Topic: Is the Default trust system still working/active? (Read 22823 times)

New topic here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-new-dt-system-updated-04-may-2019-5095716 ,  This one is archived and It will be closed soon.

Let me archive this thread, so we have a copy of DT1 and 2 before the changes.

Thanks for the info, I don't believe it's the wrong thread as my UID details etc form the basis of one entry of the list the tread is based around.

Tom & Hilarious are understandable. Lupin is a supprise. Dark Star & Ecuai - no idea.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full shows: hilariousandco, Lutpin, DarkStar_, Tomatocage, EcuaMobi have you excluded. I don't think it's an exclusion problem, but rather an inclusion one. Whoever had you included, removed the inclusion from what I can tell. Wrong thread though?

Have just come across this thread. Who do I have to thank for removing or excluding me from DT2?

I am solely saying that vendor bidding is not unethical, scam, untrustworthy or bad behavior in general, when it's applicable. Vendor bidding is done in various auctions around the world. I fully understand that it is not part of Bitcointalk auctions. I told you this many many times, but you just refuse to listen. You just keep on telling me how you think that vendor bidding is absolutely dishonest and that I'm bullshitting you when I say that it's actually quite common practice. I presented you various sources where you can go and educate yourself, but you refused and instead believe your prejudice.

I don't defend my mistake. (This is obvious from my very first message regarding this.) I defend myself when Vod (and you?) call me a scammer, because I've not scammed anyone.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in how the auction went. Even though his rating mentions the vendor bid. He misunderstood me illogically, and didn't listen when I told him how he read my words illogically. See this.

You're talking about my thought process with quite a confidence.

Your description of why you're rating me is not in line with your other output. For example, you implied that your DT position played a significant role in that event, as you felt that by rating me negatively I wouldn't need to "worry about Vod anymore". That is abuse of position and so called "power tripping".

Also, you're applying double standards as you're not red-rating someone who changed auction rules mid-auction. Yet you do a fresh red-rating to someone who didn't know about bitcointalk auction standard (and didn't change auction rules.)

---

Have a try at explaining how the bold statement is untrue? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction ~3 years ago. Bitcointalk auction standard doesn't include vendor bidding. Anyway, your logic is flawed and your attempts at steering opinions or whatever with such no content sentences are pathetic.

---

This makes no sense. What's your beef with me? Your prejudice is what you call "common sense", now? How about digging up real common sense and stop harassing me.

There would have been zero discussion about the matter for the last few years if the bolded statement was true. People make mistakes, they take actions to fix them, and its done. Unless they constantly defend their mistakes. You don't get to say, hey I'm sorry I was wrong, but actually I was right you just don't understand. I can almost guarantee there would never have been a problem with Vod, or me now, had you just said, "yeah, it was my mistake" when someone called you on it.

I absolutely completely understood your justification to me. And thought it was wrong. Its not prejudice, there are just inconsistencies in the story which lead me to believe you are not being truthful. If you are being truthful, it doesn't change anything, because it still makes me question your ability to rectify your mistakes. Being able to convince yourself that you are the victim for screwing someone else over is WAYYY more alarming to me than making a mistake due to a cultural difference. I've been trying to avoid telling you what the correct answer to the situation would have been, on the off chance that figuring it out on your own would have given a possibility of redemption.

The analogy I told you about the tourist giving people the middle finger, and whether it made sense for them to continue giving people the finger after being told of the cultural difference in meaning, was meant to spark the idea that you should have stopped defending yourself and simply given up on the idea that its ok to do something untrustworthy because of a cultural difference. When you find out you made a mistake due to a cultural difference, you say, hey sorry, this is why I thought this was ok, but I understand its different here. I'm sorry. You don't go on defending your actions and calling others out because they are misunderstanding your culture. Making a mistake and fixing it isn't a big deal. Making a mistake and continuing to try and justify your mistake for years says something about your character.

The reason I was so sure of my decision was because we fully discussed everything. I got an inside look at how your thought processing works, and thats where I found the problem. My feedback isn't meant to warn people that you are a dishonest scammer, its that there is the possibility of them getting screwed over by you, because you are exceptionally able to warp and twist what most would call common sense in order to justify your own actions, even when not a single person is on your side.

I have absolutely nothing invested in my negative feedback to you. Its not a fight I need to win, power tripping, or a matter of pride. If I had to say I had any attached emotion, it'd be that I'm a little irritated that you think I'm being hasty, when we've spent so much time talking. Claiming I'm misunderstanding the situation when I've given you ample time to clear up any misunderstanding, and even responded back on any unclear points I might have had is a little demeaning.


TLDR:

My tie in to why this is relevant to this thread, is that DT takes effort. I don't leave someone a negative on something iffy, and many other DT members do the same. It took hours of discussion with you before I felt comfortable doing so. I absolutely believe I gave you a fair shake and put in far more effort than is reasonably expected to coax your true intentions out. That said, DT's purpose is to give accurate/reliable feedback. You might disagree with me, but I gave people resources to investigate my claim for themselves. If they don't agree with me, they don't need to heed my advice. Thats essentially all there is to it. The same is true to your feedback about me, if they don't agree with your claim, they are free to ignore your feedback. Thats how it works, DT is just a good starting point for those who don't know who to trust yet. Give a member a few months here, and they create their own weighted trust lists, at least in their head if not by physically altering their list.

We are not going to agree with one another, and I'm perfectly alright with that. I just hope that we can agree that each other's feedback will only matter those those who choose to value it based on their own perception of its merit.



*edit* Quoting for my own future reference...

Unless there was some hidden discussion that I'm not aware of, this doesn't make any sense. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean your opponent misunderstands you. From what I've seen Salty understood you perfectly well and engaged in a lengthy discussion with you.

No lies, please. You misunderstood me heavily. I told you this (2+ times), and tried to explain what I meant, but you stick to your prejudice. You refused to truly listen to what I had to say, and you kept deliberately understanding my words in the worst possible way.


I know this and agree completely. I've done all my auctions without vendor bids since I learned that it's not cool here.

I hate to keep feeding this discussion about your neg from Vod, but what suchmoon said is completely accurate--it's just not complete, leaving out your private conversation with Vod about feedback removal.  That's a separate matter, but the self-bidding description is on point.  I've already said my piece about both things, so I'm not going to continue flogging that poor dead horse. 

Consensus pretty much is that self-bidding on an auction here is not cool.  That's what reserve prices are for.

It really could not have. We resolved things the absolute best we could. We exchanged probably over 30 messages, and spoke in depth for well over a week regarding various matters. Neither of us have any misunderstandings of each other, and we both left each other appropriate feedback. I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable outcome. Those who think my judgement is wrong, likely understand Anduck's point of view, and his feedback may be exactly what those people would want to know about me. Likewise in the opposite direction. People who dont care about any of our points of view will ignore each others warnings.

For the most part, the DT system works exactly how the users want it to work. The tool in of itself is just a hierarchical post it note. The people that bring up a cause in Meta or the Reputation sections are who define what the system is used for. Why its become accepted to give negative trust to Scammers, Spammers, Account Farmers, etc are all because of years of history of people asking questions. Debates have been had over, for example, why its ok to give account farmers negative trust. Theymos didn't put any rules anywhere that said, You must mark account farmers with red feedback. Who did they scam? No one. Why is it ok to give them red trust? Well, because people find their actions undesirable and untrustworthy when it comes to accountability and building a community. That resolution came out of a lot of discussion though. The system changes that Theymos would enact are making DT as a tool more flexible for its users, not creating some sort of regulation around it.

As far as I know, the only rule when it comes to DT and the Feedback system, is that you may not spam people's feedback. Everything else is user created. When the community as a whole like like to see something change, it'll change in that direction. That doesn't mean people having a tantrum will get their way however.

That's quite an unfair description of what has happened.

I don't need to go anywhere, I have followed your whole 20+ page thread any many detours into other threads. The overwhelming consensus has been that you're wrong but you insist that you're potentially honest somewhere outside of Bitcointalk where self-bidding is acceptable so you must be accepted as being honest here as well. I don't think that's how it works. Your self-bid was a dishonest way to cancel the auction without explicitly cancelling it, regardless of what other auction places may or may not allow.

This narrative that I did not do this "shit, didn't realize that" is misleading. Go look up how it went and stop believing in third hand stories. I am not defiant about it, why would I be. Aren't my actions speaking louder? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction! So stop spreading that bullshit narrative, it has nothing to do with reality.

Your trust rating has not so much to do with your self-bidding but rather with you being stubbornly defiant about it. Any reasonable person would have said "shit, I didn't realize that, sorry" and moved on whereas you're never wrong. This speaks to your poor ability to handle disputes or even minor disagreements. You're lucky to get away with two red trusts (so far).

Here we are derailing the thread again . How about you stick to your cockamamie ideas of destroying DT, those are easier to ignore.

Possibly.



These two things are unrelated. The feedbacks I've received merely increased my motivation to get BCT trust system improved. DT people have way too much power. Also FWIW, I've been against DT-including trust system since it was implemented, just not very vocal about it. (See #bitcoin-otc logs.)

About that auction issue,
I learned about Bitcointalk auction standard regarding vendor bids in that auction. Back then, ~3 years ago, I did not know that vendor bids are not cool here. The bitcointalk auction standard is vague and not even described anywhere. I've held countless auctions since, with no complaints. Now two DT'ers are stepping in to rate me for that vendor bid (at least publicly they state that as the reason). Do you see that as reasonable and justified? "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!"

Then why are you trying to upend the entire trust network to suit what you believe DT should be as a result of you not adhering to the Bitcointalk auction standard as you understand it?

My view of what DT should be has nothing to do with my understanding of how it works currently. Also I am not "lashing out at the system" as you describe. I have given out perfectly reasonable feedbacks. Feel free to PM if you feel that some feedback I've sent is unjust, we can talk about it. And that "questionable views in regards to auctions" -- well, vendor bidding really is a common thing in various auctions around the world. I guess you can call it "questionable", but for some reason it still remains to be an acceptable thing in various auction standards. Not in Bitcointalk auction standard, obviously.

You think anyone who is trustworthy should be in default trust. That shows you don’t even understand the system. Trustworthy people have a high trust rating, while those with GOOD JUDGEMENT IN THEIR RATINGS should be in the default trust network. You’ve been shown to have questionable views in regards to auctions and also poor judgement in giving feedback. You’re now lashing out at the system because you refuse to see those 2 truths regardless of how many people take the time to try to point it out to you, further demonstrating your reason for exclusion and the functionality of the current system.

Because theymos wants to change the system to improve it for everyone. You want to change the system so you are no longer red-tagged.