Topic: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system - page 5. (Read 13211 times)

I understand, however it depends on the users itself. If I trade with a chipmixer's participant, I wouldn't think twice before send my funds to him since they're got $300/week. He wouldn't scam only for $1000, that's amount might be a peanut by him. Can a bounty hunter especially never earn any single merit and spend a lot of times to shitpost deserve a positive feedback? jk.

Yeah I also noticed that, however a reputable user wouldn't easily give a positive feedback even you've done multiply trade with him. Personally I would think when the user leave a positive feedback for low amount trade it's not really correct isn't? especially for a brand new newbie, some people might think he's safe to trade without an escrow.

To be honest this is the another problem for me.
Those users who left a wrong feedback also left so many correct feedback, it would be unfair if I just looking his single mistake but I didn't care with so many contribution he do for this forum. If he got excluded from DT network, his negative feedback to scammer will be shown in untrusted feedback. If the scammer only got a negative feedback from this user, anyone wouldn't know this scammer is a scammer since his trust will be neutral +0 / =0 / -0.

Also excluding an user isn't something easy to do, I've seen many members had a conflict because of this. Distrusting someone doesn't mean I don't like your post, I won't merit your post or I hate you, but I just don't like perspective of giving a feedback due to personal interest. Usually when A distrust B, B will distrust A too and B will search anything wrong have been done from A e.g. cheating with multiple alts, plagiarism etc.

Agreed, a feedback from theymos have a good weight.

The forum's recommendation is this:
That can very well apply to long-term community members. I think a reputation of being good with thousands of hours spend on this forum means someone isn't likely to throw that all away for a quick buck.
It is much easier to get positive trust by buying something on the Collectibles board, and selling it again. Even better if you pay some of the usual escrows there, you may get 2 positive ratings for only one trade.
It's up to every forum member to decide for themselves how they value this.

Agreed. This is one of the reasons why many local board members have so many Trust exclusions. So the "voting" system works.

Hi @LoyceV,

Upon reading your thread and understand it correctly how to use of trust feedback and trust system, I have a question regarding the use of positive feedback. You wrote "If you believe someone can be trusted, even when you didn't trade with him, that too deserves positive feedback." I don't know what's the reason why we need to leave positive feedback when there's no money or trade involved? Even I see many people also giving you positive feedback without money or trade involved. I won't mention those names, but I will re write what does I feel it isn't a correct way to leave positive feedback (not only on your trust list).

"This user is really valuable and wrote many high quality posts, it's an asset in this forum"
"This user fighting against scammer, good scam buster"
"This user is a good guy, useful, and active in x board"
"This user is trusted with his valuable posts"
"This user is really smart about Bitcoin"

I feel those above positive feedback isn't correct, since there's nothing about money or trade involved. Why does a smart person which created many high quality posts can be trusted? it's just like trusting a hacker which know how to hack a website and stole the funds. Now talking about scam buster, a respectable person who help the forum, why we should leaving positive feedback a respectable person? I think adding his name on trust list is already enough since they're mostly leaving a negative and neutral feedback, also support or opposite a flag (forum stuffs). Someone who willing to help about forum stuffs are different with someone who willing to help in money oriented e.g. refund back the money. Moreover trusting someone because he active in x board, knowing each other or join on a same gang/activities e.g. active in their local board are just subjective judgement and shouldn't given a positive feedback.

I didn't mean to make a conflict nor I envy didn't have any single positive feedback, but I wanted to learn more deeply and if I'm correct I would be happy to make the use of trust feedback more correctly. I know there's many more not correct use of trust feedback and trust list e.g. well known drama V vs O, but it's really complicated and I feel it's impossible to each other would revise his feedback/trust list. But for those feedback I mentioned above are still possible to be revised since these users aren't taking a feedback too seriously.

tl;dr trust feedback is used for money oriented, trust list is used for a user who leaving a correct trust feedback.

It's really up to you to decide, as LoyceV's notes on the first page of this thread and Theymos quoted post are only recommendations. Therefore, only you can personally determine the degree of this or that slander or lie that comes from the user, especially since there is a law in the US law that criminalizes malicious slander. but as far as I know, it only applies in cases where a malicious lie has caused you personal financial damage (or may cause it in the future).

No worries, I got that. I wanted to highlight it though, since that's kinda the point of this topic. I'll add that I took that part slightly out of context.

Just to clarify that of course if we take that sentence isolated from the context it would not be a good reason to include anyone.

What I meant to say is that what motivated me to look at his trust lists and feedbacks is to see that he had included me.

Okay, I'll explain too. I don't think that 10 merit is already a member's level, an insignificant thing. Thus, as I wrote earlier, it is possible to advise everyone to distribute their merits to their alternatives. What's more, a lot of accounts have been downvoted for this behavior, and I've also seen a lot of accounts that lie very beautifully. I'm starting from how acted before.
Why then tag anyone at all with negative or other tags if they are more preferred for trading?
But yes, I looked at the history of naim027's account, and just as he nobly apologized for his mistake earlier today, I also want to say that I overreacted with my assessment, and I apologize.

I left that neutral tag because I didn't agree with lovesmayfamilis' negative tag, and because I hoped this would stop others from adding more negative tags for something this small. After this, lovesmayfamilis changed their tag to neutral (and removed me from their Trust list).

I think so too. But I also think it's better than a negative tag with the same spirit.

This isn't a good reason to include anyone. I took this part out of context to make a point for anyone who reads this.

This makes more sense.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I think it really depends on the case. Some people with negative feedback still have good Sent feedback. And some go full retaliation by tagging anyone who left them a (valid) negative tag.
For now, I wouldn't worry about hypothetical problems

I am not supposed to respond here because I shouldn't be advocating for myself. Let's put someone else shoe's on mine.


About negative tags for abusing merit, It's not a forum rule. It's about ethics. Theymos once said:


There are many members with negative trust, and many DT Members distrusted them.

Take OgNasty For example. He has 6 Negative feedback from DT members. Even having a Donator badge doesn't mean he is unlikely to scam. Let's say those six negative are legit—still, theymos trust his Judgment.

OgNasty's judgement is Trusted by:
1. theymos (Trust: +30 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (58) 8535 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Hi LoyceV, I have a question to ask you and anyone else who wants to comment on the thread.

I have seen that you and two other forum members have left a neutral tag for merit abuse to naim027.

The comment from lovesmayfamilis is the harshest:


I would say it is a neutral tag of negative spirit.

So, the doubt I have is that I included naim027 in my trust list because I saw that he had included me in his and when I checked both his trust list and his distrust list I saw that they were very similar to mine. Besides I read the feedbacks that he had left, which if I remember correctly were 4 and I saw them correct. So the decision was easy to include him in my trust list.

So, I understand that these neutral tags should not affect that inclusion, especially because it seems that it was a one-time thing in the past that does not happen today and the tags are neutral.

What do you think about this?

And going further, let's imagine that in the future I find a similar case but in this case is someone that I have in my trust list but has bought merits to rank up faster, so he gets negative tags.

If his trust list is still similar to mine and his feedback is correct, should I reconsider removing him from my trust list? Part of me says yes, because if you don't trust someone you don't trust them in general, and another part of me says they are two separate things.

I would also like to know your opinion on this second, more hypothetical aspect.

Thank you for explaining this so thoroughly. I was confused as a newer member. I really appreciate you breaking it down so a dummy like me could understand 

When in doubt, don't do anything. No tags needed, just let it be.

Since we have touched on the subtleties of the trust system, I would like to discuss a small dilemma. I'm looking for a quick tip, plus I don't feel like creating a new thread over trifles. It's about the unusual activity of one of the guys in the collectibles section.

The crux of the matter is this:



There were a lot of discussion posts in the thread, but it all boiled down to tmow that in the end this switch to insults and refused to provide evidence that he did not use an alt account in his auction (he ultimately edited his post). I am a little confused because I feel that on the one hand, the red tag is fully deserved, on the other hand, after this discussion, as a gesture of goodwill, it covered the escrow costs for future sales.

Lol. It was a learning curve indeed

This (partially) helped me come to this recommendation:
This also made me respond to Trust abuse with neutral instead of negative feedback. To throw in another cliche: Be the change you wish to see in the world..

Believe it or not, before becoming a role model, Mr. Robot himself was an inquisitive newbie trying to understand the intricacies of the t'system, (since then machine learning technologies have taken a big step forward). Besides, being an inveterate skeptic, even I almost believed he was human when I reread one of his threads.

This issue has been raised many times, but there are still a lot of those, ^{[even among high-ranking forum participants]} who continue to leave positive reviews without risking anything. But one thing I can say for sure, DS_ was one of the first to understand what was happening and since then he has not changed his position (if you look at the history of his feedback, you will see that he leaves positive credit tags when it comes to large amounts).

I guess not, hence neutral feedback for those small loans makes sense, but that doesn't mean some won't try to do that. There are smart scammers around that are willing to play long game, not all are imbeciles.

Hi LoyceV. This is just to say that I'm so grateful, I am learning so much thanks to your posts and also to your detailed answers to my questions that I think that I am becoming a better forum member every day partly thanks to you. I think it all started when you helped me to rank up, which gave me a boost in my self-esteem.

From now on I think I will think a lot about leaving positive feedback if it's not for a trade. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on how others leave their feedbacks and follow up on them.


I guess it is a strategy they are trying but do you think people with experience, for example DarkStar, are going to fall into that trap?

Another way to see neutral feedback is as sort of "protection" against trust farm. I am sure that scammers would gladly take few hundreds of dollars loan in exchange for a positive feedback from well respected lenders so I am not surprised that they tend to give neutral instead positive feedback.

Call me paranoid, but to me bunch of those little loans look more like a trust farm attempts rather than a real need.

Rewriting it could indeed avoid confusion.

Say we make a trade: You send me $200 in Bitcoin, and after that I send you $200 on the Lightning Network. You trusted me, I didn't scam you. I didn't have to trust you, so you couldn't have scammed me. Does that mean I'd trust you if I'd send first? Maybe, but not based on this deal. So based on this hypothetical trade, I don't think you'd deserve positive feedback.

You were excluded by miau in the week you made your first Trust list, not when you wiped it (2 weeks later). It's up to them whether or not to review their exclusions, I usually don't bother to PM users about their exclusions.