Topic: My musings about the trust network (Read 642 times)

Its not your fault your actions have a resounding effect, but it is my fault my actions have a resounding effect huh?

You want to know why? I will cut you some slack, since you are a noob here. This goes back a VERY long time, and involves many conflicts you have no knowledge of, and have no reason to care about because they don't involve you. Also, I am just a very stubborn motherfucker who refuses to submit to manipulation or intimidation as a matter of principle. One would think this would be a highly valued characteristic in a protocol designed to prevent fraud, but apparently the exact opposite is true.

One needs to question, why?

And I'm sure that's a huge factor.  I'm not faulting anyone for their use of trust settings.  Notice theymos isn't weighing-in on any of these debates?  He set up a system that's decentralized.  It's up to us to make sure it works for everybody, not just a select a select few.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: I set up my trust list for my own personal needs.  I never asked anyone to be on DT1 or 2, and I'll keep setting up my trust list for my personal needs if I get kicked off both.  It's of no fault of mine that my actions have a resounding effect on the forum as a whole.

However, there is a method to my madness, as I've tried to illustrate in my original post.  And that's exactly the point, maybe the method of madness I employ is the reason I'm on DT1 (still.)  And those who stack their trust-list with every single trade partner they've ever had, or their friends, or their countrymen?  Probably not.

But you know what the best part is?  Those people can still use their trust list the way they want.  It still works for them to go on as if nothing happened, because really nothing particularly important happened.  They just got kicked off DT1, no big deal, life goes on.  Or is it such a big deal?  If it is, one needs to question why.

Just out of curiosity, why does this look funny to the "rest of you", whoever this tightly knit inner circle might be...


Most local forum participants don't even speak proper English to come here and participate in any meaningful debate except in their local section, so naturally most of their interactions and trust selections will consist of the people they can comfortably communicate with.

In your analogy, this would be like Genghis and a couple of his buddies walking into town, generally minding their own business and setting up a new office somewhere, and suddenly Fiona, Sally and Daniel get very upset that these guys might make a living in their home turf, and decide to torch the offices of the newcomers, or at least "disenfranchise them" as you eloquently put in one of your earlier posts

Why does it terrify some people so much, when some guys who mostly hang out at their own section get to participate in these really minor forum dynamics like Trust and Merit...

If the local sections are contributing to the hits, engagements, statistics and the overall value-added of this website (which are recently in decline by the way), in a decentralized and fair system, shouldn't they also be entitled to some benefits ?

Why is it the case that some of you (who also incidentally each get a lion's share of source merits to distribute every month) seem to have a sworn agenda to prevent this from happening ?..

Yes, if you were honest and your concern was my inclusions, and not just looking cool for your new nepotist buddies by targeting me, you would have contacted me directly. You came to a conclusion first then decided to craft your narrative around it.

Narcissistic? So this is not a fable? You just got done telling me this thread is not about me, and here you are admitting "the final straw" just so happens to be exactly the same scenario that you cite as an excuse for excluding me. I think he doth protest too much.

Regarding BitcoinSupremo, he absolutely did not condone violence. He stated his personal views. He didn't make a call for violence. Homosexuals should be free from violence, and homophobes should still have free speech. Taking a freedom from one group to give to another is not freedom, that is despotism.

That said, in reality it has nothing to do with his politically incorrect words, really it is about targeting him for openly criticizing the nepotism, hypocrisy, and double standards of those maintaining a tight stranglehold on the default trust. Much like this thread itself, it is all part of a coordinated attack to bring retribution for the crime of resisting the nepotism in public. If it wasn't specifically crafted to attack, as I already stated, you would have simply raised your concerns to me personally. Of course that was never your goal.

If there is one flaw in my actions to which I will admit it's not taking the time to PM you and discuss my actions with you privately.  I do like you so perhaps I should have given you that courtesy.  In fact, I should probably start giving everyone I choose to exclude that courtesy.  But your repeated insistence that this fable I've constructed was purely about you is quite narcissistic.  It's not a good look, man.

To be specific, a homophobic bully who condones violence against those who's sexual orientation he finds distasteful was the final straw.  There are and were others, which is what caused me to remove you from my inclusions six months ago.  By not including you the issue was solved.  The issue remained solved until a few days ago when you convinced a disenfranchised ethnic group that you were on their side.  Ironically that ethnic group became disenfranchised for the very same reasons I excluded you.

Unfortunately I can't take you at your word, because if you were being honest, you would have simply raised the issue to me personally instead of attempting to avoid this critical examination of your actions entirely with this whole theoretical scenario, followed by empty pedantry, then by another empty excuse with no actual explanation of the flaws you are supposedly addressing with my exclusion. This is the behavior of some one managing a narrative, not some one with organic motives.

So once again, I will ask, specifically what is wrong with my inclusions? Who, and why?

I use the words that come to mind, substantial or otherwise.  

For clarity I'll try to answer with less pedanticism:  I excluded you because I don't agree with your inclusions.  I don't care to have those whom you've included affect my trust network's ratings and reviews.  That's it, as simply as I can articulate it.

 

Well, okay then.  I'll take you for your word, I hope you can take me for mine.  I'm not trying to be accepted by any club, least of which one that will have me as a member.  I'm not trying to punish you, and the fact that you see my exclusion as a form of punishment speaks volumes about your desire to be on DT1, and that makes me question your motives.

No, I don't think you're a scammer.  Yes, I do believe you are a trustworthy individual, and I find you a valuable contributor to the forum.  I also think you'd be a pleasant dude to share a beer with.  But I don't like how you build your trust-list.

Those are nice fancy words. Makes it feel like they had substance. You still didn't explain why you removed or excluded me, but you sure made it sound like you did huh?

I excluded you, as most of my exclusions, because it is apparent to me I was excluded in an attempt to satiate the existing group of nepotists controlling the DT. The pattern is consistently retaliatory and timed with critical statements of their behavior or that of their pals. Then right out of Goebbels handbook, they accuse me of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. I have been watching your trust list for a while and have watched you ooze your way into the clown car with your virtue signalling inclusions and exclusions, and it worked! You are now part of the in club. Congrats. All it cost was your principles. Now here you are justifying punishing and excluding some one from a system of trust who you know damn well wouldn't steal from a billionaire, to preserve your own special boy status. Good for you. I hope that works out for you. I predict it won't, but good luck anyway.

Lol, no ignorance needs to be feigned.  It's really, really NOT all about you.  Really.

I excluded you because your inclusions are counterproductive to my trust-system philosophy.  Why did you exclude me?  Answer carefully, because it looks like retaliation.

There was a time when I had you included in my trust-list, but about 6 months ago I realized that your inclusion was incongruent to the development of my trust network.  So I removed your inclusion.  

If only gifs were an argument, maybe you would have a point. He is doing what all people terrified of addressing any conflict do, they dance around the subject never addressing it directly. If he had messaged me or even said my name instead of this transparent theoretical which everyone knows the subject is about, at least he would have the nuts to make a direct accusation. Of course he doesn't so he has to hide behind his shield of theoretical situations as if everyone doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course this way he doesn't have to actually defend or debate his position either, because it is all theoretical see!

Oh yeah, shame on DireWolfM14 for sharing his thoughts like a little girl. Your tantrums are so grown up.

That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.

I've added your excellent explanation to the OP of my Trust list viewer topic:

when you chop up quotes they can mean what you want them to I guess.

suchmoon has adopted a different approach ... simply quote a reference to one thread then make a reply to a different thread. LOL

Or steamtyme who cuts my quote short to make it appear I am incredulous that homophobics are not DT1 worthy. When I was incredulous that scammers and racists were and homophobics not.

Let's only do that if you are making it clear you are not really attempting to tackle the central points.

It is GOOD that you admit viewing direwolfs trust list would support our argument.
Since you believe it is generous to call observable undeniable instancesn and their undeniable implications.. a pathetic attempt at making and argument, then you will have no issue debunking it here. Or helping direwolf to debunk our central points. That his musings are bogus or else he is not following his own advice.

So look, anyone here on meta is free to debunk our points. Get on with it.

What is the betting you will not try and if you do try you will fail?

Have you noticed yet we don't have our central points debunked? ever?

why? because they are true and correct.

Once this is all fixed up and honest members are not wearing scam tags or living in fear of getting scam tags from scammers or their supporters. Then we will have very little interest in meta board. For this to happen measures need to be put in place to make that impossible.

If you need more clarity on the central points again, the just ask. We are always happy to present our case over and over.

I myself have a hard time imagining it. Like your good "friend" cryptohunter, you've always proven too lazy to find publicly available information, even when it would support your (what I'm generously calling) arguments.

So now we have it.


They try to prevent you with hoarding their cycled merits.
They try to prevent you by finding ANY excuse to claim you are financially high risk,

If you get the earned merits and they can not find any excuse to say you are a scammer.

They will rthen use their subjective opinions of your judgement of others assumed character traits that either make them suitable or not for DT.

Just another layer of control to make sure ONLY THOSE THEY WANT get on DT1 if you are squeaky clean and get the 250 cycled merits threshold. So far very few have because the 250 earned merits are only given out to that threshold level to their alts or acolytes. TS is one of only a tiny few that have the merits and the clean sheet that are not 100% in their pockets so they are shitting bricks.


This dire posting burger flipper can't even create a sensible and credible case, and refuses to present the RESULTS of his musings and produce his own trust list so we can EXAMINE his judgement CAN HE??

Imagine if we found his trust list riddled with those that have observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing ?? then what about his musings?

BRING YOUR TRUST INCLUSIONS LIST DIREWOLF so we can see if we should follow your guidance and direction to creating our own trust lists. Let's not discuss the possible theoretical results of who would then be there. Let us look at the real time results of your musing and guidance now.

WHAT YOU DON'T WANT PUBLIC ANALYSIS OF YOUR TRUST LIST ? where you are FORCED ON THREAD to say YES OR NO to whether their observable and undeniable actions were trustworthy and show good judgement one by one??

BRING IT. WE CHALLENGE YOU TO DO IT NOW.  Then we may look again at your musings.

That won't be necessary, because the timing of my essay and your inclusion into DT1 was purely coincidental.  Really, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it.  But now that you mention it, there is a significant resemblance.



I understand that big words are hard on you, but you really could have avoided all that hyperbolic kvetching if you would have taken the time to learn the definition of just one word:

LOL at you devouring your own pretzels freshly expelled semi undigested by your merit cycling , trust inclusions/ exclusions  " alleged but fully observable" friends.

"unless" it is rather that you can not read... he will ask alice unless her boyfriend is not around at the time. That does not mitigate ANY of the potential hazards of letting Alice anywhere out of your sight with a large wad of your cash. Unless you could install some reality of the REAL world and her REAL associations.

Well done for accusing us of twisting others words whilst you twist our words and dire posting burger flipper words. Brilliant agent fox poop. ALso willing at once to accept a scenario magnitudes less probable than some girl having her phone grabbed from her and shouting at the thief give my phone back or I report this to the cops. LOL what a vile merit cycling vixen.

And then Agent foxpoop said..... hahahaah

So a good way to not have honest people on DT is to say they have bad judgement and rather have scammers on DT because you say they have good judgement. See how this works you take away the objectively verifiable HAVE THEY SCAMMED OR BEEN INVOLVED IN FINANCIAL WRONG DOING ( lots of DT1 have been) then you replace it with some subjective garbage LIKE do we the scammers on DT  SAY they have good judgement or bad judgement so along with the subjective merits we give out its ike a double security measure to make sure we don't get honest people who will stop our scheme we have going.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really though,

Alice probably designed our DT election process (then was talked into making it worse by jeff and bob)  then went off believing all those very kind and respectful people on meta that are very nice to her (face) are also to be trusted to act totally selflessly when there is money on the table and no more accountability to anyone except themselves. Also didn't notice that they were a bunch of servile sneaky back stabbing scamming trust abusing scum who like to feel they at last have some small amount of power at long last after being bullied all of their pathetic lives.

Luckily some of those excellent people on meta have been trying to back stab alice lately and not been so nice she notices. Alice is starting to wonder if these people are not as trustworthy as she originally thought. Let's see how it progresses now that her REAL friends have shown up on meta to reveal the TRUTH to alice that she has been taken for a mug and it is time to face the observable instances of wrong doing that those nice friends on meta have been up to , and how they have clubbed together to silence her new REAL friends whilst attempting to stay in positions of power to cream off all of the best sig campaigns and act out their revenge for being bullied all of their lives.  If Alice wants REAL friends who want to really help her then she must stop assisting those back stabbing, scamming, and ruthless slime balls silencing via spamming, trolling, trust abuse, weaponizing gamed and abused metrics.

That's all to complex for most meta dwellers and far too long. These posts are primarily for the people that will read this board as students of the root hub of the paradigm shift that is about to take place, and Alice if she is waking up.

Alice (the real alice) may be intelligent but has been brought up by a scientist on an island 300 nautical miles  SSW of the Fiji

Actually that scene in twins with the smooth talking fellow underwear admirer is brilliant. It is almost a perfect analogy of how it works around here. Suchmoon befriends Him, then signals for tman or lauda on the bike to grab the case of money and goods.... haha then after they are accidentally harmed whilst robbing (given red trust and booted off DT the first time) he takes pitty on his poor new pals and tries to help fix the damage. LOL brilliant

Here is the suchmoon edited version that cuts out the part where she signals to her pals to steal the case to make it look like theymos just being careless and inconsiderate and heavyhanded..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS-zP7JWJUo

any witnesses that have the full clip then please produce it.



The scene where jeff asks alice to LIFT the merits bar to 250 earned. Helping those poor victims that could be out there about to be harmed if the wrong people with not sufficient cycled merits were to get on DT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADFz4JYOVWw

You see if you raise a members merit score to greater than 250 then the automatic assumption they are trustworthy cuts in and you can scam and get away with it.


Movie of  alice once she has been on the mainland a while and met a new REAL FRIEND and REAL LEGEND  discussing their  latest views on bob an jeff and their merit cycling bitches haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzvFNLAnYNw



OR perhaps...


Theymos arriving at meta board for another long day ahead...haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DjGVcFwD3I

Vod clearly having a good time...lol



Meanwhile cryptohunter (played by the same actor our fav) on route to the DT1 merit cycling party....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9FYBjSc3cU

Excuse me I forgot to introduce myself " I'm Cryptohunter and I love my unsullied trust score"....  haha

Tman I don't like you using foul language, not a classy auction scammer like you haha

What a true lengend that guy was.

Take your time read a post understand the users point of view before you start replying. Hope you saw this part of my post qouted above before you started providing stats and giving pointless interpretation.

Statistics (in Daily merits over local boards) show that there are not significantly merits distributed in most of local boards. There are only a few of them have significant merits distributed per day: Russian, Turkish, and German.
Median values are p50 values in the below table.
Fortunately, there are not many outlier days (that presented by red circles)
In my understandings:
- Trust relates to trading with others
- Feedback, you can leave feedbacks for so many reasons, not only trading issues, and trustworthiness. (One can leave feedback with spam posting behaviour, like @The Pharmacist and @actmyname did before merit system; and for many other reasons).
To be in DT team, users need to have enough Trust vote, and long history in DT team. If someone only voted (enough) into DT team, a few hours or days, personally I don't see them as real DT members. It takes time to verify their received trust votes, and their acts with DT-member powers.
It is just for very serious and noisy cases because the main ideas of theymos to create Trust system years ago, and adjusted it at least three times (I am not sure, but maybe: Original Trust system; Default Trust change; Trust flags), is to stay away from those things. He wanted decentralized solutions from community-led interactions.
If one DT1-member abuse Trust list by including so many 'friends', other DT1-members will exclude that one from their trust list.

I gave you a couple of merits because I agree with the general concept in your post. The example of anti-vaxers is relevant. In my opinion, people who promotes forced vaccination are untrustworthy, their opinion indicates that they are not capable of researching such an important topic that affects the welfare of their children, and they just accept the controlled and biased media reports. Because of this , I would treat their judgements with suspicion. They may well be honest ( but misguided ) people, and could be trusted in a trade.

Obviously this is a subjective opinion, and is based on my general observation of society, and I think it indicates the difficulty that arises from having a dual function trust system.

You just said it all. One of the major problem of this forum is the local boards. When it comes to merits, the members just get flooded with merits unnecessary to the extent they could rank up far more easily compared to their peers on the english board. The trick they use is, the meriting doesn't usually occur on the local boards since there isn't much to discuss there, it's a mixture of both english and local board.

Well we're not discussing about merit so let me get back on topic, Trust issue; To my understanding the DT list should consist of users who's feedback should be considered trustworthy but when you observe the users making the list that got there due to the massive support of their local board members, you'll notice immediately they have little or no history in giving trustworthy feedback (in other words no history of policing the forum). So if I may ask how then, do you determine a users judgement to be trustworthy if there isn't any work to should for it? Some might say their posting habbit but that shouldn't be the case, we have merits to take care of everything relating to posting behavior.

Solution: Theymos should manually blackish all users on the DT list (especially DT1) that doesn't have convincing history of policing the forum. DT should be all about policing the forum and nothing more. Any other reason that doesn't involve actions on the forum should be kept aside, you don't based judgement on emotions.  The funny part is, the moment they get those privilege you start seeing funny positive trust farming like"This user is very active and a quality poster in my local board" sent to themselves.

Of course. Because if there's one thing I love lapping up more than the taint sweat of my alleged merit/trust buddies, it's the equally hot and salty pretzels you so lovingly make by twisting other people's words.


Clearly, DireWolf's point is that he will not in fact call Alice to handle his large sum of cash, precisely because of her relationship with Bob. Trust you to read the opposite of the actual meaning because you don't know what a simple word like "unless" means.

I don't think this matches typical expected human behavior. I would expect a person to include Alice in their trust list as a means of supporting her, even if it is known her judgement is flawed. A person may "manually" ignore the trust ratings of Alice's boyfriend and other friend by not considering these ratings when considering the trustworthiness of presumed unrelated third parties, but anyone including you in their trust list will be SOL. I would not expect a person to even exclude Alice's boyfriend or other friend from their own trust list out of loyalty to Alice. 


I believe you are describing various social circles interacting with eachother via the trust system; the social circles happen to be focused around ethnic groups. This may be one example as to why a single "default trust" is inappropriate, despite no good alternative solution. I would expect various social circles to include eachother in their trust lists, and if a dominant social circles feels threatened, they may seek to either exclude the competing social circle, or persuade members of the lessor social circle to develop their trust list in the interest of the dominant social circle. Some people are skilled at playing politics and have shown themselves to be beneficial to multiple social circles, sometimes by showing they can be helpful to social circles that do not even speak the same language.

I do not wish to get involved in trust system politics, but I do not believe the trust system is reliable for the reasons stated above. I believe the trust system could be accurately described as a popularity contest. In probably the majority of cases, those within the 1st level of the trust system demonstrate solid judgment, but this is not true all the time.

Looks like Alice wasn't thrilled about it:

You are just folding as a form of conflict avoidance. This whole thread is a giant dance of conflict avoidance. You cant even say my name or PM me your concerns like a real man, you have to dance around with metaphors and examples. You are just caving to the mob because it is most convenient, that is all there is to it.

EDIT:

"By allowing Alice to remain on DT1 she would enable a suspected embezzler and convicted thief onto DT2."

Please do source the substantiation for these claims in the non-theoretical context if you will.

Let's have a look at your analogy, that falls down almost immediately and tells the discerning reader to pretty much ignore the rest of the retarded ramblings.

SO...


1. YOU have a friend ALICE

2. ALICE has

a/ a boyfriend you suspect is fucked up enough to scam his own granny
b/ a boyfriend that has a friend who is always around that is a known and convicted thief
c/ friends that you say would consider taking and mishandling fire arms and explosives to a party on a boat whilst excessively indulge in alcohol and drugs. (alice invites you)
d/ a propensity to believe anyone that is nice to her she can trust.

and wait for it folks....wait wait.......if you needed a friend to deposit a large sum of cash into my bank account you would call ALICE??? WTF

Hahah let me listen to your advice on things please. hahaha


If it does not get stolen, spent on crack, blown-up, shot, thrown over board, burned, eaten, or freely given away to that lovely man who said he would help alice carry it to a different bank that was run by fluffy tailed squirrels ... Foxpoop get over here please you are going to lap this one up.

I guess when that happens you could start an loan shark scheme up - where you charge massive interest to bobs granny or others less well off than yourself, depends on how much you have left I guess.. lol


You story is fun (in a bad way) but let's be sensible on bitcointalk for a moment and implement something that actually is not full on retarded and gives these HIGH MERIT brain box musers and scammers with brilliant judgement regarding others wrongdoing but terrible judgement with regard their own choices to observably get busted for financially motivated wrong doing.

Can you present your TRUST INCLUSIONS so we can see what your amazing insights have resulted in.

Is the next part of the story where you include BOB (lauda) and Jeff (tman) because although you don't want them taking your money to the bank, they can recognize other scammers like themselves and bust them to make themselves look trustworthy whilst taking granny's cash and stealing and peoples electronics. Then imagine when they get their hands on the guns, explosives and crack. They can get people hooked on the crack( merits) use the guns and explosives to extort and silence other members. This is brilliant. Just when we thought your analogy was totally bogus it goes and describes the current trust system rather well. Oh actually....

That's great we should fill DT with bob's and jeffs and their pals because they can spot people like themselves. Then because they are so honest they won't collude together once in DT power to use their great judgement against OTHERS but NOT EACH OTHER.

Haha this is a brilliant story. I want a trust system like this. Oh wait..

Lap it up lemmings.

How about we get people that are not observable scammers and willing scam facilitators who collude to send merits to each other, include each other on dt and all collude to exclude anyone that they perceive as a threat to their entrenched power to scam and punish anyone else who mentions they have scammed by giving the whistleblowers scam tags. The get themselves on all the best sig campaigns for the highest rates? imagine we scrapped that brilliant design??

Brilliant, give the OP more merits. Certainly original, thought err inspiring (in a bad way) and a bit too long (how did you all struggle through all of those words???)

Here are our musings and common sense approach.

1. Get 20 -30  legends/heros with lots of trading history and NO observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing at all.
2. Make them DT members, when and if they make provably BAD decisions that have negative impact on people financially, then we can decide if we remove them or not and replace them with others that fit with 1.
3. Serious undeniable wrong doing financially then we delete their accounts or reduce them down to newbie with a scam tag on.

How could it be any worse than it is now? do you really think you will EVER have peace on a forum where those that are observably financially high risk (some proven scammers and scam facilitators and their supports and weak ass dregs that dare not stand up to them (AND HAVE SAID SO IN PUBLIC), openly admitting to putting scam tags on their whistleblowers. LOL

Lets not start confusing it more with race, gender, religion. Scamming is scamming, financially dangerous is financially dangerous. No matter from who.

Now let's await dire posters TRUST LIST so we can see the end results of this MUSING.

BoB was booted off - so he won't be there. Although we wonder if Bob was on there before he good manually removed lol

How about jeff? is he on your trust list?

Still good effort (for you). Keep trying and we will keep assisting you.

Recently? How long are you around? The very concept of DefaultTrust in an anonymous forum is fundamentally flawed. Human trust system does not work unless real world identity is at stake. Here, you really dont know whether Alice, Bob, Jeff etc. are all the same person. Most of the people in DT and the people trying to be in DT are doing it for one simple reason - To break trust and gain at some point directly or indirectly. Disagreed? Right?

Tell me how many of our today's great DT members left +ve trust for Friedcat? They were mostly at the top of FC's ponzi. They all gained. But, they are still there. Same for Tradefortress and Pirate@40. These real scumbags were never kicked out of DT.

Now, in the new trust system, this corrupted status quo is being challenged. This is creating a jitter among them. They are trying to circulate as much merit among the old group as possible and scathing to be a merit source to have as much as possible 250 merited alts. Some are even demanding DT to be Legendary only!

The show will go on...

This was well thought out.

So well thought out that I put you on my trust list.
I also  took  the default list off my list.

I also gave you 6 merits.

It is not very often do I read a post of this quality and content in meta. Thank you

suchmoon pointed out this thread after I posted this:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52398949

And this a link to what I posted back in June:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/do-we-need-1-more-datapoint-for-trust-in-trades-and-only-trades-5154576

DireWolfM14 / o_e_l_e_o you are both 100% correct in what you are saying, and with:

You do paint a good picture. And it's a good idea.

But, I still think we need to separate money from everything else.

I know it makes me look like a horrible human being when I say "I don't care if you are an ass, who is rude to people I only care if I can trust you with BTC"
But, with the system we have we are stuck with it.
Which is why I have been advocating for a separate "trade trust" and "forum trust and feedback" feature.

Because, if you can say "This person is a vile and disgusting human being, who is racist and homophobic and you really want to shower yourself off after dealing with them" is a fair thing to post (if it's true) BUT, in the marketplace / trading sections you should be able to see: "Did 5 trades with them totaling much money, deal was fine every time" then I think this would be a better place. There are people not leaving honest trust because of social political reasons. Having straight trade info, and nothing more would

As a perfect example IRL.
I think anti-vaxers are morons who should be eliminated from the gene pool.
I just sold one of them my old dirt bike. I don't hang out with him, I don't really talk to him, and I think he is an idiot.
But, he showed up on time, brought a friend with a trailer, had the agreed amount of cash, gave it the quick once over and loaded it up and left.
This is real life, we are not in a bubble. There are billions of people on this planet, we are going to have opposing views with a lot of them.
It's nice to know in advance, who has views we disagree with, but we can still trust to do what they say.

I know I have been saying we need trade trust for a long time that is independent of everything else.

I'm not getting much traction, but I will keep saying it.

During that time I will probably do what was suggested and "include users whose ratings I want to see, and exclude those whose ratings I don't"

Thanks for reading my rant (again)

-Dave

Side note:
Just leave early, until the explosives and guns come out it could be quite a party :-P

This behavior in particular strikes me as odd.

I've often seen posts along the lines of "There's nothing stopping me adding all my friends (who have left me positive trust) to my trust list" and "It's not against the rules". Which is, of course, true. Trust and trust lists are not moderated, and so if you want to self-scratch to high heaven or positive rate or add all your friends, then you are free to do so. But if other users don't agree with your ratings, or those of your inclusions, then they are equally free to exclude you. There have been a number of users who claim complete impunity on how they set up their own trust list, and in the next sentence complain at how others set up theirs.

I am starting to gravitate to the method of setting up your trust list as advocated by suchmoon: I include users whose ratings I want to see, and exclude those whose ratings I don't want to see. Any resulting change to the default trust system is a side effect.

The first thing I’d like to do is eliminate any ambiguity that might exist in the terminology.  Frequently the term “trust” is used in a a couple of ways:  The term might be used to refer to feedback left on a user’s review wall, and it might also be used to refer to inclusions or exclusions in one’s trust settings list.  For this article I’ll use the word as it’s defined by most dictionaries when it pertains to people; an assuredness and confidence you have for another individual’s honesty, ethics, and morals.  So what does it mean to trust someone?  No doubt trust means different things for different people.  In order to answer that question from my personal perspective I’ll try to paint a picture of a real life dilemma. 

Let’s say, hypothetically, I have a friend and her name is Alice.  Alice is a wonderful person, she’s generous and helpful.  Alice is always kind and in a pleasant mood.  And I trust Alice to always do the right thing.  If I was sick and needed a friend to deposit a large sum of cash into my bank account, I’d call Alice…  Unless her boyfriend, Bob is around.  Bob is a nice enough guy, but I suspect he’s embezzling money from his elderly grandmother.  Bob’s best friend, Jeff is frequently around as well, and he was convicted for selling stolen electronics.

One thing I’ve noticed about Alice is that she doesn’t have the best judgment in other people’s character.  She’s rather naïve and gullible, and tends to associate with people whom I do not trust.  The other thing about Alice; she doesn’t seem to know there’s a difference between liking an individual and trusting him.  She trusts everyone she likes, which I believe is also a lapse in judgment.

Now, that’s not to say that Alice is always making poor decisions, even when risks are involved.  But sometimes she does.  If she were to invite me to go rock climbing with her and her experienced father, I would accept.  However, if she were to invite me to a party on a house-boat with her friends who’ve been known to excessively indulge in alcohol and drugs, while mishandling firearms and explosives, I’d graciously decline.

If I were to apply the analogy above to the forum’s trust-system: I would give Alice a raving review for her trustworthiness by leaving her positive feedback on her review wall.  But when it comes to my trust-list settings I would not include Alice.  Although I thoroughly trust Alice and consider her a close friend, I have very little confidence in her ability to pick trustworthy people for her trust-list.  Of course Alice has set her trust-list to include her boyfriend, Bob and his friend, Jeff, both of whom I explicitly distrust.  If Alice’s bitcointalk.org account was voted to DT1, I would then exclude her from my trust-list.  By allowing Alice to remain on DT1 she would enable a suspected embezzler and convicted thief onto DT2.

Whether I’m a newbie or a legendary DT1 member, the trust-list settings I apply are going to be a reflection of the way I would handle real life analogous scenarios.  By excluding Alice from my trust-list I would eliminate the influence she and her friends would have on the trust-ratings I see in the trading sections of the forum.  It’s that simple.  I set my custom trust-list to elevate the ratings of those whose judgment I find valuable, and minimize the ratings left by those whose reviews I don’t find valuable.  I could still trust Alice as a trading partner, and value her friendship and contributions.

Recently there have been many dramatic events that stem from the forum’s trust-system.  Some members have levied suspicion that racism or nationalism is an influential factor in voting for DT1 inclusion.  Some local groups have indeed made consorted efforts to include members of their particular ethnic group into their trust-list, and it looks funny to the rest of us.  Some of the included members have some shady history, and legitimate negative reviews, making things look even more suspicious to the rest of the forum.  When other members respond by excluding the DT1 members of that ethnic group, ironically that’s when the allegations of racism and nationalism begin along with retaliatory trust-list exclusions.

I don’t suspect there’s anything malicious that leads one local group to include members of their ethnicity to their trust-list.  I think much of it stems from a misunderstanding of the system itself.  The word “trust” is repeatedly mis-used to describe many facets of somewhat complex system, and the repeated use of the word is compounding the confusion.

The retaliatory reaction from these members is also a bit concerning.  It goes beyond their own review visibility (which is being adversely affected,) but they could jeopardize the balance of the system in other smaller ethic groups or the forum as a whole.