Pages:
Author

Topic: The latest change in the trust system has a flaw making it abusable - page 3. (Read 3945 times)

legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 1412
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.
So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.

Could always try talking it out first. He probably wasn't aware.

No reason to talk it out. Wardrick's intention are obvious, he's taking advantage of his position in DT to negate positive ratings. He deleted and reposted the same rating, doing what theymos described as not legitimate. He had posted a rating twice by the time I posted the OP, it's the third time now. Crystal clear abuse.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1127
I may have crossed some lines in pretending to be banned, however I also believe that the investigation to confirm that I was or was not banned is against forum policy (there was zero money that was claimed to be missing and there was zero money that was claimed to be stolen).

Quite the opposite. I'm the only one who can and will (besides theymos) investigate suspicious activity, and several things about that were suspicious. Two off the top of my head.
A. I was unaware of you being banned, which was odd.
B. Suspicion of ban evasion, this is something I check quite often.

I also skim the modlog from time to time, check recent bans, handle ban appeals, and other things. It's my job to know what goes on, it has to be done due to not disclosing mod identities wrt actions taken.

I'm not sure what money has to do with it. You being banned (or not) was a forum administration issue, not a scam investigation.

Quote
I think it was against forum policy to disclose the absence of a ban as the forum has a general policy of not disclosing when someone is banned.

In general I tend to not publicize bans. The exception being when the user publicizes it themselves, hence the many threads in meta where bans are openly discussed. Additionally, I was unwilling to help you deceive other users, particularly when it was related to a scam accusation against you.

Quote
I also think that it was against forum policy to disclose this account as being as QS alt (which was at the very least de-facto done with the removal of QS from BB's trust list - this is assuming that such disclose was not done via Personal Message or otherwise....I have no evidence of this, however my initial thoughts after seeing the timeline between when QS was removed and when you posted that if QS was removed then QS=P52 and if QS was not removed then QS=!P52, was that such disclose was made). There were alternatives to outright removing QS from BB's trust list that would not have involved disclosure.

No, I didn't tell anyone it was your alt. You don't qualify under my criteria for that. Escrowing for yourself, to me, is not a scam. I would file it under unethical. I removed you before that post was made, about an hour before I pm'ed you initially.  
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The only way I can update my feedback to add more info is by deleting and reposting it. My intention was only to clarify my feedback and not to gain the system, I had no idea this was a thing.

I did it just before I read this thread there again by accident, I plan to expand my feedback later so I'll have to do it again.

I suspected you may be be trying to edit.

Now I'm not sure what to do, add a third feedback or repost my second one. 

Theymos, please advise.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
The only way I can update my feedback to add more info is by deleting and reposting it. My intention was only to clarify my feedback and not to gain the system, I had no idea this was a thing.

I did it just before I read this thread there again by accident, I plan to expand my feedback later so I'll have to do it again.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1005
New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit
No, that's intentional.

- If a person has mostly negatives, then they should clearly have a negative score.
- If a person has only positives, then they should clearly have a non-negative score.
- If someone who previously had lots of positives gets a negative, this is interpreted by the system as "This person could very well be a con man! I can't be sure, though, since it's just one rating. Better show ??? just in case".
- If they then get several more negatives after the first negative, the ??? will turn into a negative score, as it should.
- If they get positives after the first negative, then this is interpreted as "Oh, it looks like that negative is probably wrong. I guess I can now mostly ignore it."

See the full algorithm here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/minor-trust-score-algorithm-change-1066857

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.

Didn't know trust ratings are that fair and thought out. Cheesy

Didn't know what ??? represented till now. That explains why Quickseller's rating changed that significantly, and why the latest trust feedback is getting more weight.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
giant off-topic wall-o-text

And a bump and signature for it (wrong account?)

^^^This is clearly off-topic in this thread about whether new feedback should override old feedback and the cute little feedback war that Wardick seems to be perpetrating.

@QS: I think you're looking for this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-latest-change-in-the-trust-system-has-a-flaw-making-it-abusable-1174567

Mods: can we get some help in here?
I am not looking for another thread. Although there is a portion of what I said that does not have to do with the OP, at least one statement in my post does (which is the threshold for it being on-topic), and is therefore appropriate. I was responding to a post that responded to P52, and the normal thing to do is to use that same account to issue a response. For clarification, I used the stronger reputation of QS (that has been damaged as of recently, but is still one that contains a large amount of trust that has not been breached  - eg no theft, no information leak), to back a statement made by an alt of mine that was outed.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1078
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
giant off-topic wall-o-text

And a bump and signature for it (wrong account?)

^^^This is clearly off-topic in this thread about whether new feedback should override old feedback and the cute little feedback war that Wardick seems to be perpetrating.

@QS: I think you're looking for this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-latest-change-in-the-trust-system-has-a-flaw-making-it-abusable-1174567

Mods: can we get some help in here?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.
So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.

Could always try talking it out first. He probably wasn't aware.

So people now leave feedback to offset other feedback? How is that legit exactly?

They shouldn't have to.  A normal trustworthy person shouldn't be getting default trust negative unless something is awry.




Different people have different opinions.

Of course.

And in that case, it IS legit to leave feedback to offset other feedback. Smiley

I just meant it won't come up all the time.

legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1127
It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.
So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.

Could always try talking it out first. He probably wasn't aware.

So people now leave feedback to offset other feedback? How is that legit exactly?

They shouldn't have to.  A normal trustworthy person shouldn't be getting default trust negative unless something is awry.



Different people have different opinions.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
So people now leave feedback to offset other feedback? How is that legit exactly?

They shouldn't have to.  A normal trustworthy person shouldn't be getting default trust negative unless something is awry.

legendary
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1119
So people now leave feedback to offset other feedback? How is that legit exactly?
legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 1412
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Simple to think about but hard to implement as it seems. Thanks for your insight theymos.
administrator
Activity: 5166
Merit: 12850
In summary, for people who previously had many positives and no negatives:
- The first negative rating defines a border between pre-controversy and post-controversy.
- Don't move this border unless you have a really good reason. If you must add more info, leave another negative or neutral rating.
- If you agree with the border-negative, leave a negative rating.
- If you disagree with the border-negative, leave a positive rating responding to the negative, even if you already have a positive rating for that person. Don't delete your old rating. You should also consider excluding the inaccurate-rater from your trust list.

All I'm saying in the above posts is that a simple change could prevent such illegitimate use.

It's not really simple... For performance reasons, I need to keep the trust algorithm fairly limited. It's computed ~20 times per topic page (and hundreds of times if you go to ;all), and this web-of-trust stuff is pretty slow already.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.)

I just did this just now for tspacepilot, negating Wardrick's feedback.
legendary
Activity: 2394
Merit: 1412
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating.
Agree.
It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode.
All I'm saying in the above posts is that a simple change could prevent such illegitimate use.
staff
Activity: 3374
Merit: 6530
Just writing some code
It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.
So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
If you delete and re-post feedback to trick the feedback system, that is unethical behavior as you are probably on the default trust list.
should I repost mine since Wardricks really came first?
You can re-add it without anyone questioning ethics.

Quickseller, in this case, re-adding the same feedback is fine because no one had added feedback since.  He wouldn't be tricking the system.
administrator
Activity: 5166
Merit: 12850
No, that's intentional.

- If a person has mostly negatives, then they should clearly have a negative score.
- If a person has only positives, then they should clearly have a non-negative score.
- If someone who previously had lots of positives gets a negative, this is interpreted by the system as "This person could very well be a con man! I can't be sure, though, since it's just one rating. Better show ??? just in case".
- If they then get several more negatives after the first negative, the ??? will turn into a negative score, as it should.
- If they get positives after the first negative, then this is interpreted as "Oh, it looks like that negative is probably wrong. I guess I can now mostly ignore it."

See the full algorithm here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/minor-trust-score-algorithm-change-1066857

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
At that point, Warddrick deleted and re-added.

This is unethical.  Sad
hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 502
#SuperBowl50 #NFCchamps
If you delete and re-post feedback to trick the feedback system, that is unethical behavior as you are probably on the default trust list.
should I repost mine since Wardricks really came first?
You can re-add it without anyone questioning ethics.

Unless I disagree with you Roll Eyes
Pages:
Jump to: