Author

Topic: A case of preventive feedback to think about. (Read 371 times)

copper member
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1837
🌀 Cosmic Casino
December 23, 2024, 05:58:23 PM
#17
Poker Player if you are to go by the assumption that it's OK to tag any profile here based on any scam accusation that comes up because you are using a "preventive approach
You have not understood anything at all, my friend.
I have, and I also pointed out why your approach would make most members take the feedback system and trust flags less seriously with time, since many profiles would be carrying flags and negative tags due to any accusation that come up. Maybe you are the one who hasn't understood my point.

I have seen some services, especially casinos take a few weeks or months to get the issues that come up resolved. To immediately tag them when accusations come up because you are trying to use a preventive approach can turn out to be harmful in the long run. It could also make the forum a much more toxic space for most services trying to announce themselves here.
hero member
Activity: 510
Merit: 4005
@OP: Please don't interpret what's below in terms of the specific case you've mentioned. Really, I'm just responding to TSC's general remark.

Personally I think DT members need to be aggressive on this forum; if they weren't, all we'd have is an enormous lineup of scam victims and other assorted fires that needed to be put out.  You know that old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?  It's absolutely relevant to bitcointalk and scam busting/prevention.
I'm basically on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to this issue (as in, I think "predictive" scam-busting, and "aggressive" tagging is more harmful to the community than helpful, by a wide margin).

The thing is, I've never, not even once, been "saved" from anything by the trust system. (And assuming that I'm an OK choice for a "representative" user, then the thoughts that follow from an earnest appraisal like that are worth reflecting on, IMO.)

I honestly think that under the guise of protecting others, some fraction of the DT membership simply enjoys being empowered to attenuate behaviors that they personally find upsetting (while either ignoring or maybe being unaware of the collateral damage being caused by their imperfect senses, and the knock-on effects being produced by them not really thinking much beyond their own private scales of justice). In my experience, almost all people (and especially sticklers) like to engage in activities that make them feel better, without paying much attention to what's actually being accomplished.

Slightly OT: While I don't have a big sample size, I can say that every person that I've seriously regretted crossing paths with, and also had the misfortune to get to know really well, has been possessed of not only an untrusting mind, which is ordinary in this day and age, but also a deeply suspicious one (as in, they model others after themselves, which is sometimes natural, and because they're often up to something shitty, they believe everyone else must be, too). Conversely, the people I tend to admire almost always have the opposite outlook, and believe that most humans are fundamentally good, and that they should be treated well and given the benefit of the doubt until any evidence of wrongdoing has become completely clear-cut (and even then, they're sometimes still inclined toward leniency).



While I'm on the subject of over-policing being a contributing factor to Bitcointalk having such infertile soil, I may as well share a related thought I once put in a PM:

It's fun to play at how you'd run things if only you could, but the actual reality of watching your not-all-the-way-thought-out decisions causing serious, real-life problems for other human beings is sobering stuff. For example, I really hate the low SNR on Bitcointalk, and I naturally lean a little elitist, so my unrestrained knee-jerk reaction is to do/approve things that would slowly get rid of all the forum-clogging shitbirds, but, Bitcoin is for everyone... I think it follows that Bitcointalk should be, too. Viewed through that lens, the forum is something like a garden, and the head admin's job is to make sure not to heavy-handedly shape it into the garden that they would like, but to encourage the growth and survival of as many different "species" as possible (and quickly, though still carefully, tend to damaging effects, like rose mites or some shit -- I don't know gardening).
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
Poker Player if you are to go by the assumption that it's OK to tag any profile here based on any scam accusation that comes up because you are using a "preventive approach

You have not understood anything at all, my friend.
copper member
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1837
🌀 Cosmic Casino
As I have explained other times the “innocent until proven guilty” to which we could add “beyond a reasonable doubt” is joined in criminal cases, where sentencing someone to 30 years in prison or the death penalty for a murder is very serious. However in civil cases this does not apply and probability is used more. I believe that forum cases are more similar to civil cases, and that negative feedback for a short period until things are clarified generally doesn't hurt.
Unlike the obvious case where one who shares phishing links, defaulted a loan or tried to promote a Ponzi schemes can get tagged immediately, I believe it's important to give the accused party time to prove that they are not scammers. As far as I know, even civil courts that handle civil cases give the accused time to defend themselves.

Poker Player if you are to go by the assumption that it's OK to tag any profile here based on any scam accusation that comes up because you are using a "preventive approach", then at least 80%  of the services actively advertising themselves here should have already been tagged by DT members. Just look at the first page of the scam accusations board.

This would make the Red trust way useless. It would be reds everywhere and people would even stop believing in the feedback system and it's accuracy
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1713
Top Crypto Casino
I don't think people are necessarily against preventive feedback as you call it, but just feel like tagging people for a scam that hasn't happened yet is an incorrect use of the trust system. Been saying for a while that we need 2 different trust systems, 1 for reputation and 1 for trading, or we just need to adapt the current feedback system and let it be used for more than trades.
If there were multiple trust systems it would explain a lot but to implement it is one thing but to simplify it if it were implemented would be another. This would add more work for the admins and I doubt they will contemplate adding this as a feature.

There are times when negative feedback before a scam is invaluable.
This is true but there are problems to face if/when other members do not accept a scam was in the workings therefore would query and question the feedback. If scenarios such as those were to be played out it would empower scammers and would-be scammers knowing they could get DT and non-DT members to fight and argue between themselves. If that were to happen the eventual winners would be the scammers not the community trying to protect this forum.

Personally I think DT members need to be aggressive on this forum; if they weren't, all we'd have is an enormous lineup of scam victims and other assorted fires that needed to be put out.  You know that old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?  It's absolutely relevant to bitcointalk and scam busting/prevention.
As matters currently stand, I definitely agree with you however, sometimes that aggressive approach creates more problems when sufficient back up is not forthcoming. Rather than run the risk of getting bogged down in the quagmire of forum politics, some members would prefer to take a much more lenient approach.
legendary
Activity: 3556
Merit: 7011
Top Crypto Casino
There are times when negative feedback before a scam is invaluable.   Recently, a trusted member tried to get a lot of coin based on collateral that she had private funds coming in this spring.   She may have succeeded if I had not warned people, and I can always remove my feedback and make arrears should she actually show proof of funds.   But there were so many contradictions in her story she has lied at least once already.

Yeah, and it's funny you should post in this thread because when Poker Player wrote this:

I was the first to use preventive feedback in the case of freebitco.in, which was soon followed by nutildah

I immediately thought of you, because while he and nutildah may have been the coal mine's canary with respect to freebitco.in, neither one is the first to leave prophylactic paint jobs on people's trust profiles.  You've been doing it in the Currency Exchange section for years.  BTW I'm not knocking you, Poker Player.  I know you didn't mean to imply you discovered the value of tagging potential scammers, because that's been S.O.P. for quite a few DT members, also dating back a number of years. 

Personally I think DT members need to be aggressive on this forum; if they weren't, all we'd have is an enormous lineup of scam victims and other assorted fires that needed to be put out.  You know that old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?  It's absolutely relevant to bitcointalk and scam busting/prevention.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 3507
Crypto Swap Exchange
There are times when negative feedback before a scam is invaluable.   Recently, a trusted member tried to get a lot of coin based on collateral that she had private funds coming in this spring.   She may have succeeded if I had not warned people, and I can always remove my feedback and make arrears should she actually show proof of funds.   But there were so many contradictions in her story she has lied at least once already.
This is the most important part of "preventive" feedback. The user would have to be neutral enough to withdraw negative feedback if it turns out that it was left excessively. I saw earlier that not everyone was ready to admit a mistake and withdraw negative feedback.

It is often very difficult to prove a scam beforehand and I think that we shouldn't be easy on the trigger. Getting out of a negative rating can be a very tiring and long process, certainly demotivating for services to stay here.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
I have been reading your comments but as I think I made clear in the OP this is not a thread where I am going to fervently defend a position but more to invite reflection.

yahoo62278 , yes surely many inside and outside the forum disregard the warnings but we with the tool we have must do the right thing. If someone sees the active flag and negative feedback and deposits a lot of money in the room there he is.

The system surely could be improved but seeing how infrequently he makes changes to the forum theymos and how much he likes to think about it, as it more or less works, I don't see him making any changes any time soon.

Are there people who view it as bad?

Yes, some people see it as “aggressive”.

I have not seen any issue created for feed-backs left on suspicion, if you are convinced that others should be warned of a service or member, you can use a neutral feedback to do that as those can be used for pretty much everything.

I would say that neutral but negative-spirited feedback is more useful in people, not businesses.

If an issue has been raised it will be about using negative feed-backs and not leaving a reference or indicating that this is a suspicion. 

It depends on the case, IMO.

Vod, with respect to preventive feedback there are cases and other cases. In the case you mention, you know that many of us do not see it as you do.

One has to balance between judging if "one being innocent until proven guilty" or "one is guilty until they are innocent" but i prefer the former. You have no idea how much brands, services or business try to advertise themselves all the way to the top level. To rubbish that overnight, one must have definitive evidence why they must do so.

As I have explained other times the “innocent until proven guilty” to which we could add “beyond a reasonable doubt” is joined in criminal cases, where sentencing someone to 30 years in prison or the death penalty for a murder is very serious. However in civil cases this does not apply and probability is used more. I believe that forum cases are more similar to civil cases, and that negative feedback for a short period until things are clarified generally doesn't hurt.

KingsDen I think what I have said, which coincides with what others have said I have adressed.

I don't say anything about the rest of the comments because I don't see them focused on the general discussion I was raising.



legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
December 19, 2024, 09:57:36 PM
#9
For this particular case, I do think dealing with freebitco.in is risky, it feels like they're going out of business. Beyond that, there's too many unanswered problems regarding payouts to long-time users. Once I see some progress being made on those, I'd be more inclined to remove the negative.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 661
- Jay -
December 19, 2024, 05:22:42 AM
#8
Yes there are, if the one who leaving the negative feedback is just an average user, especially to highly reputable service/service who have campaign. Because you know, it would be a threat to both the campaign managers and campaign participants.
If the average user is not on DT1 or DT2 their feedback does not count for much and is not a threat to either a manager or participants of a campaign. What comes under scrutiny is DT members leaving feed-back in a way most consider to be wrong and as I said it is usually about a particular incident and not the concept of preemptive feed-back.

- Jay -
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 633
December 19, 2024, 02:23:08 AM
#7
Some people do believe that anyone leaving a negative tag today and deleting it tomorrow is not using the feedback system correctly.
Who? I haven't read that.

Most likely people who leaving a negative feedback today and deleting it tomorrow was leaving an inappropriate feedback, hence they withdraw it after other DT warns them.

Are there people who view it as bad? I have not seen any issue created for feed-backs left on suspicion, if you are convinced that others should be warned of a service or member, you can use a neutral feedback to do that as those can be used for pretty much everything.
Yes there are, if the one who leaving the negative feedback is just an average user, especially to highly reputable service/service who have campaign. Because you know, it would be a threat to both the campaign managers and campaign participants.
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1089
Goodnight, o_e_l_e_o 🌹
December 18, 2024, 06:11:29 PM
#6
Now I ask myself, what would have Simply that we would have deleted the negative feedback and withdrawn the support to the flag. Using negative feedback is not causing irreparable damage, far from it.
Some people do believe that anyone leaving a negative tag today and deleting it tomorrow is not using the feedback system correctly. It is not supposed to be on speculations, but facts. Tagging someone before an action happens is just like sentencing someone before appearing before the court.

I simply hope that you do not see the preventive conception so badly.
Not so bad, but I think a neutral tag can warn people. I might not pay attention to people's neutral tags, but when I want to do trade with them, I'll need to pay apt attention.
copper member
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1837
🌀 Cosmic Casino
December 18, 2024, 05:56:00 PM
#5
I think it's more of a case by case issue. Perhaps some folks tried to give Freebitco.in some more time to prove that they are not actually scamming anyone but just going through a rough patch after all those years

If one was to go by your no-nonsense preventive approach then the likes of Bestchange would be labelled as scammers as of now with various red tags and flag supports, but they did prove people who were quick to tag them red as wrong.
So Freebitco.in being an old brand, i think members just tried to be lenient to them.

which is not to say that he is incorrect, he, like many, has a more punitive conception of the trust system.

Now I ask myself, what would have happened if freebitco.in, after the 4 negative feedback against wetsuit and the active flag, had come out the second week of June giving an explanation and saying that he was going to solve problems, leaving them solved at the end of June? Simply that we would have deleted the negative feedback and withdrawn the support to the flag. Using negative feedback is not causing irreparable damage, far from it.
Betnomi tried such a thing, not once but twice... What does their trust score say today?  Grin
I think the DT members' judgement is still OK.
Preventive or not. One has to balance between judging if "one being innocent until proven guilty" or "one is guilty until they are innocent" but i prefer the former. You have no idea how much brands, services or business try to advertise themselves all the way to the top level. To rubbish that overnight, one must have definitive evidence why they must do so.

Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
December 18, 2024, 02:53:20 PM
#4
I don't think people are necessarily against preventive feedback as you call it, but just feel like tagging people for a scam that hasn't happened yet is an incorrect use of the trust system. Been saying for a while that we need 2 different trust systems, 1 for reputation and 1 for trading, or we just need to adapt the current feedback system and let it be used for more than trades.

People leave feedback for damn near anything anyways. May as well use it as a hybrid system and combine trade and reputation as 1 system.

There are times when negative feedback before a scam is invaluable.   Recently, a trusted member tried to get a lot of coin based on collateral that she had private funds coming in this spring.   She may have succeeded if I had not warned people, and I can always remove my feedback and make arrears should she actually show proof of funds.   But there were so many contradictions in her story she has lied at least once already.

A "trade" trust system would be controlled by the scammers with most stolen coin.  Sell/give/trade items (or pay aa few people in a few cities to do it on his behalf.  Then he reciprotate the trust (even though he had no risk) and corrupts the default trust.

I am always thinking about new algorithms - I'm going to play with a few (like I did with BPIP) and see if we can come up with a less abusable system.   Since I don't play the DT games, I'll eventually be knocked off it.

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 661
- Jay -
December 18, 2024, 02:19:44 PM
#3
With this I do not intend to convince those of you who have a more punitive conception of the trust system that what you think is wrong, I simply hope that you do not see the preventive conception so badly.
Are there people who view it as bad? I have not seen any issue created for feed-backs left on suspicion, if you are convinced that others should be warned of a service or member, you can use a neutral feedback to do that as those can be used for pretty much everything.

If an issue has been raised it will be about using negative feed-backs and not leaving a reference or indicating that this is a suspicion. The trust system is always under scrutiny and there will be some talks about certain actions, but they are against particular cases and not a concept.

- Jay
legendary
Activity: 3808
Merit: 4603
Contact @yahoo62278 on telegram for marketing
December 18, 2024, 10:31:45 AM
#2
To answer your actual question

Quote
what would have happened if freebitco.in, after the 4 negative feedback against wetsuit and the active flag, had come out the second week of June giving an explanation and saying that he was going to solve problems, leaving them solved at the end of June?

a warning would have been out there in the community, but people are morons and half of them still wouldn't have listened to the warning. There are probably a good number of people who bought tokens who are not even on the forum.

I don't think people are necessarily against preventive feedback as you call it, but just feel like tagging people for a scam that hasn't happened yet is an incorrect use of the trust system. Been saying for a while that we need 2 different trust systems, 1 for reputation and 1 for trading, or we just need to adapt the current feedback system and let it be used for more than trades.

People leave feedback for damn near anything anyways. May as well use it as a hybrid system and combine trade and reputation as 1 system.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
December 18, 2024, 10:11:03 AM
#1
Sometimes we see mentioned in the forum that there are people in DT who have a more preventive conception of trust system, according to which negative feedback can, and should, be used to warn of the potential danger of scam even if it has not yet occurred and there is no evidence, while others have a punitive conception according to which negative feedback should only be used when the scam has already happened and there is conclusive evidence of it.

I was the first to use preventive feedback in the case of freebitco.in, which was soon followed by nutildah, who I would say is generally more of a punitive approach but in this case saw the danger clearly and left negative feedback as well.

Until recently I think that from a punitive conception we could not speak of clear scam by freebitco.in but I think that today we can, for the reasons that we can see summarized in the following quote:

Thanks @dwyane36 @btcltcdigger @NABiT @id5000 so its confirmed the daily email is stopped for almost one week (Today will be 7 days).

Freebitco.in is now selling fraudulent products/services. The Premium membership, which requires people to buy and hold FUN tokens, is no longer giving out all the promised benefits.

No daily WoF spins. No more daily spins from emails.

In fact as we can know from scrolling, now even their lotteries and Lambo giveaway is close to being a fraud. No results after 2 months, while a new round is still ongoing.

Can we all make sure we leave Trust feedback?

Not even the guy who made us aware of the problems back in May 28 has left negative feedback until November 18.

Which is not to say that he is incorrect, he, like many, has a more punitive conception of the trust system.

Now I ask myself, what would have happened if freebitco.in, after the 4 negative feedback against wetsuit and the active flag, had come out the second week of June giving an explanation and saying that he was going to solve problems, leaving them solved at the end of June? Simply that we would have deleted the negative feedback and withdrawn the support to the flag. Using negative feedback is not causing irreparable damage, far from it.

With this I do not intend to convince those of you who have a more punitive conception of the trust system that what you think is wrong, I simply hope that you do not see the preventive conception so badly.
Jump to: