Topic: Marketplace trust - page 21. (Read 83235 times)

Does it work now? I changed display:inherit to display:block.

Yeah, it's IE8. It works on my home machines.

Seems he would prefer that the Default Trust list be the Empty Set.

Man you guys are f@#$%d... I didnt realize what was meant by default trust.... f!@# you I dont trust any off you insiders. Especially TradeFortress there are numerous scammer threads about him... He is a lender! I dont trust lenders of coin!  I trust who I trust not who you think I should trust. Shit is bullshit. 

Oh, IE8 quirk then - similar to this one: http://jhop.me/tests/bugs/ie8/visibilityinherited.html

Yes. I checked several that I know have untrusted feedback. But I suspect it's my browser to blame here. I'm forced to use IE 8.0.7601 where I'm sitting right now. I'll check later when I'm at a real machine.

This is the function:

function show() {
   document.getElementById("untrusted").style.display="inherit";
   document.getElementById("hidelink").innerHTML="";
}

Are you sure the user has untrusted feedback?

This is borked now. It will not show untrusted feedback, even when you click the show ratings button.

Don't mean to go off on a tangent, but the fact that socks are allowed & condoned by moderators breaks the trust system if nothing else does.  
I realize enforcing "no socks allowed" rule is impractical, but watching a moderator enter a thread to announce "this is an alternate account of a respected user with over 500 posts" is a bit disconcerting.  

The general intent behind alt accounts is deception -- if anyone feels there are other valid uses for unlinked alt accounts (as in "[email protected] & [email protected]" opposed to "vasya.trolling@home & vasya.selling@home"), i'd love to hear them.

Ineffective enforcement and open collusion are not the same.  The first could be due to circumstances, the second  If we must have sockpuppets who are known to the mods, does a link to their other accounts in sigs & profiles seem unreasonable?  

Edit:  Link to see how it's done (for the curious):  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224763.msg2368173#msg2368173

Theymos, you do not have a fair and complete trust system until rebuttal comments are allowed from users -in-thread- (at least 1 comment deep) to explain things. All you have so far is a spammable system where people can create 1000 sockpuppets (as you allow here) and lie to paint a negative picture of someone for their own personal gain.

Done.

This is a great feature to have. I am glad you got around to adding it.

I think another feature to add when leaving a trust comment is the 'thread' that the transaction took place in. It seems as this is open to loopholes where people could have their friends trust each-other, which defeats the entire purpose. If it "REQUIRES" a thread, it might just be another level of security, we don't have others 'gaming' the system. I doubt it does happen here, but you can never be to sure.

Thanks for this feature, it's looking great so far.

This is the second time where I've banned someone (r3wt who admitted to being extortion) and they abuse the feedback system. theymos, please hide untrusted feedback by default.

This teenager also thinks that it affects me when they sign me up for services that require a confirmation email.. yeah.

This system is a replacement for the scammer tag system. It allows people to trust someone other than theymos for deciding who to tag as a scammer.

There's a bit more to this than that. Theymos removed the scammer tag already on bulanula. I'm not sure why this was done. It seems to have completely ruined any possible chance that bulanula will pay back the 22.5 BTC. And, of course, now he's posting semi-regularly on this account again and will likely start posting just like he used to instead of on his alternate account which has a shorter post history.

I would like this a lot more if Default settings were
Trust list == satoshi
Trust depth == 0

Anything else implements a bias from the board administration.  If the board moderators and who they trust deserve the level of trust that Default would give them, it should be obvious to the user, not forced on them.

If you MUST put a real person on the default trust list why not use someone who is truly trusted by the community like John (John K.)?

I think the trust feature was introduced to make it easier for the Mods (less time spending on debating whether someone needs a scammer tag or whether other users should be warned etc.) and make it easier for the users to perform their own due diligence while engaging with business with someone.
If the feedback is to be moderated this is defeating the purpose it was introduced for..

This is what is relevant to the person, but not their use of the feedback system.


First of all, that's completely different from what you were talking about earlier - that people should not leave feedback for things that are not transactions and that they are not personally involved in.

Secondly, a default truster's job is not evaluate evidence and reputation? Would there be any difference if say, theymos made the 3 non-mods on DefaultTrust a moderator? I disagree on that you need to have a cosmetic title for god's sakes in order to "make a call for the good of the community".


There is an actual issue with how untrusted feedback is completely unmoderated at the moment, without any way to easily respond (unless you leave feedback on their profile, or make a forum post, which most people won't see), and there is "I don't like people giving non transaction, non involved feedback", or arguing over a moderator boolean.

Moderators are judges. They judge what posts should and shouldn't be allowed for example. Theymos decides who should have a scammer tag, and is wrong sometimes too. Theymos's opinion is not to be trusted as law, he has already shown he is wrong many many times in principle and practice. That said, a moderator's job is to look at evidence and make a call for the good of the community. I would prefer a moderator with a reputation to lose to make that decision rather than someone who has a vendetta against me personally for example. The moderator has something to lose (all those juice advertising auction funds) whereas the person with the vendetta has nothing to lose, because they just created that account that very evening to make the baseless accusation.

You either have votes from the community or you have rule of law. This forum has proven time and time again that it is a rule of law community. Whatever Theymos says, goes, despite being dead wrong sometimes. My comments are relative to the status quo. If you want to argue that this forum should be moderated by individuals instead or change the way power is given and used, that's for a different thread (although I'd be happy to investigate the possibilities with you, although I doubt Theymos would ever relinquish his abilities fully knowing that the community would stomp on BFL ad revenue).

People who are not moderators have less to lose by telling lies about others.

Tomatocage has been wrong occasionally on who is a scammer or not, and has been more careful to not make absolute statements. I enjoy his warnings to the community because he is not a libelous hound who seeks to slam everyone, but rather keeps everyone on "pending" whom acts suspicious. There is nothing wrong with this, and this could be done by anyone directly on someone's account page by leaving comments (not numerical, rated feedback that is unconnected to any transactions of any kind).

I don't know anything about OgNasty.

TradeFortress has run smear campaigns against companies for his personal opinion, and gone as far as paying others to express his opinion as theirs. I wouldn't trust a public opinion of TradeFortress for anything. That doesn't mean I wouldn't trust coding, funds handling, etc, and that's another point. Negative feedback is all inclusive and needs to be done with finesse. Just because BFL invested in ASICs and was late doesn't mean they won't eventually deliver, and feedback should not say "THEY ARE A SCAM", but "They accepted preorders and delivered only partially 9 months later". Libel is just too much fun in this community for anyone to resist though apparently. "THEY INTENDED TO SCAM AND I CAN SEE INTO THEIR MINDS". (No, I do not support BFL, I support honesty).

What *is* occurring right now is an abusable and thus broken implantation of feedback system. It needs fixing and it should be boycotted until it is, as it pretends to lend credibility to reputations when it clearly is not fit to do so.


Then for the sake of clarity, let's keep this on that particular topic so that Theymos will wake up and fix it. Despite having hundreds of thousands of dollars in bitcoins donated to him for the purpose of making the forums better, he finds too many excuses for not doing the right thing development-wise and it's time to put it to an end and see this through. Either fix it or don't pretend to offer it.

Oh, and I don't disagree with you on that there needs to be a way to respond to feedback, and a removal process.