum, but your actions and behavior towards them has definitely earned you the moniker suchshame. 



I won't hold my breath for you to do the right thing and exclude Vod from your trust network...

Nice narrative. Whatever makes it easier for you to cope. In fact, let me just admit right here that I'm the worst person on this goddamn forum, just in case that helps you be the bigger man and get rid of all the abusive red ratings you sent out over the years. Fingers crossed.

I don’t think I’ve said anything in a PM people wouldn’t expect. I think you are slime who supports anyone that does or says anything negative about me as some sort of revenge for excluding you early on after seeing you repeatedly leave trust ratings for users you didn’t deal with that I personally considered untrustworthy while simultaneously not leaving feedback for trusted members you did actually trust with your funds. Basically, you’ve been on a multi-year slander quest against me for taking my responsibility in DT seriously. I’ve also been critical of LoyceV for leaving merit to attempts at doxxing me & including mentally deranged users who are actively harassing honest members to the DT network. Your other buddy ibminer who is angry he lost money gambling with a signature advertiser I had years ago and blames me for him not getting rich with Bitcoin has been harassing me for years. As a result he is another person who people wouldn’t be surprised has gotten my true feelings sent to him privately. I actually think that would be the preferred method of handling drama here as opposed to derailing honest project threads and making people read all this crap, but I guess signature ads don’t pay for PMs (which are paid in BTC based on a USD amount at the time of transfer)...



I won't hold my breath for you or any of the mentioned users to do the right thing and exclude Vod from your trust network...

I'd have doubted it a couple of years ago but after seeing the shit you pull in PMs... you would be the last person I would trust in any "he said, OgNasty said" situation.


Excellent, thank you for doing the right thing.

This isn’t true. One of us has definitely turned into quite the liar. How about this, I’ll even in good faith for the sake of this thread remove it yet again to show that in fact you are full of shit and it is never me going on the offensive with the attacks on people. Quite the opposite. I don’t care you guys exist. If you stopped spreading lies about me I don’t think we would ever have any interaction whatsoever. Try out not lying about me or attempting to derail my threads and watch how quickly I forget you exist.

When it comes to OgNasty, he's usually blatantly lying about such personal interactions and has a habit of sending harassing PMs to other users. What really happened here is that he came up with an excuse to move his red trust rating to the top of the list after the person whom he had red-trusted previously gained a few positive ratings from successful trades, which would indicate that there isn't high risk in trading with said person but OgNasty can't stand that with people he dislikes.

harrassing = nope, nobody's harassing harmless noobies here
harmless = nope, the newbie isn't harmless, he's trying to run a scam
terrorists = really? you're going to call your critics "terrorists" and then tell me I don't know "what being a man" means?

You chimed in to this thread about what a big man you were moments after leaving somebody a retributive negative trust... just seems intellectually incongruous.

Just so I’m clear, you think helpless newbies trying to sell plots of land on the moon deserve negative feedback to protect the community from them, but someone harassing others for years, knowingly spreading lies, and threatening to cause physical harm doesn’t? So being the bigger man to you means harassing harmless newbies and letting terrorists run free? I think maybe you don’t know what being a man means.

Again, you clearly have no idea what "being the bigger person" means. I tried to explain it to you a couple of times already:

Being the bigger man entails ignoring somebody instead of leaving them a tit-for-tat rating.

I didn't actually want to post here but I thought it was a bit too funny that you were still saying this.

I don't think I'm an active DT member at the moment, so it's quite possible he didn't realize I had recently removed his negative feedback and was just attacking me as he normally would, which is why he had the negative feedback to begin with.  



Yes, we all go through phases when we join the bitcointalk community.  Once you've been around long enough you learn to identify common user behaviors based on their length of time in the community.  I went through a scam buster phase myself and had a back and forth with one of the mods in a section of the forum reserved for staff and donators a few years back.  I was enraged at the time that the administration wasn't doing more to try and stop obvious scams.  This community existed for about 2 years before I came around though, so I guess it took me some time to get on board with the way things should be done here to keep activity moving sustainably into the future.  One thing about making allegations in real life, there are consequences when you wrongly go after someone, and that is a piece of the checks and balances system that is clearly missing here as a result of poor behavior amongst DT members.  This community takes a stance that it's ok if a couple honest users get wrongly convicted as long as many dishonest users receive warnings and I think that is deserving of a change.

"Some Negative Ratings" - YES. This is something that should be totally considered on a case-by-case basis. If someone is tagged as a scammer, doesn't matter who tagged them, if they have relevant proofs for the tag then the tag should stay. SwingFist's case is the right example where the tag should be removed.

Having said that, removing all tags from the person if they decide to leave the forum is a bad idea as that would put so many scammers on lose. Just saw a shill account request Vod to be removed from the DT since he's leaving the forum and all his tags to be removed. - That is a horrible idea.

If the ratings were given to proven scammers and those who attempted to scam, I have no problem with that. If they were given for other reasons, they might deserve a second look, depending on the case of course.  Are you talking about a particular case?

Unfortunately, everyone is allowed to write any trust rating they see fit because no one checks or controls what is written there. A bunch of members (including myself) got a negative rating by some newbie a few years ago for wearing a FortuneJack sig. The user played and lost money on FJ and what better way to avenge himself than to abuse the system and tag those who advertise the casino.   

So you are getting harassed by the member you removed the rating from? He is angry that you changed your mind and decided not to tag him    

That reply of yours reminded of my thread Should all scam busting techniques be made public? Many scam investigations are also a way for scammers to train on how to better themselves and not get caught.

I've removed quite a few negative and neutral feedbacks lately in an attempt to try and spread more positivity and limit negativity.  Unfortunately, I've already had to add one back for a user who immediately began harassing me after I removed a feedback rating for them threatening to physically harm me.  Sometimes being the bigger person doesn't pay.  I don't have the answer on how to fix this problem, but am a firm believer that if the negative feedbacks were completely removed it would not result in more scams being pulled and would also likely cut down on scam attempts as newbie scammers would stop getting engagement from established users making them feel like they are getting some sort of results out of their effort.  Another bonus would be reduced spam as these newbie wannabe scammers would stop having to create and establish new alt accounts constantly as soon as they're discovered by the "spread hate" crowd.  At some point I hope these abusive negativity spreading users realize they're only training newbies how to avoid being linked to their scams and that their attempts to save the gullible are realistically training otherwise harmless scammers to be better at what they do.

If only it were that simple.  When Lauda got removed from DT for various reasons.  A few users took it upon themselves to copy verbatim the negative trust feedback Lauda had left.  (It's been discussed elsewhere who and why etc).  What they've done by taking a snap shot of Lauda's distrust feedback is lock users into negatives.  Lauda can then sit back knowing that users have multiple negatives from copy cats lemmings who never verified the validity of Lauda's feedback's, nore have they bothered to go back and review those negatives at a later date.

It's up to you whether or not you take the word of a Lemming who's followed a cat off of a cliff.

It is possible that he/she went over some of the ratings that were handed out and revised those that were no longer valid or deserved to be altered. I do remember when a member from the local Croatian board (RegulusHr) got banned for plagiarism that Lauda tagged him for stealing content.

More than a year passed before RegulusHr was forgiven and got unbanned. Before he did, Lauda deleted her feedback.
In any case, Lauda is not on DT anymore and her ratings aren't the problem here.

For my very own experience with a Lauda feedback, I would say there is a very good chance Lauda made adjustments before he ceased to exist in the Lauda form, or maybe I just got lucky that he kind-heartedly reconsidered adjusting his feedback to me.


Made me remember that verryyyy longgggg listttttttt of I think it was called SMAs or sMAS( Signature Manager Against Sp--eech, i mean Spam.), time flied and it seemed that the SMAS no longer have a use, or I might be wrong. lol

P.S.

I made it on that list too, you know. lol

Negative feedback is only affecting the people from participating on signature campaigns while the other real scammers throw that account and starts to build their new account with some great discussions and guides then merits but there is no perfect system is their so the forum members need to educate themsleve to avoid those scammers with their common sense and never forget to use the escrow for any kind of trading.

Everyone will suggest some sort of change that will benefit them personally. 

It doesn't cost anything to keep trust or keep feedback for a person even years after they stop posting.  Each person should have the right to ~exclude whoever they want to silence from default trust, and each person can decide for themselves when old trust becomes irrelevant.

Anyone trading with a person tagged as a scammer should still check the untrusted trust ratings of the person and consider the risk of trading with the person. Anyone not doing this is going to eventually get scammed one way or another.

---

Regarding trust ratings decaying sent by those that are "inactive". Maybe as an alternative, trust scores could be calculated using only the last however many years of trust ratings in the person's trust network, and it could be customizable. Or, to prevent someone from scamming, abandoning their account for 5 years, and coming back to scam again, the measurement could be activity periods in which at least so many posts were made. This could apply to both positive and negative trust, and would prevent someone who participated in two deals five years ago from having a positive rating, when he has not traded with anyone in years.

That's a lot of ifs. The passing of time doesn't make one less of a scammer and vice versa. But you are right, that could happen. Because of that, such a drastic change in the feedback system will never happen I think. Personally, I don't think it should either. What I would like to see is someone looking at it on a case-by-case basis if the affected user expresses a wish to have that done. The same way that is done with copy-pasting, spamming, trolling, and other rules breakers.   

If I had such a feedback by a DT member, and it was obviously no longer valid for any reasons, I would want that removed. I think that is easier fixed than removing the user from DT and having other DT members re-writing possibly 50-100 trust ratings of him that are still valid. To repeat what I mentioned to suchmoon previously, getting a counter feedback isn't ideal either. Even though I received a positive rating, my account is still painted in yellow as well. If you read the posted ratings on my profile you would understand the situation and the reasons it is like it is, but it can be even better. Not to mention that I didn't deserve the positive trust and only got it to counter the negative.   

With trust flags negative trust feedback has become redundant and a negative factor for the community. It should probably be done away with altogether. I doubt negative feedback has had much of an effect if any when it comes to stopping scams and flags can handle the job just fine.

Maybe I came back too late to oppose your opinion as suchmoon and timelord responded to you. But, I still want to confirm my opinion.
Why should we replace Lauda's feedback when he's not a DT? His feedback were almost worthless at this point, but for TMAN and others, their feedbacks are visible to a lot of members, it can be a minus point during the trade.
Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion when I mentioned Lauda. I mentioned Lauda and the replacement of his feedback because marlboroza did. In particular, marlboroza replaced the feedback to the fraudulent account.

Perhaps none, since Lauda has been out of DT a few times already and the world did not end. I doubt that any one person in DT is irreplaceable. There is quite a bit of redundancy. Also keep in mind that all those scammers tagged by Lauda won't automatically start to scam the minute Lauda is out of DT, nor are Lauda's ratings disappearing - just moving to the "Untrusted" part for most users, except those with custom trust lists.

There were a group of users who, when Lauda was removed from the DT a couple of years ago (for previous indiscretions) blindly copied Lauda's Negative trust feed-backs dishing out identical negatives as thought they were their own.  No checks or balances to ensure that the negatives were truthful, thus perpetuating grudges in some cases that Lauda has/had with others.

As some have said in the immediate previous posts, peoples views can, do and should change over time with new information and a better understanding of what had occurred in the past.

Who is going to chase up those mirrored negative trust feed-backs to ensure they decay or are removed later on?  Answer - no one.

here we are talking about a couple of cases. But Lauda leaves a lot of ratings, perhaps most on the forum, negative or positive no matter. Removing/ignoring her tags would apply to everyone else even those who deserved it and there are plenty of them.
How much Lauda's tags need to be replaced?

What happens to real scammers tagged by now-inactive accounts? (Historic accounts and their taggers from ~4 years ago) This method is going to decay their trust as well, and if said scammers ever wake up/get reanimated the red trust will be gone.

Not that this even matters for guests since they can't see trust ratings in the first place, but they should be able to. They need to know about users' behavior too because most people won't bother registering an account.

No, that's not what I mean. The DT members can replace the feedback with other feeback. But only really useful feedback was replaced. Feedback similar to those listed above should be ignored. I take the example of TMAN, we can replace all his feedback by other DT, except for the feedback on BestChange account. Since you commented on TMAN's inappropriate feedback, I think it's the best one to remove.

---

But if TMAN and others are excluded, those that are included by TMAN will be at a disadvantage. I think that's not a good thing, they won't want TMAN to be excluded, maybe

I agree with this just about 100%. People change over time.
If I (or anyone) leaves someone good or bad trust and then never check in here again it could be sitting out there for years while something changed in their lives and they went over to the other side.

On that same note, people who are inactive here should have their positive trust decay. Yes, it's a bit unfair to leave the negative out there but if you have not logged on for 2+ years are you really the same person you were back then? Probably, but you might not be.

Just my view. I think we are all certain that the way it works is not going to change but we can hope.

-Dave

Perhaps if a negative trust feedback were to "decay" over time if an account that left the feedback becomes inactive for a period of time.  Eventually, a behind the curtain score starts at 100 then dwindles away to zero at which point the feedback reverts to neutral.

THEN if the account continues to remain dormant, the neutral feedback also diminishes from e.g. 1,000 (10,000??) down to zero and then disappears

I think it'd be reasonable if both the 100 to zero and 1,000/10,000 clocks ticked over once per week (100 weeks is close to two years - more than enough time for others to be warned).

Perhaps to counter if a user is away then returns; for each one month the score ticks over one notch in the opposite direction until it returns to the 100% score??

---

---

I personally feel Banned users trust feedback and default trust should time out and evaporate regardless of an inactive user coming back and recharging the score.

Likewise, any "Nuked" user's trust feedback and default trust should be "nuked" when the account is.

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.