Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust - page 14. (Read 16266 times)

Usually? Why is it that "usually" is ok for VOD with stacks of accusations against him while a single accusation against me was grounds for my removal? He CONTINUES to make these "mistakes" and often goes even further by insulting and antagonizing users who make claims against him instead of fixing the situation like he should. Furthermore I have seen MANY complaints against VOD go COMPLETELY IGNORED by staff.



So I see, me responding is a bullshit narrative, but when you respond it is just responding. You were more than willing to fling accusations against me from the very first moment I objected to this logic. Additionally I see your replies to me filled with insults, exaggerations, slander, and flat out lies against me. I have not treated you in the same manner regardless of how offensive you find me questioning your authority. Furthermore, the entire reason I was in the situation I was in was because of users like VOD being allowed to use the system in the way he does, with no explicit rules posted anywhere. Some how I am just supposed to know this is ok for him, but not ok for anyone else.

This isn't passing the blame, this is pointing out the ambiguity and double standards of policy enforcement around here. I admitted my mistake in placing a value to the trust and CORRECTED IT IMMEDIATELY upon request. No one ASKED me to agree to be on the default trust. I never agreed to represent the community, I was just placed there one day without explanation for conducting myself exceptionally over 3 years. Yet some how I am supposed to know these unwritten rules only apply to people like me and do not apply to people like VOD. I could have sorted this all out, but instead the staff got involved and left myself and Armis in a worse state that than when we started. Nothing was restored for either of us. Instead of restorative justice being worked out between Armis and myself, the staff got involved and metered out punishment leaving us both in a worse position, end of story.


Here you go again with your application of extremist ideas to me that I do not support. I do not want to add 3 post newbs to my trust list, but you act as if there is nothing between new ignorant misguided users and the untouchable infallible royalty making decisions such as yourself. If anyone is misrepresenting things it is you.


 What am I jaded from? I don't have to police the forum all day, you do. Any time some one questions your decisions it is always the same accusations of "conspiracy", "paranoia", and claims of ulterior motives. No one is allowed to react to posts except for you, and if anyone else does well it simply is not legitimate. Me vociferously arguing my points is not equivalent to a temper tantrum, but please make some more accusations against me while you insult, slander, and blow everything I say out of proportion, maybe someone will be convinced you do not have trouble controlling yourself, and you aren't jaded from all the bullshit that you are forced to deal with on this forum on a daily basis.

Clearly that is true, because VOD is clearly rational, can handle his position responsibly, and is very clearly checked by the staff when he is out of line /sarc

What does Armis have to be thankful for? Al you did was remove me from the default trust, he still has a negative rating and red on his name. YOU DIDN'T FIX ANYTHING, you just caused more damage. If however you didn't give him the impression you were going to "fix" the feedback for him he wouldn't have tried to hard to slander me to try to get his trust "fixed", and he would have negotiated with me and removed his slander, and I would have removed his negative rating, a solution which I PUBLICLY OFFERED HIM. Why should he even have a discussion with me if he was under the belief you would fix it for him, and he would get his way anyway?


What you define as abuse I define as a justified use of trust. I never once tried to lie about why I left the trust, and in fact I took several steps to try to deescalate the situation while Armis only escalated from his very first contact with me. He had no desire to do anything but harass me, and the staff helped him rather than asking him to account for his behavior. Of course if he hurts my ability to sell that does not affect you, so why should you care or even respond to my reports against him? It is much easier to just burn down my trust as an example to other to obey the staff dictates or else. Meanwhile people like VOD build whole pages full of complaints against him that go ignored. Sounds like uniform enforcement of policy to me.


As a moderator you have the ear of people with the ability to destroy trust ratings and ban people. Of course they will take your word EVERY TIME over any one else making a complaint. Staff are chosen to police the forum, but when that same police like attitude is applied to the trust system is becomes EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE. It is almost an OCD like need to demand perfection in the trust system while you yourself admit you have no time to properly examine these cases, yet you have no problems making conclusions about them with a superficial review. This should be left up to the user base, not staff who can easily rally mobs with little or no effort simply by making a hasty conclusion. All this behavior does is burns precious honest users while scammers, trolls, and extortionists laugh at how easy you have made it for them to rip out the core of the community over unforgivable technical infractions.

To clarify, under the current system if someone wants to purchase an account on default trust list, they need to invest (and risk) a lot of money they will potentially lose if they are caught scamming. They will get one chance before they are called out as a scammer and likely removed from default trust list. Under the proposed system the initial investment would likely be somewhat higher however you would have many more chances to attempt to pull off a scam as the incremental cost to scam with a 2nd account would be very low.

Additionally it would be easy for the seller to keep track of what a default trust list account is doing under the current system while under the new system this would not be possible.

My major concern is that there are very few people who give negative trust to scammers and potential scammers. I would say that tomatocage and Vod are generally the only users that do this on a regular basis (I believe that John K. is also somewhat active in doing this but not as much). Looking at Vod's sent feedback, it looks like most of the users he has given negative trust to have a the 2nd number of -1 (meaning they only have one trusted scam report). The same holds true with Tomatocage's sent feedback (although there did seem to be more users with a -2 for their second score). Especially concerning is that tomatocage has given negative trust to a lot of imposters that have a 2nd trust number of -1. The new system is obviously a work in progress but it does not seem that it would even be a guarantee that either Vod or tomatocage would even be an option to use the checkboxes to add them to your trust list (a user would need to manually do this). I would say this will result in a lot of newer traders potentially only trusting people who are not very active in giving trust (positive or negative) or that no one who works hard in calling out scammers will be in their trust list.

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer. Under the current system (especially with the addition of the new feature of being able to exclude someone from your trust list), if say TF were to suddenly scam (if you were to look at this as of prior to the inputs 'hack') he could quickly and easily be removed from anyone who uses the default settings' trust network. With the proposed system, each user would need to manually remove TF (in this example) from their trust network which will probably not be updated very often. Users may or may not set a trust network and "forget it" but I don't think they will, as a general rule check places like scam accusations on a regular basis to make sure a new scammer who was previously trusted is removed from their network.

I would say that the people who are trusted by default trust should have a somewhat large trust network and be active in adding (and removing as necessary) users to their trust network. I don't think it is necessary to have people like OgNasty and SaltySpitoon on level 1 default trust because they have a very small trust network, having them there doesn't accomplish very much (although they both should certainly be trusted enough to be on level two default trust aka default trust network). I also think we shouldn't have people like CanaryInTheMine who add everyone and their brother they have ever done business with as this will result in people in default trust network that should realistically not be there.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

Other instances of abuse doesn't validate yours or invalidate the decision against you. I think vod has over-stepped the mark a few times recently but he will usually do something to remedy it. You didn't. 


The only person here with a bullshit narrative and who is 'unable to control their emotional state' is you and I don't have a personal mission (unlike you) but I'm just responding to your bullshit.  You just can't look at this from any other angle and attempt to pass the blame on to others who may or may not be abusing the system. Regardless of that, you still abused it. Is it unforgivable? No, but you could've sorted this out all by yourself but you acted stubbornly and immaturely and are continuing to do do. 


You can add a 3-post newb to your trust list if you want, but I don't think that's the sort of behaviour people on the default trust list should have, especially when it is quite clear that person has only been trusted to boost their own feedback. Stop trying to distract from the point at hand. 


No, I've considered it. You're the only hyperventilating jaded, angry child here. One that by the looks of it is never going to stop throwing a temper tantrum all over the place until he gets his own way. 


I don't see how this system would work. The current one works fine as long as we have rational people who can handle their position responsibly and when they can't they get rightfully removed, but of course people will either love or hate certain staff or people being in control when things do or don't go their way. Armis is probably quite thankful they stepped in for this instance. 


This is your biggest mistake. You think you earned the right to abuse your position and it's irrelevant because your trust and trade history has been left untouched only your ability to leave such trusted feedbacks has been revoked, but that was your own wrong doing. 


What fun buttons are those? The ability to move threads? Whoop-de-doo. Moderators can't do much on this forum apart from that and if we abused our power in even the slightest infraction I'm sure we'd have to account for it.  And besides, I have - or you had - the same power as me as does anyone who is on defaultrust and if I abused it in the same fashion as you did I would likely be removed from the list and maybe even as a moderator, that is of course unless I would be willing to see the error of my ways and compromise, which you didn't do. The difference between me and you is I can likely handle the situation maturely without having to resort to feedback abuse in an attempt to get somecone to do what I want (which is what you did by your own admission). Someone wants to troll or harass or state I'm selling something overpriced? Go right ahead. I can rise above it or deal with it without resorting to the feedback system. 

Maybe we should just agree to disagree because this isn't going to ever go anywhere. You think you're right and hard done by and I think you over-reacted and used the system as blackmail and clearly neither of us are going to change our opinion on the subject but I'm getting bored of rephrasing the same old argument to your rehashed points especially over such a petty matter and I'm sure you feel the same. 

This is just the same abusable system repackaged. Furthermore it doesn't serve real newbies at all. By the time they have reached member status they likely don't need the trust system any more to decide who is reliable.

Gyfts has a good idea.  What if you made the new system pop up once a user reached Member or some other status?  That way newbies are protected by DefaultTrust but as they get to know the forum better they can choose who they trust.

Its not an easy thing to change as both systems do help the community but are easily exploitable by certain people.

I think this will benefit people in the forums who aren't new. In my opinion, the trust system should be used more towards newbies because they are the most vulnerable to scams. When they're redirected to that page and forced to choose new users to add to their trust circle, most likely they'll blindly pick members which won't serve a use for them. It's improvement, but I'm not sure if it will be used to its full extent by new users. It's their loss nonetheless.

FYI, I added the top 15 people in your list to my trust settings, and accounts that were proven scammers were showing up in my trusted feedback list.   

I like using just DefaultTrust as it shows me what the community thinks about a person.  I will probably never add individual users to my trust list, and therefore I won't qualify to be on your top 30. 

I don't usually do this, but I'm very unsure about whether DefaultTrust or this new system is better, so I added a poll. My decision will be significantly influenced by the poll, but not absolutely decided by it. I will disregard votes by people below a certain member rank. I might also publish the votes.

If someone only ever uses the checkboxes to edit their trust list, then I will make it so that this doesn't increase the "suggestion points" of the people they select. (This isn't implemented yet.)

It is really amazing to me that with all the ACTUAL ABUSE of the trust system by people like VOD and other "scambusters" going completely ignored, you feel as if my one use of trust that you didn't approve of personally was "blackmail" and and unforgivable attempt to "extort" another user to "shut up". You are taking quite a few liberties with your narrative, in addition to claiming the psychic abilities to know what happens in my mind. You aren't explaining anything, just making up some bullshit narrative to justify your overreaction, vitriol, and attempt to invalidate any of my valid complaints. It is very clear that you are unable to control your emotional state regarding this issue and this has become a personal mission for you.

Furthermore you act as if there is no gap between "a noob with three posts" and the trust list level, this is another glaring misrepresentation. You take everything I say and apply the most extreme interpretation of it as possible to attempt to invalidate the idea. People should be able to make trust networks outside of the clutches of jaded angry children like hilariousandco and VOD. 

If you bothered to actually consider what I said in my posts between your hyperventilating, you would see I am asking for people on the "default list" to have LESS POWER to completely destroy people, and along with that there should be a corresponding removal of any officially staff run trust moderation. This lessens a single individuals ability to burn a user singlehandedly, and also removes the ability for random trolls to create infighting and extort trusted users simply trying to protect their HARD EARNED trust by making endless false complaints.

You claim you don't want the default trust used as a blackmailing tool, but you only want to stop the abuse from ONE DIRECTION, and it just to happens to be a form of abuse you will never personally suffer from because you have all kinds of fun moderator buttons at your fingertips. The REST OF US have to use the tools we have available. If the default trust can be used by more powerful members to negate a users trust ratings, and if trust is moderated IN ANY WAY, then the default trust can ACTUALLY be used to extort users into compliance by ANYONE making a complaint about a rating. Of course since you are staff that will never be a issue for you because you are in the boys club, so why should anyone else be protected from this form of extortion? 

You can already leave multiple trust ratings. So you can already do what you have described. I think that changing it so that feedback can't be altered would cause to many issues.

You'd be smart enough to check, and state your error in the next feedback you post.
OR
Allowing feedback to be deleted within 5-10 minutes of leaving it.

But what if what you left is completely wrong? Or you made a typo  .

If you change your mind, you'd simply leave another +1 or -1, respectively.

What happens with the other side of the abuse, such as BFL's trust competition abuse? A modern day version would be one person making multiple smurfs and hammering people they don't like using many accounts. Now unless someone more powerful comes in and red's all those accounts, it hurt's that user's rating inappropriately.

I also echo the messages that these core members will simply get stronger and stronger ratings and its virtually impossible for anyone to ever catch up with them or replace one of them. I don't have a solution, I'm just not sure if its a good thing.

Well I'm glad my threads have started a bit of a discussion.
regardless that it only somewhat helped me

Why have a default anyway? why is one needed at all?

The issue with not being able to counter or argue feedback, (Especially to the trusted members) is a huge one.

If a noob leaves a BS comment, that's one thing.
If a trusted member does, there should be a method to counter or argue and if the person is found to be leaving BS feedback, they should be removed from the list.

A recommended trust list should still remain and be copied from DefaultTrust, but not automatically enabled, if you're going to do this. I don't want to have to build an entire trust list from scratch, and having some kind of trust list like DefaultTrust does help to make most members on the board have a general idea of who is trustworthy and who isn't.

Unfortunately a basic reputation system like the ones on MyBB forums can't work due to the vast amount of Newbie trolls/scammers. It's a shame.

Why? What if you're wrong or you change your mind? Feedbacks aren't always for scamming and people can always change or improve over time.

The solution doesn't (can't) have to be perfect, only better than what we currently have, right?
Well this is worth a shot, although I do agree with what Vod said.