Topic: Positive/Neutral Trust (Read 994 times)

Well, I've spent some time going over previous trust I've left. I changed a bunch of positives to neutral and intend to take a second round tomorrow and do the same. I also removed some negatives completely or revised to neutral as I felt some of them were a heat of the moment thing (although arguably justified). I think we all learn little by little and I'm hoping that I'll be able to look at it more objectively as time passes but it's always hard when you interact with a lot of people while also being very emotional (working on the latter).

Also just wanted to put it out there that if you find any trust rating of mine that can be considered either trust abuse or just bad, I invite you to let me know and I'll look over it and perhaps revise it.

EDIT; spelling errors.

While i wouldn't go to as far as sending a pm to everyone i trade with to get a positive feedback, everyone who trades here want to have those green points.

 this does not indicate trust buying or any sketchy behavior,  i speak from personal experience, i have traded  hundreds of thousands of dollars here( yes no typos )i  bought and sold thousands of bitmain coupons last year from a large number of members here, i was just a random newbie and sadly non of them was a DT, but there is 1000 times more reasons why i should have my profile painted in green more than a person who happen to buy a 500$ item from a DT member and ended up with a few positive feedback, but i sure won't demand a feedback for every trade, and this is the way it has to go.

This is one of flaws about this DT thing we have, i am very well known and trusted in many FB crypto groups, and just about every large Telegram group that has to do with mining gears, but i chose not to buy something i don't need from a  DT member only to get positive trust, so by looking at my profile you would hardly trust me , and you would be naive if you do to be honest, so if i had to go to the extent of pming everyone i trade with to get a positive feedback, i would probably have to excuse myself, tho i sure as hell won't do that.

So people wanting feedback can be for the purpose of making business easier and not having to deal with who would go first or wait for an escrow agent to respond, while i am very certain that many members want those feedback to scam people,  so i think one should think 10 times before giving someone the privilege of being trusted by default, even if they had to be unfair to another 10 users by not leaving them a positive.

Or we could all just agree on a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws being maintained and publicly posted BEFORE negative rating some one, not after. There is no need for a council. We are already all the council. We examine evidence of scams daily in scam accusations and make a collective determination. We just need better standards by which to organize so that the most abusive and duplicitous individuals don't always run everything.

Spaghetti text.

The "council" is the Reputation... or Scam Accusation board. Focusing the power to "respected" members is vague and creates centralization. Any member is able to counter a rating.

1) To verify trades, this requires effort and disclosure of personal details.
2) This proposal can be made inconsequential through spam.

So this trust here is being miss used if I got this correctly. From my understanding trust is earn for some job or something that you have participate here of forum with possible good outcome for positive trust. If thing gone bad then you will probably receive bad review or negative trust, like I have seen many here with red marks, trade with extreme caution. I dont know if this is right question but can this be resolved with council, for example most respected member here or member that are longest here to create something like this and that this can be settled like this. Maybe its huge change, but many say this is abused, can say that something here is right or not but im not here long enough to know, and I dont want to point fingers like kids he did it first.

Apparently this system have flaws like any system and can be miss used or abused from time to time. Maybe this council or something that will be with 3-5 member that will be informed on every trade here can be good but think that then that council would do nothing then just read all that. This is not a solution only observation for possible solution for this problem.

I think that in your situation, giving positive feedback is not a good idea... Neutral feedback is a good solution. I think that leaving a positive review and adding a user to the trust list if he asks is not the best option for these systems.

Please refrain from personal arguments in this thread, we don't need that shit here since I honestly wanted a discussion regarding the neutral/positive question.

Then why spend all your time focusing on low value negative trust ratings for insignificant newbies and abusive negative ratings for well esftablished trusted accounts like mine and rmcdermott927 instead of focusing on using high value positive trust ratings to uplift those who have earned it and truly separate the trusted from untrusted? It’s hard to take anything you do seriously knowing that after the tens of millions of dollars I’ve safely protected for users here over nearly a decade with 100% transparency, you still think I deserve to be distrusted. It invalidates any idea that your ratings are a net positive or that you have decent judgement.

Yeah I don't mind someone sending me a reminder about leaving feedback since I made a transaction and the buyer deserves as much. But when I get a PM where the buyer clearly states "Please give me positive trust for this transaction", that's where the issue starts for me. I do agree with what you are saying though, all transactions should be public and a neutral trust with the feedback stating what it entailed should be worth it's weight too, even though I didn't have to necessarily trust them with anything.

I must say I like seeing the conversations around how to use neutral trust more effectively. Hopefully if more people begin to use it we can see a change where it is as visible as other feedback where displayed.

I think that either are fine and the recipient should be happy with either, especially as this is an actual trade/sale or transaction taking place. I am all for leaving a neutral feedback with a "positive message" for marking an account after a trade. This is good in an instance with minimal communication, minor amounts that required little trust or effort. If in the future you have more transactions with the member or notice through other dealings that they deserve the green then you can update it.

Now maybe your first time dealing with someone there is more of an exchange maybe even some transfer of personal information, it's a higher value item, or just something that required more than dropping it in the post and giving them a payment address. You might find a reason to go straight to a green trust. I believe that you should be fluid in what deserves and doesn't deserve a certain type of feedback, and treat each one on a case by case basis.

Whatever you chose to do it's really the information behind the feedback that matters. Use a good reference so it's clear what the feedback is in relation to. Descriptive feedback , who sent first, was it a small trade; anything that paints a picture of what took place. This way a user who actually looks into the feedback can decide if it's relevant to their situation.

The part about the PM's is kinda annoying but depends on where it is coming from. I know in one of my first deals I did ask the user to leave feedback; as I wanted our deal documented on the forum. If I'm not mistaken they were not on DT and I really had no concept of the system at the time. I have no problem with someone casually reminding me to send feedback, as I like the idea of documenting all of my dealings. I wouldn't necessarily just provide positive feedback because they did.


I couldn't agree more with this statement.

You would think by now people like you would stop placing the blame on red and green numbers and instead admit the fact that ultimately it is all meaningless if the account changes hands. We should be teaching people to do due diligence, not setting the entire forest on fire to kill a few invasive weeds. You have fun with that flame thrower, that is until it is pointed the other direction. Then I am sure it will be a tragedy.

Unless I misunderstood your post, we are on the same page on this. I'm as conservative with positive ratings as it gets (percentage wise). I find green trust very dangerous, and we've had many cases of light/dark green users scamming others (this includes only the portion of threads that I have personally read, there are likely more).

But there are lenders that provide loans to buy trust.

This is a very good point. Maybe DT feedback and personal feedback should be somehow made 2 different things in a possible future.



I've read not long ago the start of a drama about a loan that was somewhat strange and may have been done for having a reason to give trust to an alt account. I don't know if it was true or not.

I have some opinions on some things being discussed that are off topic in this thread.

---

Four negative ratings will be difficult to overcome based on the formula on how trust ratings are calculated (positive ratings after the first negative are weighed less than other positive ratings). This isn’t an important point.

In general, I would advise not giving a positive rating if you cannot articulate the benefit this person has by trading with you. If someone suddenly is specifically trading with someone in DT and not those not in DT for things they had no previous interest in, it is probably not appropriate to leave a rating. If someone is paying above market prices for something when lower priced similar items are available from others with a history of successful trades, it is probably best to not leave a positive rating.

It might be more appropriate to leave a positive rating for a repeat customer than for someone who buys the lowest priced item a single time.

This was different a few years prior, which I think most of us still remember.

Trust should have a weighting based on the risked amount.
We have an equivalent value of trust for amounts from 0 BTC to 100 BTC.^{(arbitrary numbers)}
Though I don't exactly love this, I'm not sure about the best way to rectify the issue.^.
If there are weights attached to the trust values dependent on the risked amounts, would it take too long to load up trust pages? ^.
Additionally, should the negative case be the same, or different? Especially in instances where the risked amount is unclear... what happens then? ^.

Collectibles is filled with members on DT, and I believe I'm the only somewhat active DT member in Lending. I don't think anyone uses Lending for 'buying' trust.

Not only Lauda,but all of his sockpuppets are doing the same.I am sure that you are one of the most honest and fait DT member here.Lauda is just an extortionist whom obsessed to this forum.

Trust ratings should be given based on your opinion while doing trading with that person it doesn't necessarily mean you have ti leave feedback after every person you are trading with.Use positive trust for people who you did multiple trades without any issues,for single trade just neutral or nothing will be enough.

I think trust rating, was solely designed by theymos to be mostly used in the Marketplace section. You could trace back the announcement by theymos as Marketplace trust. As its main purpose was about how a person is while dealing with funds, and if a person has any successful trade and other person pays promptly, both of them should positive trust each other, as its a sign of both letting others know we had a successful trade.

Trust should be more intense in the  Marketplace section of the forum, and its is the same now, so I think it's nothing wrong in positive trusting a person who risked some money in a deal even if it's not too much it still like risking a sum.

The fact that the buyer trusts the seller doesn't necessarily mean that the buyer is trustworthy and deserves a green rating.