Topic: Should we hand out neutral/neg tags like candy?(open but might be future edits) (Read 725 times)

It's not negative. The reputation system is not for signature campaign eligibility/ineligibility. It's up to the campaign managers whether they will allow neg/neutral tagged users. It depends on the legitimacy of the tag, regardless of whether it's negative or neutral. A valid neutral tag has more credibility than an invalid negative tag. actmyname's tags are related to users posting habits. When he leaves a neutral tag on any profile, he reads the last couple of pages of the user post history. He will leave a neutral tag if he believes the user writes posts below standard. Of course, campaign managers don't want to hire low-quality posters. You will notice many members are in the signature campaign with negative tags because some of the tags are retaliatory, and some of them do not have enough evidence.

actmyname's neutral tags might be negative from the particular user's perspective. But it's neutral and a warning for others. No matter if it's negative or neutral, as long as the feedback is accurate. Make sure it's legitimate feedback.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. You should really try to understand before posting. This is not an accusation against anyone in the thread, it's a thread meant to teach users when to leave a tag, when not to leave a tag, and what tag should/could be used.

Go through and read some of the responses. There are some great replies about posters views on tags.

Yes, maybe you are right. Even if the person is not directly involved in the fraud, there must be someone who is truly deceived and provides clear evidence of his fraudulent actions. If not then it's not fair. In this forum, getting positive tags is very difficult and negative tags are very easy. That's an imbalance.

Neutral tags also do not mean neutral. I just found out that actmyname tags will prevent members from participating in @icopress signature campaigns, so actmyname's neutral tags are negative.

So it's true said yahoo. Neutral tags are given out like candy, regardless of the consequences...

Hand out like candy is simply means people are taking easy about it without need to think about the future effect.

It's really wrong if you only use neutral tag for personal conflict, the problem are only you and him, leaving a neutral tag make everyone know about your problem, what's the benefit for us to know someone else problem?

Leaving a negative feedback when someone not directly get scammed is fair as long as the case is legit, the more people leaving negative feedback, the more decentralized the forum is. This would be useful if the scammed user is gone and he not in DT anymore, so with other users' feedback, people still get warned about scam in the past.

It's up to him to use neutral or positive feedback for anything involved with money. If someone will get positive feedback via trading, some people will abuse it for just trade for small amount money,

I don't know what you really mean by 'handing out like candies' but I think neutral tag should only be used when you had direct interaction/conflict with the user. I mean people seem to use negative feedback even when they are not the one getting scammed or have an issue directly with the user. Like when someone help you with something that is not involving money, so you think that it's not worth the positive feedback. Or something less positive like the neutral tag I got from Jayce, I never complained about this because it seems just fair.

As someone who frequently watching scam accusations and complaints raised between a platform and their users, I have to admit --a known fact, perhaps-- that I resort to utilizing neutral and negative trust at times to attract the involved parties back to the unfinished discussion. But that is not without reason and not easily, i.e. not like handing candies on halloween. The occasion I put tag on those accounts, if my memory serves me right, can probably be counted by one hand post frost-bite incident, and immediately retracted once the addressee returned to the topic and clarify the situation. The tag were also --IMO-- justified by the development of the case at that time. For example, platform X went radio silent in the middle of several unresolved disputes with unforeseeable chance of them returning, which --again, IMO-- entitled to be seen as suspicious, thus the tag.

If I was asked with a question whether neutral or negative [or positive, even] tag should be given out like candies? For neutral, I think that is the purpose of neutral as per Loyce's guide and as he'd stated several post above me; To leave something that's not necessarily good or bad and to de-escalate a situation. So yeah, as long as the neutral is not a disguised negative [marked as neutral but said something that goes with "this bitch slept with my Dad"] it's fine. But I am agreeing with what nutildah said too, if a user was planning [regardless they openly admitted it or not] to use it for personal note, it'll be better to keep it private.

Other than when I use the neutral to mark some accounts back when I investigated clusters of spammers alt-accounts one year ago, I don't recall I've use them as my digital assistant. I relied on my good old-fashioned notebook and sticky notes to write things I found on this forum or cases I am currently overseeing when I am not sure of something instead of relying on making neutral as my stick notes.

While for negative, I'll say, no. There should be a strong motive and evidences behind it, signs that point to a justification to leave the tag. I'd like to see myself as someone who's quite conservative on tags too, that I'm not that interested on painting someone's account red or neutral, without educated reason. And when someone pointing it out to me and prove me wrong to tag someone with red, I am not reluctant to revise them immediately.

Of course, I might be biased when I see myself and my justification against me from my very own perspective and my memories might served me wrong. But that's what I thought regarding candies and trust feedback.

Those things said, I'd like to venture to a topic that perhaps several will consider as out of topic. I separate it with a line, so in case anyone are not interested to read a thought about something outside the justification of distributing neg/neu like candies, you can stop here.

---

Text below can be considered out of topic

---

So, I took this topic to bed last night, after reading the whole thread, with Gazeta's post [suup, by the way] as the one ignites it. I was thinking, and these text below can be perceived as me thinking out loud, that perhaps its time for the forum to get better acquainted with the third sister of the trust system. The community were too absorbed and focused on the older two sisters --the Trust List, a.k.a. Tilde, and Trust Feedback, a.k.a. PosNeuNeg-- that the younger one is underutilized and overlooked, or perhaps misused under misconception: Trust Flag.

I have to say that the concept of flag probably pose as a quite uncharted territory for many, and can be quite threatening due to its semi-permanent nature [can't be deleted once raised, can only be retracted], and I might propose them wrongly on this occasion --though as per theymos' own explanation, I don't think I am. But --as per last night, and it's still a working in progress on the back of my mind-- I think it served the very purpose of decentalized trust and DT system intended by theymos, given that the current trust system [Trust Feedback] we use were intended for marketplace. What theymos said about flag's purpose,


With flag, even non-DT can raise their case and ask for support or opposition from DT to activate it. It offers equality instead of exclusivity on feedback system where only DTs's scores are visible. Whereas the DT can exercise their judgment [and the trust vested into them by elected into DT] in a way that's non-centralizedly affecting the subject in question as the number of DT who supports or opposes the flag directly affect the outcome of the account being "marked".

One case can be perceived differently by DTs, this is not a secret. One DT might inclined to support a case [flag] against certain member due to their personal reason and/or past history with said member [read: re-tal-i-a-to-ry] while other DT disagree with the flag. And so the "war" begin where the biased support will be drowned by the opposition [vice versa] and the account will or will not get the banner activated.

This is a much more decentralized system than the trust feedback where one DT's opinion against other will instantly reflect on the said member's account.

And, in a way, the nature of unremovable flag might pose as a learning medium for everybody to exercise research and strong basis prior to escalating anything instead of distributing them like a dentist on Halloween.

We communicate on the forum with people who have a particular character trait. In life, we also add up our impressions of a person and very often do not change them. How does a neutral tag interfere with a user about whom someone writes that he is probably not who he claims to be? As history shows, those who disagree always receive a more hard assessment of society, which they are no longer able to change. In addition, each neutral or negative tag must have a reference link that can be considered. If managers do not agree with the assessment of neutral tags, they have the power to decide whether to accept a person into their subscription company. All user indignation most often comes from the fact that managers offer to resolve the issue with a neutral tag.
Why not take responsibility and decide for yourself whether they need such a person or not?

Thank you for commenting but you added nothing to the thread. Just a little agreeing and ass kissing. I'm not looking for any justification or praise, I want uneducated people on how the system should work, to read this thread and the replies and grow as a user on this forum.

I think, many people has learned something good from this thread yahoo62278, which will make some people to be caution of how to use the tag at the right time not in the wrong way.And many people have hit the right points that made people to appreciate you for the idea.
People always have time for something that will bring progress to the community unless those who have some grub in their minds will not support progress, and what you brought here has changed many people mind not to misused their opportunity anyhow.

To be honest, yahoo62278, that is a rhetorical question. With the same question you have already given the answer. Before reading the OP, just with the title, I already knew the answer was going to be "no, we should not hand out neutral/neg tags like candy".

Since apart from expressing your opinion in that rhetorical question you also seem to want to know what others think I will tell you my opinion, which I am sure is not the most popular, but it is mine.

For me the trust system should be a warning system, not just a system to verify that someone has scammed when there is irrefutable proof of it and he will not come back to the forum.

In another thread I was talking about the difference between civil and criminal cases in jurisprudence. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil cases simply require it to be the most likely hypothesis (at 51%) to convict someone.

The cases we deal with here are not remotely similar to criminal cases. A couple of red tags do not sentence someone to life imprisonment or the electric chair. To me they are more like civil cases, although when I write a tag I assign it a probability (subjective, according to my analysis) of at least 90%.

I do not know, call me crazy if you want but I have not plagiarized, I have not cheated, I have not been banned, and consequently I have not created alts to avoid the ban or things like that, and when I start to see evidence of someone who probably has done several of those things, what I think has to be done at least is to leave a neutral tag, but preferably a negative as a warning.

This is what I think, or at least what I have thought so far. I have given myself some time away from reputation issues, so I will control my so-called "aggressivity" and will give it a thought in the meantime.

Neutral feedback can have many interpretations, but it remains neutral and nobody should care so much about it, however I remember some members begging others to remove it, so maybe campaign managers pay attention to it.
In most cases I see nothing wrong with people adding Neutral tag and this doesn't need to have any links or proof, but some people switched from giving easy negative ''candies'' to neutral, to avoid criticism from DT members.
Instead of using Neutral feedback for making notes on other members, now we have BitcoinTalk User Notes script made by TryNinja, and it can be used with Tampermonkey, Violentmonkey and similar alternatives:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/script-bitcointalk-user-notes-5411599

I wrote this years ago:

I've always tried to be conservative with feedback.
Before leaving feedback, I like to ask myself: "Does this make the forum a better place?".
The last 18 feedbacks I've left, were all neutral. It varies from "this user confirmed he never wants to take a loan" to "Trust abuse", "plagiarized my post", "confirmed owner of xxx" and "chat bot spammer, don't waste time on it".
I don't think I hand them out like candy, and I think that's how it should be.

Yes I agree with you. But if there are no clear rules among the DTs, of course what is discussed here will evaporate when this thread sinks. I propose a few points which may be worth considering

1. Thread rules
2. The judgment thread can only be opened if the OP has preliminary evidence and preliminary analysis
3. Tread appeals must also bring evidence of the defense
4. Tags are given when the results have been decided (especially red tags)
5. Tags can be temporary (Have a certain period of time / permanent)
6. Neutral tags that don't have proof can be with better language (without judging) like = This account is under surveillance in 30 days

@yahoo62278, you remind me of one of the books I've ever read, NEUTRAL and NEGATIVE positions.

There are several points that I can conclude about this thread, but before I quote some understanding, I think that all the problems that might occur depend on the case that ensnare the user, Neutral in my opinion cannot be made permanent, except: As you said the evidence is valid in that case.

Points: 1
* But if the case can't prove anything.

I think we should refer to the basics of being neutral.

In that it will be a consideration for DT members who have provided Neutral to other users, on the basis of no valid and stubborn evidence.

Points:2
If we refer to the basic attitude below.

Of course Neutral is not needed, does the end of the story remain cornered and neutral can change to Negative.

Conclusion: For me, Neutral can be used against users who are accused with valid evidence and it depends on the case, and if it's a fraud case or one that can harm other people, of course, the negatives are also not in doubt.

However, if the case cannot be proven valid, do not act, wait for the evidence, the evidence collected will be followed up, Neutral or Negative.

You can read all the post with recommendations from theymos to make it more clear, but I'll quote some point right here:


So right, Trust system is about trading, but if some cheat in anything else how can they be trusted in trade? If I see that someone is a cheater or a lier I suppose that I should warn others so they be more cautios dealing with that one account. They can ignore my tag if they don't think that those cheats I will mention are reasonable.

The same about positive tags: if I see that someone is responsible and I think he will hardly cheat I can leave a tag saying that. So anyone can see my review and make own conclusions.

But, well, you are right, there are inappropriate tags also. Some leave tags for an opposite position, in response for a tag left for them, or just because they don't like someone. It is not what we expect from a Trust system.

The reason for the thread is for learning and growing, not for myself but more for the ignorant or the stubborn. I'm well aware that people have their own opinions and are going to do what they want when they want, but I am also aware of some that are ignorant of how the system works and they can read this discussion and maybe walk away with a better understanding of tags and when or when not to use them.

There should never be a time where someone feels they are too smart to learn. I also think that the stubborn might walk away with a better understanding and maybe change themselves a little. Call it naive, but in general I want to think that most on this forum are trying to do good. I'm not sitting here trying to call out members and say they are fuckheads or anything near that. I even said that even though they may tag too fast, they are correct in their thoughts a very high % of the time.

I am really glad that some of you are taking time out of your day to make a post in here.

Is feedback only for trades/loans and things like this? I have seen that alot of feedback is because people dislike other members. How can this be avoided so people dont get feedback they shouldnt? Cant this be a thing that will scare away members? Thanks for my questions..

Sure. More scammers would be running around undetected and a scammer might even have an opportunity of being in the DT.


Lately, neutral tag is seen as less important. In as much as it will not prevent anyone from getting into campaign it is fine. But this is not the right thing.

A retaliatory tag is always wrong. If a tag is definitely wrong then it could be correct to draw the attention of the community to that. But being prepared that if something is wrong it will be revealed.

~ for incorrect tag could be reasonable.

DT is not constant forever. There are always new participants, some old participants are losing support and even being distrusted. So if any of DT is working against the consensus they will be withdrawn from DT sooner or later. The consensus doesn't have strict boundaries, so there are some things on the very border and even if some respected DT member is sometimes out of boundaries it can be forgiven. But testing the system long will lead to disqualification.

It is good if forum users take part in DT making own trust lists and leaving reviews on others, when it is appropriate. (Read the recommendations on tags and flags written by theymos.)

So discussions like this one show possible problematic points in the system and clarify current image of the consensus.

Well, I suppose that each case should have proof, it should be clear for someone from a side that a tag left correctly. Even if we talk about the neutral tag. Neutral doesn't mean it is less important. I think there's no point in leaving any tag if it is not important for others to know some information about an account. Neutral means this information is not making financial deal with this account nor significantly more risky, nor significantly less risky, but anyway it's important to know.

Of course there is. Enough DT exclude him to the point where they lose their DT power. That's exactly what happened to Timelord the other week.


Would never happen because all the busted alt accounts who wanted to manipulate the poll for their own reasons would fire up their sockpuppets and rig the vote. For example, in 2019 theymos blacklisted 58 accounts from participating in the trust system, all operated by a single person attempting to get their revenge on someone.


Not at all. The consequence of a failing system would be more scammers running around undetected.