I believe theymos has hinted in the past that they weren't quite happy with how the trust system was working. I think all of us can probably agree on that though. It's fixing it that is the problem. It's not an easy task, as a system that remains decentralised, and not moderated for the most part, is always going to bring problems. Especially, when you have a community which is rather divided on a lot of things.
Because theres an abuse maybe on it. If the system isnt good then change it the way they think its fit for the forum. If DT system is remove on the forum, is there gonna be a chaos or riot on forum members? Maybe its better to abolish it if its not healthy anymore. But surely there will be a resistance for that. But in your opinion, how important is this DT system @welsh? I think some considered it as form of rank, respect, reputation, when you are in the DT1 or DT2 but does it should work like that in terms of discussion. I believe the one with right explanation regardless of his rank, dt or not should be respected and acknowledge. 
Topic: The DT system needs to change. - page 2. (Read 870 times)
This debate is getting strong now but I don't see any reply of theymos on this discussion on any of these threads. This is the most sensitive matter and I hope he will tell his point of view on this matter. No matter how many proposals we have, if theymos is not interested nothing is going to change.
I believe theymos has hinted in the past that they weren't quite happy with how the trust system was working. I think all of us can probably agree on that though. It's fixing it that is the problem. It's not an easy task, as a system that remains decentralised, and not moderated for the most part, is always going to bring problems. Especially, when you have a community which is rather divided on a lot of things. That's not saying our community is bad though, it's just what happens when there's a large amount of people involved in discussions. Users will step on each others toes a little bit, and they'll have differences of opinion. That much is expected, but it's mitigating the influence one person has, at least enough to not cause a snowball effect. However, you want an individual to have enough of a voice to be able to influence things in a good way.
There's been several suggestions which I believe would help in the overall picture, but by no means would it solve every problem we have, and likely there isn't a perfect solution. If I was to wager a guess, and this isn't based on anything other than previous public comments theymos has made in the past regarding to the trust system, I would expect it to change in the future, its just a question of when, and how.
Surprisingly, few weeks after creating my trust list, a renowned campaign manager and a reputable member of this forum alleged emptied his trust list in protest of the current trust system.
One or two people emptying their trust lists is like a drop into the ocean it has no effect on the DT system. Just so you know, a new set of 100+ DT1 were elected last week to the already existing DT1 list, and that election alone created more than 200+ DT2 members, so even if 100 people boycotted the DT system today, it would not break the system.When people become powerless to a system, they tend to break it; the same people who have been manipulating the system for a long time are the same people who are begging for a change because they had a taste of their own medicine.
There has been a lot of drama on the reputation board, I expected this type of drama at the end; the more people who join the DT, the less powerful they become and the better the DT system becomes..
Then LoyceV isn't in support of emptying one's trust list, as it will make the system more vulnerable. I also had to mention 1miau to know his opinion, because it matters to me in as much as it's about trust. Then, I am yet to see anyone stating categorically that the Trust system isn't or cannot be manipulated. Is there truly some manipulations behind the scene?
It CAN be manipulated and has been a weapon between the forum's elites for years now, it's a "scratch my back I scratch your back system now" when a certain elite member of the DT gang got flaged and red tagged a few weeks ago all his DT gangs were busy twerking in our PMs trying to manipulate a valid negative feedbacks so yes there is a lot going on behind the scenes, when you become a DT you will see the clear picture.However, in theymos last paragraph, he implied that the Default Trust changes is in trial mode for some months. I am keen to see what he will likely come out with after these dramas and protests.
theymos is more active and involved in the DT system than you think; he is aware of all the manipulation and drama going on; he reshuffles and elects the DT1 members every week; and if he sees a need for any change in DT, he will propose it first. 
Any such forum "system" is about as good as its members make it. theymos wanted wider representation in DT and he's probably unlikely to make it more restrictive, but with or without such change its ultimately up to the members, mainly DT1 members, to make the best use of the system.
Back at the start of this new vote-based DT system I used to think that the level of personal responsibility (for including/excluding DT2 members) exhibited by the old DT1 would improve in the new one but that obviously didn't happen. There is a huge passive majority of DT1 members who don't seem to care whom they include or how the trust system is used. And even if the more active minority tries to mitigate some of the garbage (e.g. by excluding self-scratchers) it doesn't really work that well due to the lottery.
Don't get me wrong, I support the idea of making it more difficult to get into DT (DT2 in particular) but I think it's a band aid for a broken leg.
^This!
@yahoo62278 and @dkbit98, I really hope both of you will reconsider. I understand your rationale, and often I think being in DT1 is not worth the headache. But that headache is exactly why we need people like you; rational, thoughtful, restrained individuals to counter balance those who revel in the power. If more people like you quit DT you'll be leaving the trust system to the abusers.
@suchmoon, we need you back too!
I ain't gone nowhere
As for "protesting", I'd argue that if someone doesn't have time and/or interest to keep up with the trust system or fundamentally disagrees with how the system is used, then getting blacklisted or otherwise removed from it is better that just leaving their trust lists unmaintained or going against the flow with a huge red trail of drama.
Back at the start of this new vote-based DT system I used to think that the level of personal responsibility (for including/excluding DT2 members) exhibited by the old DT1 would improve in the new one but that obviously didn't happen. There is a huge passive majority of DT1 members who don't seem to care whom they include or how the trust system is used. And even if the more active minority tries to mitigate some of the garbage (e.g. by excluding self-scratchers) it doesn't really work that well due to the lottery.
Don't get me wrong, I support the idea of making it more difficult to get into DT (DT2 in particular) but I think it's a band aid for a broken leg.
I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective.
^This!
@yahoo62278 and @dkbit98, I really hope both of you will reconsider. I understand your rationale, and often I think being in DT1 is not worth the headache. But that headache is exactly why we need people like you; rational, thoughtful, restrained individuals to counter balance those who revel in the power. If more people like you quit DT you'll be leaving the trust system to the abusers.
@suchmoon, we need you back too!
I ain't gone nowhere
As for "protesting", I'd argue that if someone doesn't have time and/or interest to keep up with the trust system or fundamentally disagrees with how the system is used, then getting blacklisted or otherwise removed from it is better that just leaving their trust lists unmaintained or going against the flow with a huge red trail of drama.
I started using the trust system few weeks ago after being convinced by 1miau and LoyceV. Before creating my Default Trust, I raised a concern about my fear about the trust system. Let me quote part of the thread I created.
Surprisingly, few weeks after creating my trust list, a renowned campaign manager and a reputable member of this forum alleged emptied his trust list in protest of the current trust system. I quote him
The words I put in italics and underline are strong words.
Now, I have seen what other members have to say about this, as some have also emptied their trust list in same protest.
Then LoyceV isn't in support of emptying one's trust list, as it will make the system more vulnerable. I also had to mention 1miau to know his opinion, because it matters to me in as much as it's about trust. Then, I am yet to see anyone stating categorically that the Trust system isn't or cannot be manipulated. Is there truly some manipulations behind the scene?
I had to revisit theymos thread about Default Trust changes and read carefully what he said about the trust system as a tool for retaliation. I'm thinking if the retaliation and the politics theymos mentioned is what is playing out.
Could it be that the reason of the uproar is that once a centralized and prestigious trust power is now decentralized to give power to even a newbie to be on the DT?
Well, see what theymos said about the Trust changes.
However, in theymos last paragraph, he implied that the Default Trust changes is in trial mode for some months. I am keen to see what he will likely come out with after these dramas and protests.
My fear about the trust system which is in accordance with 1miau: If a group of scammers upto 50 persons are working together and one among the 50 gets a positive trust. He can in turn trust the remaining 49 scam users and they inturn trust one another. Then, the trust system would be compromised.
I asked The question due to my then layman's understanding of the trust system, but I was told that the system is well checked and any attempt to manipulate will have the user being excluded from DT by theymos. I proceeded to creating my custom list. Surprisingly, few weeks after creating my trust list, a renowned campaign manager and a reputable member of this forum alleged emptied his trust list in protest of the current trust system. I quote him
I decided to take a bit of advice and clear my trust list. dkbit98 made a suggestion and while I do not think it would force theymos to do anything, I do think DT isn't really a prestigious position to hold any longer. Also a bit tired of the drama and manipulation that is seen by users when it comes to DT.I may change my mind later but for now my trust list is empty. My distrust list still exists for now.
The words I put in italics and underline are strong words.
Now, I have seen what other members have to say about this, as some have also emptied their trust list in same protest.
Then LoyceV isn't in support of emptying one's trust list, as it will make the system more vulnerable. I also had to mention 1miau to know his opinion, because it matters to me in as much as it's about trust. Then, I am yet to see anyone stating categorically that the Trust system isn't or cannot be manipulated. Is there truly some manipulations behind the scene?
I had to revisit theymos thread about Default Trust changes and read carefully what he said about the trust system as a tool for retaliation. I'm thinking if the retaliation and the politics theymos mentioned is what is playing out.
Could it be that the reason of the uproar is that once a centralized and prestigious trust power is now decentralized to give power to even a newbie to be on the DT?
Well, see what theymos said about the Trust changes.
A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.
This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.
I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.
This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.
I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.
However, in theymos last paragraph, he implied that the Default Trust changes is in trial mode for some months. I am keen to see what he will likely come out with after these dramas and protests.
The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.
The system is most certainly not satisfactory for the exact reason you cited. Any newbie can be added to DT2 just because one DT1 member includes him. That is a recipe for abuse, and it's been happening a lot. Go trough any drama thread and look for newbies that took the side of a DT1 member, next thing you know that DT1 member is adding that newbie to his trust list, and BAM newbie on DT2. Suchmoon's proposal in the thread linked by Poker Player would mitigate a lot of that. It won't prevent it from happening, but it would make much less likely.
Making it more difficult to be included in DT2 is very likely to prevent DT cliques from developing, and reduces any one DT1 member's ability to manipulate the system.
I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective.
^This!
@yahoo62278 and @dkbit98, I really hope both of you will reconsider. I understand your rationale, and often I think being in DT1 is not worth the headache. But that headache is exactly why we need people like you; rational, thoughtful, restrained individuals to counter balance those who revel in the power. If more people like you quit DT you'll be leaving the trust system to the abusers.
@suchmoon, we need you back too!
Abolish the damn thing altogether, bring bag the scammer tag and let's be done with it!
Remove the trust feature altogether and start a true freedom world
Says the guy with negative trust. Of course if you ask around the forum 99/100 people with red trust will say it should be removed because they did nothing wrong or were a target of abuse.
The best part is that you want it to be removed because of "freedom". Red trust is exactly that. People can leave their comment on your profile if they think you did something wrong and you are free to do the same to them, or to ignore it.
What is the meaning of DT? is it DefaultTrust? Are they merit source?
Correct, DT=default trust and some are merit sources but being on DT doesn't make you a merit source. It's a totally different thing.
What is the meaning of DT? is it DefaultTrust? Are they merit source?
There's another thing the forum needs:
I encourage anyone to create their own custom Trust list!
Advertise this! Can it be on top of each page (like "News" once in a while? I just counted: only 5053 users (except for users with no posts) have a custom Trust list. That could be much more. 
This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
Actually imho it could make sense to change this or that to give less powers to some.
This could maybe give some less room for manipulations.
I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.
This is a very interesting idea. I like it. Can we do this, please?
I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.
I agree.
Something I've been thinking on was that it may be helpful to differentiate between "whose trust rating you want to see colored" and "who you want to vote for".
This way the votes will also be clearer, this way people won't say that they trust this or that account because of some trades done and so on.
Since you're restraining access to DT2 this way, yeah it turns into an oligarchy by definition since it will be a smaller number of members with deciding power, and don't argue with me argue with the dictionary 
You like to be categorical.
Where does the dictionary say that 500 is not an oligarchy and 250 is?
I don't see any of that:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy
Those who are not now in DT could say the same, that the 500 in DT2 plus those in DT1 are an oligarchy.
Abolish the damn thing altogether, bring bag the scammer tag and let's be done with it!
Remove the trust feature altogether and start a true freedom world
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
Another fallacy. That is not the only alternative. Starting with 2 inclusions minimum, and 1 net to get into DT2 seems like some sort of oligarchy to you?Since you're restraining access to DT2 this way, yeah it turns into an oligarchy by definition since it will be a smaller number of members with deciding power, and don't argue with me argue with the dictionary
Lucius is perfectly right, if the system changes right now, will we have some democratic vote or it will be just because the most influential and the loudest voices will impose their opinion? And if after 6 months this side loses its members and the other is growing louder and bigger do we reshuffle it again?
Abolish the damn thing altogether, bring bag the scammer tag and let's be done with it!
Oh, wait, who will decide on the tag...shit!
It is not my idea, it is an idea that circulates quite a lot in the Reputation section, to the point that some DT members have cleared their trust list, and others say they are thinking about it.
DireWolfM14's thread is indicative of the community's thoughts on the subject of requirements for DT2, resulting in the most popular of the choices: Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.
I don't know if even now that will seem too little.
I open the thread to comment on the issue and hope that theymos ends up taking some action or at least saying something in the thread about what he thinks.
DireWolfM14's thread is indicative of the community's thoughts on the subject of requirements for DT2, resulting in the most popular of the choices: Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.
I don't know if even now that will seem too little.
I open the thread to comment on the issue and hope that theymos ends up taking some action or at least saying something in the thread about what he thinks.
This debate is getting strong now but I don't see any reply of theymos on this discussion on any of these threads. This is the most sensitive matter and I hope he will tell his point of view on this matter. No matter how many proposals we have, if theymos is not interested nothing is going to change.
This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.
Hey Lucius, I hope you realize that this is a fallacy. There are parts of the forum in which to talk about Bitcoin, and other parts that are not for talking about Bitcoin, such as Meta, Reputation, and others. Talking about the trust system does not preclude talking about Bitcoin in other parts.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
Another fallacy. That is not the only alternative. Starting with 2 inclusions minimum, and 1 net to get into DT2 seems like some sort of oligarchy to you?
I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.
I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.
I understand you would make that change for DT2 but the rest you would leave the same?
if the community support a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions, it may also not be bad too, but just that it will be harder for people that are in DT1 to get to DT2.
That's not how it works, DT1-members are above DT2.This is how the number of required DT1-inclusions influences the number of users on DT2:
I counted DT2-inclusions on Trust settings: there are 33 users with 0 (net) inclusions on DT2, and 308 with 1 inclusion.
Longer list (Update: this list includes DT1-members (when included by another DT1-member, they're on DT2 too)):
Longer list (Update: this list includes DT1-members (when included by another DT1-member, they're on DT2 too)):
Code:
-6: 13
-5: 20
-4: 36
-3: 89
-2: 284
-1: 2723
0: 33
1: 308
2: 94
3: 61
4: 34
5: 23
6: 15
7: 9
8: 7
9: 9
10: 10
11: 7
12: 4
I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.-5: 20
-4: 36
-3: 89
-2: 284
-1: 2723
0: 33
1: 308
2: 94
3: 61
4: 34
5: 23
6: 15
7: 9
8: 7
9: 9
10: 10
11: 7
12: 4
I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.
For DT2, net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions seems like it would be an improvement to start with. DT1 is more complicated, I guess it is difficult and no one has a 100% clear idea.
If only 1 DT1 inclusion is needed for DT1 to get to DT2, it is not bad at all, I am okay with that, some members will be okay with that too, but if the community support a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions, it may also not be bad too, but just that it will be harder for people that are in DT1 to get to DT2. DT2 may become more centralized. What I think is that DT system can not be totally accurate, it will be faulty to an extent, but the good side of the one we are using now is much more than the bad side, like 80% or more good side.Theymos can try and make a poll about this, but I do not think it is necessary. I do not want more power to be among some people that can make DT2 more centralized. Some people want this just because they are unable to manipulate the DT2, I do not know but that is what I am thinking, which makes me like this current DT system. I am not supporting this proposal.
This present DT system is good.
I don't think that DT1 trust feedback really matters. I mean, it does indeed mark your account in red and it looks bad, I guess, but so what ?
When you get a red tag by DT members, it literally mean your account already destroyed since many users will think you're a scammer, bad person, etc etc that would make you not cool in this forum. It's very important even though you're not participating a signature campaign, but it will damage your reputation and if you have a services, anyone will think twice before hiring you.Of course a negative feedback wouldn't stop anyone to contribute in this forum, but it's very important for the other things that need a reputation score.
This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
Jump to: