Topic: Marketplace trust - page 22. (Read 83249 times)

Wait what? So why did you post paragraphs about how humans can be flawed, etc. Are moderators infallible and always right? Does the moderator tag make you a judge?

Giving someone a moderator tag does not mean everything you said (innocent until proven guilty, poor judgement, whatever) doesn't apply to them.

So let's say we have two people, who all give feedback that is valid. Both of them has the powers to give trusted feedback. A has a moderator tag. B does not have a moderator tag. Difference being beyond something cosmetic?

If your argument is that people who are not moderators have poor judgement, then that's another matter. Please elaborate and give examples for the following users who are not moderators and are on the defaultrust list: OgNasty, Tomatocage and TradeFortress.

Saying that they *could* have poor judgement but not actually giving any examples of feedback that you think is invalid (and instead pointing out a feedback for a user that you think should be banned) makes it look like you are really influenced by personal reasons.

Understand the difference between could and something actually occurring?

It doesn't solve the problem, because even I may be wrong in calling someone out as a scammer. Shouldn't that accused scammer have the right to leave a rebuttal in-line with my accusation, and even petition for its removal if it's absolute obvious spam like "YOU'RE A STUPID FAGGOT"? That is the only real issue here, and it's so goddamn elementary I'm actually quite stunned as to why anyone is still considering it a legit system without it.

Right now this "trust" system is a political astroturfing tool, nothing more. It enables people to libel with more speed and accuracy, and affect business more than ever before, all with the added benefit of being completely unmoderated. Wow. What a nightmare. Anyone doing serious business here should boycott these forums immediately until it's fixed, lest they lead Theymos to think that pro-libel anti-transparency is the future we want here on these forums.

You deciding they are guilty is not the same thing as them actually being guilty. There are people who think I am 'guilty' of many things that I know I am not. Should these personal opinions of people completely unrelated and biased to me be printed in bright red on my trust page as if they had legitimacy? Shouldn't they be comments on the same page instead, that don't give positive or negative ratings, and allow responses from me for clarification and correction to anyone reading? You sound like the kind of person who thinks that all people in prison must be criminals and that you're free from being mistakenly convicted too, something typical with people until it happens to them.

The account has been reclaimed, and the feedback is not removed, and cannot be petitioned for removal, so now this person has feedback intended for the hacker permanently stuck to their account? Rebuttals and petition for removal are elementary for ratings/feedback systems. This system is broken for that reason alone.

It has already been proven to be true on numerous occasions, you are disingenuous to pretend that it is not already an epidemic. There are people blackmailing as a business now for removal of admittedly false negative ratings. Forum posts from CanadianGuy himself don't make him guilty. It is not your place to decide, a moderator should have that responsibility, as a moderator has the responsibility of giving a scammer tag too. Either all or nothing here.

Strawman. I said BitcoinQT without source code. You have yet to respond to that example, and instead used an extreme example to pretend that it's okay to make judgement to those of whom you have no evidence of their wrongdoing. Shame on you.

Thank you. Fix it Theymos.

That's not my argument. My argument is that decisions on whom is a scammer, should be made by moderators, not disconnected third parties who love to jump to conclusions. Comments are fine, and rebuttals are ELEMENTARY TO ANY FEEDBACK SYSTEM. That is the point here, and that is why it's broken. Theymos, FIX IT.


That does not remove the negative feedback, allow them to leave a rebuttal for fraudulent feedback, nor allow them to petition it for removal. Stop defending and arguing the basics of why people get feedback; no one is confused about that. We're wondering why Theymos (and those who continue to defend his current implementation) seem to not care at all about how to do it properly.

✓ Yes. Feedback can be incorrect. This can affect people in a negative way, especially if the feedback is "trusted".

There is already a solution to this.. [you or whoever manages the list] removing people who leave incorrect feedback from your trusted list.

Let me go through each of your case for you:

"Innocent until proven guilty": Which is why people generally leave feedback when anyone who sees the evidence will go "guilty". Does this apply in this case?
"Account hacked": Wouldn't it be a good idea to prevent the hacker from scamming more people? Does this apply in this case?
"Someone lying about what they saw": That can be true. Does this apply in this case?
"Poor judgement": Sure. When you have a file named "Bitcoin Stealer.exe" and is flagged by VirusTotal, I'd say that's damn well guilty. Does this apply in this case?

Your point of view is that people could leave incorrect feedback, which is obviously true and undeniable. The argument that because it involves humans, it's broken and needs to be reworked, etc, isn't valid.

+1.

It's absolutely relevant. Innocent until proven guilty. Account hacked? Someone lying about what they saw? Misinterpreting someone's poor judgement (like uploading their own customized bitcoinQT binary and not letting anyone see the source) for scamming? Humans and our opinions are flawed, this is why the legal system has a court to try and examine it before making a ruling. Allowing non-connected people to make their own rulings is silly and disingenuous and only leads to libel and slander. Your argument has been invalidated, you'd be wasting your time to repeat it.


With inline-rebuttals, it would allow you to leave your side of the story for anyone seeing the negative feedback to see and judge on their own. By requiring it to be connected to a specific transaction, all but the most obvious attempts of libel would be outright prevented.


Even trusted people make bad decisions sometimes on poor information, jump to conclusions, etc. In the very least, a form of rebuttal allowed inline would help to counteract this, and there is no logical reason not to allow it.

The current system is broken, everyone knows it, even Theymos, and anyone defending it is hoping it won't change so that they can continue to abuse it.

Fix it, Theymos.

Trusted feedback is feedback from people in your trust network.

What is the difference between trusted and untrusted feedback? Can trusted feedback be faked that easily? I don't think so.

As long as untrusted feedback is hidden (requiring a click or even captcha to see), and the feedback giver's own trust is shown next to their name, I'm OK with the current system.

yelp has you enter a captcha to see their untrusted feedback, I used to be annoyed with this, but I can see why they do it now.

(maybe defaulttrust could be generated by an algorithm some day!)

Irrelevant, we already know who the person/forum account is.

http://news.sky.com/story/1080260/boston-bombings-wrong-suspect-reveals-fears

Are you really this naive? Reddit allows people to "flag" a post, where so many flags auto-hides it until a moderator can see it. That is a much better solution than "HE IS A SCAMMER! HE IS A SCAMMER!" *2 minutes later* "OOps sorry bro, thought you were a scammer"

Sometimes it takes hours after reporting before a moderator deletes something obvious like a virus or spam.

Why do you think leaving negative feedback for those cases is bad? It's like calling out "That guy is a thief!" when you're waiting for the police to get there.

Also, I only rate involved cases if it's obvious and the person affected is calling for a scammer tag, or already left scammer feedback. I could trust the person who left it so it actually shows up, but most of the time I don't want to do that.

Moderator ban, as always.

Moderator ban, as always.

Those issues are not reputation issues, but moderation issues. So would spam. As I already said before, you should always be able to leave *comments* for another user, but it should never affect your score, whether the person who left it is on your trust list or not.

The loan issuer leaves negative feedback, as this is transaction related. Multiple lenders? Multiple feedbacks.

Or you could just leave a comment on his publicly visible trust page that doesn't actually affect his score. I've been late on a loan before, would I want some misguided nutcase calling me a scammer because they "heard about it" from someone else and made an assumption? There's plenty of that going on as it is in this "community", we don't need it to be further enabled by a poorly thought out, easily abused system.

This is not even something worth rating, this is worth banning him for. A moderator should leave that warning or feedback. Theymos seems to think it's his job to do that anyway for people, why stop now?

Then why have scammer tags at all? It seems it's as simple as just removing people from a trust list. Wow.

You're wrong TradeFortress, your view is shortsighted because of your situation and position (you are in a position of anonymity, have already proven you don't mind shilling and paying people to post your opinions, etc, so it is safe to say that you would be abusing this system heavily yourself.)

Theymos needs to stop pretending his is managing reputations and stop offering the service at all, or start offering defensive tools as well, such as petitions for removal (even eBay allows this) and in-line rebuttals.

Theymos, you've been given a real world example, I can give endless more. Fix it.

What if someone posts malware? What if someone spams that scam bitcoin selling site? I'm not personally involved in some definitions, and it is definitely not a transaction.

What about a borrower that defaults on a loan, comes back after a few months and starts to go on a scamming spree. I could post a red warning on post 5+ or whatever of all his posts, or I could leave him a negative scammer rating. I am not the only one leaving non-transaction feedback, many moderators do this, and..


The case re CanadianGuy is totally clear, he admitted to it, and has not paid out. He is still active on the forums.

Choices:

i) Do nothing
ii) Follow him through all his posts and post a scammer warning
iii) Leave scammer feedback for him.


Then I'd get removed from DefaultTrust. Simple as that.

---

I agree. It can be abused. It requires people not giving false

I have long (2 years now) asked Theymos to make a feedback system related to transactions. This new feedback system is completely bogus as it is spammable and is more of a political tool than anything else. Argument below:


Theymos, stop trying to pretend to be managing reputations, but not following through the defensive measures as well.

All feedback should be able to be contested, in-line, and petitioned for removal to mods.

All feedback should be transaction related, and those uninvolved in the transaction should only be able to "comment", not give feedback numbered scores.

I don't really care what anyone's excuses are as to why "this is not necessary", because I know this is the right thing to do and anything else is disingenuous and setting people up for political astroturfing. If you can't see it, it's your problem. Fix it!

The problem is, newbies don't know what TO trust. It's easy to game the system.

I've noticed that several people have been scammed because the poster has the words "Hero Member" under their name. I've had several people refuse to trade with me because I have "Jr. Member" under my name. The difference? The hero's account is only a few weeks old, and he posted 100's of fluff posts. I've been here since 2010. All the hero needs is to make a few fake accounts, give himself a few fake trade ratings, and he's all set to scam.

A newbie has no idea that this is possible. They assume it's (1) hard to get the words HERO under your name (2) it's hard to make fake accounts (3) Untrusted feedback means something.

Right now I think the titles under posters names + showing untrusted feedback just helps scammers

This is contradictory.  What is a "global score" if not the trust a person has from "DefaultTrust"?  The fact that there is some opt-out way to hide this global score doesn't change its nature.

Also, remember that pirateat40 had an absolutely spectacular otc rating.  It's a subject of debate whether or not that rating was instrumental to his scam.  In my opinion any trust system that's easy for newbies to use as guidance effectively suppresses low-level scamming at the cost of assisting epic pirate-scale scamming.  It's like credit default swaps for the economy of trust.

I think this would be better.

I think I'll hide untrusted feedback by default using Javascript. It'll be like:


If I do it this way, I'll add an option to always show untrusted feedback in your profile settings.

Yeah, I was surprised with that today. Whilst browsing on my phone I was speaking to one of the newbies. He had 70 odd posts and only around 2 hours total time....That's just...unreal.