Topic: THE TRUST SYSTEM: Are Counter-Feedbacks Counter Productive? (Read 513 times)

Well hopefully the forum will not become tribalized so much that anyone who excludes Sam will get excluded themselves by Sam's friends/allies. No one should be "untouchable" in the trust system.

Sorry. In the future, I will use names that start with different letters.

Jolly I feel is living with a disease where he thinks whatever he does is right and what others do can be challenged.


When you gave me negative feedback for no reason/strange reason, a lot of members including loyceV disagreed with how you left feedback.

If you cannot follow what you say, don't bother trying to force it on others.

Refresh some memories maybe: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-have-done-nothing-wrong-but-i-am-negative-trusted-now-5242995




You even agreed with it by giving a merit.


For reference, I have apologized more than 20 times to Jolly for a mistake which isn't even worth a negative so I don't know why even jolly is talking all this.

Overall issue to be noted here is that JollyGood should be kicked out of the DT network after his noted multiple actions of use of the trust system in incorrect ways and also his cheap attempts to fire up the drama around himself.

---

Sounds nice.

True, counts of trust ratings don't really mean much, neither does this green dick measuring contest in general. Reading trust ratings and references etc is imperative. However if we start spamming the trust system with a rating about every fart it makes due dilligence harder for everyone.

Hasn't the post-DT100 system somewhat shifted away from (or at least, transformed) business-primary basis for trust dynamics?

Ratings no longer have the "risked BTC" field which would have served to add weighting to positive trust: deals of varying magnitudes are not equivalent. There's more work to be done, now, to determine not only whether you can trust an individual but also how far you can throw them much Bitcoin you can trust them with. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing (except towards new users) in that it incentivizes personalized trust system use but the execution could be improved.

As an example, my positive trust rating is 19 (as of now, via DT-base) compared to DarkStar_'s 54. Should I be trusted with a corresponding 35% of the value DarkStar_ typically transacts? Abso-fucking-lutely not. How much should I be trusted with at this point? Who can tell? There are no risked amounts and you'd have to develop a case file, researching the feedback and references just to determine my scam threshold!

Dilution of the trust system means that each user must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis: not only do you need to effectively run a DFS to gather the full scope of who is/isn't trustworthy starting from any particular individual, but you need to continually do this as the 100-tribunal cycles and as lists, opinions, and users are updated.

---

I disagree.

Bring about the abstracted structure to that of intent and action and once you lay them out step by step, you can undermine any preconceived justification based on those scrambling ad hoc solutions.

These fucking names... Sam and Sally - same first initials, seriously?

If A performs dishonest trust action and is included by a set of members S_A, this does not necessarily imply responsibility on any member of S_A's end.
If A continues to perform dishonest trust actions to the point where it is noticeable, presented to members of S_A, and is subsequently ignored, then those members can be considered to endorse such actions.

At this point, any consequential action against both A and S_A (of which have been informed of A's actions) is based on the intent of stopping the initial dishonest act.

As long as the larger space of DT100 users := S, is not compromised in their values or enforcement, this kind of situation fizzles out.
The only scenarios in which this is cyclical is if |S_A| > |S \ S_A| and the monthly switch-up results in the cardinality flipping, or that there are competing smaller bubbles of |S_A| ~ |S_B|, |S_A U S_B| > ½|S|

I agree with what you wrote but the problem going forward in that situation is that you wrote: "If Sally excludes Sam from her trust list, the impartiality of the situation may be called into question and she may find herself excluded by other forum members"

If that is the case then those members backing Sally could be inclined to exclude all the members that excluded Sally as well as those that left positive counter-feedback, the cycle in that scenario will be continuous.

After reading the posts here I understand several perspectives and points of views.

What came from the debate in this thread is that the disparity between opinions of members on this issue is probably too big to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Leaving counter feedback fully depends on the situation. But since the current trust system is totally different from the old trust system, so instead of the counter with green trust, we may use a neutral counter tag as suggested by other users. It doesn't necessary to make visible green trust publicly. Neutral feedback is still readable. But these issues would avoid by using correct feedback and don't use a trust system for nonsense reasons.

Anyway, I second that what was said by @actmyname, don't leave positive counter feedback to anyone if usually you can't leave it for him.

No. That's a recipe for trust farming. Just go buy some trinkets from someone who hands out ratings to everyone and is in DT (and these days half of the forum is in DT)... no. "Unlikely to scam" should mean something otherwise what's the point.

Just like with the negs, which shouldn't be used against anyone you dislike, positive ratings shouldn't be used just because you're happy you sold a trinket to someone. This is not eBay. And we have neutral ratings if we're really itching to twitterize every trade.

This is the problem.. I completely disagree..

Negative ratings have MUCH more effect than positive ratings..
A single negative rating can have drastic consequences while even a handful of positives doesn't mean much..

Petty scams are nowhere near as much of a problem as is good users getting chased off the forum by bullshit negative feedback and surrounding drama..

I think some people just like to use the trust system too much period.. Users searching around ALL DAY trying to find reasons to leave ratings.. (mostly negative)

People aren’t perfect.. Y’all are way too harsh a lot of the time with the negatives..

Positive should be indicators of actually having done some sort of business/trade, risk or not.. Just having made successful trades is a good indicator that they aren’t here just trying to scam..

“Could scam” is about one of the most ridiculous things I read..

Do y’all not remember the ICO bubbles that happened around the last pump? And your so worried about petty scams?
What about the billions of dollars they scammed, and everyone is worried about $100 here and there..

It’s all so tiring (trust system drama), and this forum is so low IQ anymore from so many good users being chased away by neg tag fiends, just don’t know..

One thing this quote might have a point about, placing so much trust and control in the hands of 3rd world newb neg tag fiends might not be such a good idea..
Could be possible many DT care about their power and capacity to control others a lot more than they care about the principles of Bitcoin..

Really wonder about some people’s ultimate motives sometimes..
Why spend all day chasing a bunch of worthless alt accounts that are ripping off a scam ICO/IPO/spam campaign?
I don't get it.. It’s just enabling the scam that itself is to incompetent to keep from getting ripped off by the lowest IQ dregs in existence..
Sending a thousand negs to bottom of the barrel leeches makes one very trustworthy and worthy of a leadership roll somehow though..


Counter ratings?
Who cares.. Have fun playing the game..

If Sally leaves a second rating, it will have no effect on Bon’s trust score. If he removes the rating and adds it back on, it would be an abuse of the trust system and he should be excluded. If Sally excludes Sam from her trust list, the impartiality of the situation may be called into question and she may find herself excluded by other forum members.

What I described above is not ideal, however in my view it is the only way to correct the injustice of Bob receiving a unfair negative rating.

Everyone will not always agree on when someone is “high risk” and the above is an effective way to settle this question. Someone conducting due diligence on Bob can weigh their options of the judgements of both Sally and Sam and act accordingly.

I concur, there is a lot wrong with the trust system but thankfully we have one even with all the flaws because as you say we all interpret it how we want. To a large degree it does work well but it just needs tweaking. I have to agree when you say it is almost pointless to debate topics such as this one for the reasons you stated.


I had to laugh after reading your post. Becoming rich or insanely rich, or not making it one bit is all about the timing and obviously many of us missed the boat on that one. I will take your advice and think of it as a learning curve and learn from it 


This is an excellent scenario but what happens if Sally decides to take further action against Bob to counter what Sam wrote and then took action against Sam too by leaving negative trust and adding Sam to her distrust list? In your scenario it is quite probable that Sam will take action against Sally by reciprocating the negative trust and the whole cycle could theoretically continue with more DT members getting involved...

Now seems more apt to conclude what The Pharmacist said about it being pointless to debate issues like this, is spot on.


Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated.

As far as I can tell, you are both respected members of this forum, and I hold you in high regard. Given the number of potential scammers here, I really see no reason for honest members to fight each other. This kind of situation will only be beneficial to them.

With great difficulty I am writing the following because maybe the misunderstanding could have been cleared via PM but you blocked me, sadly.

In a nutshell, it seems you think the thread was about you when it was not. I re-iterate this thread is not about you, it is unrelated to you and the first line of the OP states: This thread is not about any member or incident but is about a general situation that exists in the forum regarding counter-feedbacks

Unfortunately I never got round to starting this thread but have been wanting to for some weeks, it just so happened that I created this thread in close proximity to the thread that was created by one user to throw unfair attention on a member that simply wanted to be left alone.

Maybe the two errors I made (if I can call them that) were that firstly I should have waited a week or so before starting this thread so to keep distance between that thread and this one and secondly going by your reaction I should have sent you a PM to explain the thread was not about you but about positive counter-feedbacks and their use but it never crossed my mind you would think the thread was about you.

marlboroza, looking at that image and the text I wrote I would go a step further and say that I have a lot of respect for you, much more than you might think and I mentioned that on several occasions.

I respect lots of members here but for me you are one of maybe just 3 or 4 users that fall in the highest respect category. Without doubt you are completely trustworthy and you yourself are one of the biggest assets in the form of a member that this forum has. I am disappointed with your reaction to something that was unrelated to you and was misunderstood by you.

I disagree with this premise.

If there is no fact dispute, but Sally believes Bob is "high risk", Sally will leave a negative rating against Bob. Sally gives a lot of "good" ratings, and the rating does not appear to be in bad faith, so it would not make much sense to exclude Sally from the DT network. However there is still an "injustice" against Bob. Sam wants to correct this injustice and asks Sally to remove the negative rating, but Sally refuses. The only option is for Sam to leave a positive rating on Bob's trust profile with a note saying he does not agree with Sally's rating.

Anyone doing due diligence prior to trading with Bob will see both ratings, and can act accordingly. If Sally subsequently removes her negative rating, but for some reason Sam does not remove his counter rating, someone conducting due diligence would ignore Sam's rating.   

It is counter to negative feedback sent for trolling/spamming/I-don't-like-you/someone-said-to-tag-you-I-really-have-no-idea-what-you-did/you are newbie account who knows too much/Insert-any-other-not-related-trust-reason.
Don't send inappropriate ratings and users won't have anything to counter, problem solved. Don't act like problem lies in my counter feedback, problem is your negative trust.

---

You know, JollyGood, it is not cool what you did here, especially because of the fact that you have never ever complained when negative feedback was countered on your profile and some other things I won't mention  

marlboroza over and out.



PS

Please remove this



It insults me.

I agree with this. If there is no need to give positive trust in the first place then there is no need to give positive counter-feedback trust. That rule seems simple enough for any and all members to follow.


Pigeons, crumbs, stomachs and loaves....

Recently I completely overlooked exactly just how much of a well thought out writer you are... detailed with deep thinking and only elaborate where necessary. You could easily moonlight as an author in one capacity or another if you wanted to. My respect to you actmyname  


The threshold is effectively open to interpretation as much as it is open to abuse. I have seen a number of members that have pointed out feedback they find questionable by citing it inappropriate by virtue of the trust system guide but then they themselves do the same by leaving positive counter-feedback.



What you mentioned about DT members forming their own DefaultTrust circle and that "you have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen", that assessment seems true and you make a valid point.

I would further add to your comment by saying that there is no evidence of any DT members forming their own DefaultTrust circle via collusion with nefarious motives and that the default trust circles you refer to (and most of us believe exist) could have been created on more of a subliminal level between like-minded members rather than by out-and-out skulduggery.

Think of it as a teaching moment.  This forum has already made it's owners and friends insanely rich.   

I don't think it's inappropriate, but I refuse to do it nonetheless.  There are a few things that could go wrong when doing so, including the original neg being removed while the counterpositive remains (for whatever reason).  I also don't like leaving a positive for someone unless there's a damn good reason, and a wrongly-left negative--even though it's not right--doesn't rise to that level IMO.

OP, there's a lot that's wrong with the trust system we have, and there haven't been any significant improvements in my time here.  Since there aren't any hard rules telling members what they can and can't do, everyone is basically free to interpret the spirit of the trust system as they see fit--regardless of any consensus among DT members or anyone else. 

It's almost pointless debating stuff like this since people will likely continue leaving counter-positives and there aren't going to be any consequences for doing so (even if it were against the rules or even frowned upon).

Some users would argue, it's not a bug - it's a feature, in that the (relatively) free framework of the wide-scoped DT100 system results in a large pool of members participating in a coordinated effort to organically formulate a democratic-esque system of which to operate.

Others would say that the vastness of the space results in many interspersed leaks of abuse and corruption which can sometimes pool into a puddle of members. The interpretation of the trust system and its guidelines vary across users (e.g. account sales, bounty abuse) but consensus is never going to happen all at once - the pigeons need to be fed crumbs at a time before their stomachs become loaves.

---

It is often quite vague, the threshold of "bad feedback" that a particular user can send before they are distrusted, yet one way we can curb a factor that may prevent users from doing so is to continually post redundant feedback such that the DefaultTrust coalition (so to speak) does not have to rely on a single point of failure for displaying negative trust/flags against a large swathe of scammers or worse^* users.

---

What I do like about the trust system in general is that it effectively allows people to create policy-based (by way of representatives or themselves directly) bubbles of interaction in which users can choose the particular space they want to operate within. For any unconventional-trust users, they are allowed to distrust any relevant DT members and form their own DefaultTrust circle. You have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen.

That's a good thing, though: reliance upon the base trust system is, of course, only a measure by default. I just wish there was an accompanying guide for new members that join the forum.

Thank you Loyce. Using neutral feedback is hugely underused in the forum, I think the forum dynamics would probably change for the better if it was used more.

It seems like a sizeable number of members in the forum are operating as they want by picking which parts of the trust system and other forum rules to implement and accept. Then some of those members do not accept it when other members implement their own interpretation of the very same rules. Having broad consensus between members (or at least those are DT) would have given a direction to follow since the trust system is not being implement correctly by too many members.

As the list in the section below shows, if we all start adding or including or excluding each other based on our opinions of the trust system then we can all basically do what we want. Having consensus would avert most issues.




Firstly what I surmised from your post is the presumption that I am trying to justify my own action and/or to smear an opponent that you did not name. You are wrong on both counts. After that, thank you for the list. I tend to agree with some aspects of it but not entirely. There are some other possibilities which though I might not agree with (or will not put forward) are options and possibilities nonetheless:

• Users leaving inappropriate trust ratings should not do it.
• Other users should no longer include them (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
• Other DT1 members should exclude them (remove them from DT1/DT2).
• Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.
• DT1 members that disagree with the positive counter-feedback might no longer include members leaving (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
• DT1 members could exclude members leaving positive counter-feedback (remove them from DT1/DT2).
• DT members may counter with neutral or red ratings of their own to counter the positive-feedback where appropriate.

Having 3 votes in the poll has been somewhat disappointing...