Topic: Should we hand out neutral/neg tags like candy?(open but might be future edits) (Read 720 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.

"Once you pull out the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend"

I do think we should hand out neutral/neg tags more often then we do now, BUT I can see it causing people to start tagging some more borderline cases and using it to settle grudges with people based on more flimsy reasons. AND, once you go down that road there is no going back. If we start it 4th quarter 2023 as a test and Jan 1st 2024 we as a group decide that it does not work. Do we go back and remove them? How about the people that don't remove them.

Don't get me wrong, I support it and think we should be more aggressive in handing out neg / neutrals just keep in mind there will be consequences.
But, if it gets rid of a bunch of the crap, then the consequences are worth it.

-Dave

What you stated above ought to be the standard but it may never happen. Every system has its weakness, and the few who spots this weakness uses it to guard themselves and as a tool against the vulnerable.
If I tell you that till this point I do not know how the DT voting works, you might be surprised. This is because I do not need the DT strength to fight anyone. All I want is a very sane community and not a community of gangs and lords.

If a DT member tags anyone for wrong reasons and refuses to reverse it, there is no way to remove the person from DT. I haven't seen. The best the victim will do is to ~ or leave a retaliatory tag.
If theymos for instance should create a poll to determine who leaves the DT, you will be shocked by the result of the poll.

If the system is failing, the consequence will be too many tags on people's profile and random ~ of users without reasons.

I'm going to verify that I'm human, go through the cloudfare BS and proceed to agree with yahoo62278  on this except that I don't think members (at least not DT members hopefully) exclude people from their trust lists because of simple disagreements.  I've always understood that the ~ was supposed to be used for members whose feedbacks are deemed to be wrongly-given.  Theymos gave some guidance on that a few years back if I'm not mistaken.

In any case, unless you're on DT or are a contender to be I wouldn't worry about exclusions--but that's just me.  The trust system is so complicated and misunderstood and, in my long-held opinion, broken beyond repair.

Yahoo62278, I'm actually kind of surprised you're asking the questions you posed in the OP since you've been a member here long enough to know that people are going to do whatever they want as far as leaving negatives and neutrals regardless of how many threads are devoted to discussing trust system etiquette or even what Theymos suggests.  Trust isn't moderated and you know that.  

If it comes down to a DT issue, then that's a different story.  Other DT members will (hopefully) ~ whatever DT member is making a habit out of leaving inaccurate feedback.  Jesus, I even excluded Vod from my trust list prior to his departure, something I never thought I'd do.  My suggestion is to meditate, take a chill pill, or whatever and just let the system operate as it always has--because I don't think it'll do anything but that and hence it's in the hands of the community as a whole.

Wavy gravy, man.  Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

On the contrary it is obvious you do otherwise you would not have been vocal to this extent. 

Poker Player has a right to his opinion about you posting in similar fashion to naim027 and to my knowledge he is not DT therefore where is the problem? He could not come to that conclusion blindly, he obviously spotted similarities therefore he gave his opinion and I still have not gone through all your post history but from what I have seen I can understand why Poker Player mentioned similarities your Learn Bitcoin account has with naim027.

Are you now advocating censoring comments?

If this is true, I would like to know who this DT member is. Post a link.

In the end the problem is that people are opinionated and they want to express views. Until or unless there is either a different mechanism added to this forum or an overwhelming majority consensus (or intervention from theymos), this debate will continue.

There is now a trend where members create threads to question neutral tags, it is unnecessary and brings more attention to themselves. Having said that there is a huge distinction between a neutral and negative tag and the one place placing the tag has a right to exercise their opinion based on how they interpret the evidence they have access to.

As mentioned, neutral trust does not affect the account's ability to create posts or the chances of the account achieving income or joining signatures campaign, but it is useful for the forum as it either prompts the user to rethink about his behaviors or it gives an alert to the rest of the members to search about that account.

Therefore, as long as the neutral trust has some details and not like "I don't like that account," it is useful for the forum. In the end, the main goal of the trust system is to reduce scam and make the forum better.

Personally, before leaving any trust, I ask myself if it is useful to the forum, I will do it, whatever the reaction is, sometimes not to take any action or wait until the collection of evidence takes place = support that action.

Also, some members who protest against members such as JollyGood and see that the solution in ~JollyGood are wrong. JollyGood has taken an action by leaving a trust. The aggrieved party must prove that he is wrong and then leave the matter to the community, but if JollyGood does not take any step, then the trust system is useless. In real life there are over 100 DT's and only less than 10% of them leave trust rates in clear cases.

This matter is not limited to natural trust, but even negative. There is no service that has 5/5 ratings, so even if you are a merchant, some negative ratings will not harm your business. The most prominent evidence of this is Royse777 that has some negative trust, yet it is a reliable campaign manager..


Briefly:

 - It varies from case to case.
 - Sometimes not taking action = supporting that action.
 - Neutral trust does not harm the user's account, but it is useful for the forum.

---

There is no smoke without fire, and no one took any action, so perhaps it is an opportunity to review yourself.

I think the reason of why people are giving such neutral or negative tags like that because they just want to leave a sign or warn to other users. If they didn't leave the tags on the accounts, where do you think they can leave that? creating a new thread in Reputation thread seems not be the best solution since people will also have something to say e.g. there's no proof, don't suspect every user account.

If you ask everything is need a proof, I can give a counter argument where a ponzi scheme project offer 10% per day.We're just suspect it's scam since they offer unrealistic return, but there's no proof of they have scam anyone.

It's like someone should leave the tags based on other DT members' opinions, not based on his own judgement.

I'm against using neutral tags as some sort of personal notation system or diary. They should contain information that is helpful to the other forum members reading them, in some way or another. Most of the time they do not matter in the sense that they don't affect someone's ability to enroll in a campaign or conduct business on the forum (the obvious exception being actmyname's spammer blacklist), however I know I would prefer not to see any DT neutrals next to my name as they more often carry a negative connotation than a neutral or positive one.

Somehow this thread also became about trust list inclusions and exclusions. For anyone who cares, my personal take on why members should exclude others is:

1. they don't agree with their trust ratings,
2. they don't agree with their trust list, and/or
3. they don't think that member has any business being part of DT.

It's as simple as that, really.

Being excluded by a DT member does not interfere with anyone's ability to conduct any sort of honest business on the forum. There are several highly-trustworthy forum members in the collectibles and lending section who are awful at using the trust system, yet this in no way diminishes their trustworthiness. One's proclivity to honor agreements vs. ability to use the trust system correctly are two entirely separate things.

I can not pronounce myself about all cases mentioned in OP, as I have to admit I did not study them all. However, unfortunately, I was forced somehow to study very well one of them. It happened against my will, as I never wanted that, yet things in life don't always happen as we want, so I was actually dragged in studying TimeLord's case -- I was dragged by his actions against me (his most recent one being the fact that he gave me a feedback calling me racist Oo -- obviously, with no relevant reference link).

I understand that yahoo questions the feedbacks in the cases he mentioned in OP (and, perhaps, some other ones as well). However, by taking a good look at TimeLord's received feedbacks, we can see that those calling him a liar / troll are users with very good reputation on the forum. Among others, we can see the names of LoyceV, 1miau, icopress, marlboroza or nutildah. Furthermore, these feedbacks are neutral ones, so they fully respect the rules of Marketplace Trust system.


I believe that Learn Bitcoin had a bad experience with a DT user (or some DT users) and he tends to extend this view over all DT users. Or, perhaps, he is too polite and, instead of pointing the finger toward someone he talks using a general approach. I can not say anything about Learn Bitcoin's (bad) experience with DT, as I don't know it, but what I can say about him is that he translated some topics of mine and he did it in a very professional manner. He was serious, he finished the work in time and he did it well. I am thankful to him for his (free) efforts in translating my topics and I think he is a serious user.

I didn't "sue him" in this thread. Timelord2067 spammed my thread in Meta with off-topic nonsense.  
And even added lies later...
(edit: sorry, misread his and this)

Everyone can create a thread to support / oppose / suggest to research any sort of potential abuse about any member. But people need to back their claims. And when shitposters are complaining about a generic neutral trust, it's happening quite often, that these shitposters are involved in more abuses because DT will do more research. Their attempt to get rid of a justified neutral trust is backfiring frequently, no surprise at all.

I really appreciate your sensitivity to the reputation board. I see you are one of the DTs who have broad views and wisdom

I think, For a DT must have proof when giving the tag, because the tag of the DT has a big impact.

I've thought of a few things you might need on a reputation board:

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

Then, if there is a tagging mistake, DT also at least apologizes


I think it's useful, though the risk of arguing here has enormous ramifications. DT managed to make this thread so scary. DT also seems unwilling to be criticized, as if they are gods here, and they know everything


I think there is no problem if you have proof. Wherever judgments should be based on evidence not assumptions. If you want to prevent buying and selling accounts, then the admin recommends prohibiting this action. Or require using escrow to avoid fraud.

The problem here is, if the accusation have no evidence, as you do, you have a problem with timelord and you sue him in this thread. Do you think only DT should create a complaint thread if it receives a neutral or negative tag without any clear evidence?

No, I don't.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I don't mind if anyone can beat me with a good argument. I don't mind if anyone criticizes me for a valid reason. But, I rarely engaged in any threads where I argued with anyone. So, what could be the point of distrusting me when I did not engage in any threads? If it's reasonable to distrust someone because of their post habit, their nationality, or just because they shared their two cents, I don't know how decentralized DT-Network could be.

I saw a DT member suggesting to another newbie or a Non-DT (I don't remember) member not to share his unsolicited two cents.

+1
That's a very valid point in my opinion.
As we all know DT is a decentralized network and everyone can participate.
If someone likes / doesn't like someone's judgement / feedbacks, just customize your trust list and vote members in / out.

Everyone can create topics in Reputation as well, where he's describing his opinion and tries to get support for a certain issue. But don't expect, that everyone will agree to you. DT is decentralized and some people might oppose your viewpoint on DT issues.
It's normal, so @Learn Bitcoin, don't worry. I don't know about your issue but blaming DT like how you did it, is not really accurate.

I don't remember writing such a statement that could give a place for someone's distrusted users list except two (1, 2).

Whatever you say, you won't understand the situation because you are not an average Joe. However, it is worth mentioning that NOT all DT members are the same. Most of the DT members have good judgment skills and don't use their power against the weak.

You obviously have issues with DT members which go beyond the story you have presented here. I had your name added to a list of users that were going to have their post history looked at sometime this week and an appropriate tag would be have been left if it was warranted. Having said that, the post from you today (and my reply to it) will not prejudice the outcome.

If you do not know what the exact reason was should you really be singling it out for scrutiny? It will not take you long to read through his post history or the threads that member has been making a nuisance of himself in, maybe then you will be in a better position to know what the exact reason was and then cite it. No, I put it to you that you know exactly what happened.

If you are that inclined to write about it here as a comment, why did you not write to the members that distrusted you to ask why they did it? I think you are trying portray yourself as someone who does not know what is going on and that portrayal really defeats the object because you are clearly the opposite.

That is usually an argument deliberately put forward by members as a smokescreen for their own failures. You (and every other member) can claim to have been making quality posts and that is simply subjective therefore that debate is not worth having. If you say one thing another does not have to agree.

Stand by your conviction or withdraw the allegation. Make a list of the threads where any arguments took place and mention the names of any members that received neutral and/or negative tags from any DT directly as a result of arguing with a DT members. Let us see which tags are unjustified.

Post a link, where did they write it?

Again, stand by your conviction or withdraw the comment. Make a list of when these alleged incidents happened and include names so we can go through them one at a time.

I'm a bit surprised about the headline because unjustified positive trust seems to be the bigger issue these days (nice guy feedbacks should be neutral, not positive trust), so "Should we hand out positive trusts like candy?" is a nice additional question.  


Regarding the initial question (and as I'm listed as well in your list):

While there might be some controversial cases, I'm not in favor of DT being more lenient. Most of the cases presented in the OP are justified trusts.
I just want to outline 2 of it:

My topic about Timelord2067's lies against me: I've created the topic because my topic in Meta is not intended for off-topic reputation discussions. Timelord2067 has littered my topic in Meta and that's just not necessary.
I've addressed Timelord2067's lies in my topic. I don't know where I should be at fault for addressing these claims.
Everything is explained in my topic in Reputation.

The topic about deadsea33 and the allegedly inappropriate feedback from hugeblack: after reviewing the topic, hugeblack's neutral trust served as a warning and from what hugeblack stated in the neutral trust, it's pretty valid.
The feedback from hugeblack is a good use of neutral trust in my opinion. DT did the rest and is in the process of exposing the bought account.
It's also nice to see that many members of this forum are doing a good research and dedicating time for that.  
That's very important for DT to be vital.

---

There have been many cases where DT did a good job and acting too lenient is never a good idea because it's emboldening abusers. Here's a similar case, where I've presented evidence and together with DT, we exposed an account buyer in 2019. (bought account in question was St4yInTh3D4rk)
After being called out, the account buyer still tried to get away with it, although in one of his earlier (shit)posts, he was well aware that buying accounts will lead to negative trust:

LOL, he wrote it earlier himself...  

Still he tried to get away with it.  

And there are far more accounts, where I didn't had enough time to compile the evidence and therefore did not tag yet. Most likely, jrrsparkles is a bought account as well, likely owned by the same person, St4yInTh3D4rk account was owned.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50353545
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50399294
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50390330
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50388489


jrrsparkles is still active today. Maybe it's time to finish off these accounts. They have been making a shit ton of money by spamming the forum from stolen accounts for far too long. While new members need to earn Merit, these abusers are just lazy to buy an existing account with 500+ Merit. That's extremely unfair for new members who are required to make good posts to rank up.

---

Therefore I'm a bit confused, that while reading OP I'm more getting the impression that abusers are getting defended and abuser hunters are getting criticized, while there's not really anything to criticize in how DT is exposing abusers. Quite the opposite: I'm very grateful for acive members exposing shady activities. It's always very time consuming to research and compile the evidence. We also need to spend more Merit on these researches.
DT is giving out trusts only if there's really a reason to leave it. And shitposters complaining about neutral trust are just ridiculous. Most times, complaining will even earn them more accusations, when DT starts digging. Why are these shitposter accounts always involved in so much shady stuff?
You can almost bet on it that when a shitposter complains about a neutral trust, he will end up getting even more neutral trusts or even a negative trust.  


Finally, DT is a decentralized network where different views are welcome but in my opinion, DT has worked very well so far to keep scammers, account sellers and other abusers at bay. DT getting more lenient these days is somehow concerning and not a good idea in my opinion. Tagging scammers, acting against abuses and bought accounts has worked very well over the past 10+ years.  

You are so incorrect. People likely ~ because of statements or views like the ones you are making/having now. Many people have argued with a DT member and not been added to distrust lists.

DT will let people have an opinion, at least most will. Members add others to distrust lists when they scam others, when they tag people unfairly multiple times and do not listen to reason, when they bully others, or other reasons but certainly not for having an opinion.

Anyone is free to post in this topic and share their thoughts. Multiple opinions might give the community more to consider.

@Learn Bitcoin you should really relax a little and try to enjoy yourself on the forum vs trying to be so negative. Not all DT are as bad as you want to believe.

Yahoo!
You cannot expect opinions from everyone on your topic except for DT members. I saw there is a new guy (I doubt he is a new guy) was engaging with the reputation threads, and this is how their trust list after the week. I don't know what the exact reason was. Last week I added some DT members to my trust list. The interesting thing is, for some reason, I wanted to check my trust list today and realized some DT members also ~ me for some unknown reasons and they are whom I added to my trust list last week. I believe that non-DT members cannot share their opinions in any reputation-related threads. If they do, they will be ~ by some DT members.

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them. So, there is no point in sharing an unbiased opinion. The only good thing is, If a DT member says, "This is correct, and that is not, " I have to agree with him as an average Joe. The better decision for an average Joe is to ignore the reputation board and start shitposting to make money from the signature campaign (Which I have been doing for the last couple of days).

The title is a bit misleading but i'm curious as to everyone's feelings on the issue of accusing people before having proof and handing out a neutral tag while looking for or asking for evidence?

We see topics all the time where users complain about a tag they have received. Sometimes it's a negative and most times it's a neutral, but at what point should we tag a user? Obviously, if they scammed it's a no brainer tag em and bag em. What if it's a circumstantial case? What if I think theymos is satoshi and has been lying to us all along(not the case just not calling out any members)?

In the recent month or so, Jollygood has been called out, Timelord has been called out, hugeblack, and many others. You can just look on the 1st 1-2 pages of this board and see multiple threads of complaints against certain users. Some are complaints about tags, some are complaints about trolls, alt accounts, etc.

Not all of these have started with a user being tagged or asking users to ~ a user, but most IMO could be considered defamation and libelous. I know most are looking out for the community, but should we keep this shoot 1st ask questions later attitude or she we require users to have more proof before tagging anyone? Where is the line? Sad thing is most times the community is correct and some of these people deserve what they end up with, but just because we think something is it really ok to go after someone before we have the proper proof? Should we tag before a discussion? Case by case?

Everyone is obviously in control of their own trust list and are able to tag at will, but if you do not have enough proof and are looking for opinions IMO best tohave a discussion in a thread and see what the community digs up before tagging.

Just curious what some of you have to say. Examples below

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hugeblack-made-false-accusations-against-me-5459078 Deadsea tagged with neutral before there is proof

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-curious-case-of-forum-member-rby-of-the-rubycoin-scam-5458318 rby accused although wasn't tagged for a decent amount of time

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/timelord2067-is-a-malicious-liar-and-a-deranged-troll-5459010 timelord a troll

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-somebody-soon-will-scam-someone-5456889 good thread from Cyber Cowboy touching on this subject a little

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/judgment-thread-for-pytagoraz-by-jollygood-5458785 neutral from jolly

Most of the time, there ends up being proof that someone did something and deserves what comes to them. Not disputing that at all. What about those who end up with a tag from a stubborn member who refuses to remove the tag? What if that person was innocent but someone stubborn disagrees? It's such a process to get someone removed from DT and help right away doesn't really feel like an option for someone who was wrongfully accused or tagged.

My own statement and i'm not sure if that's really how we should go about it.