Topic: theymos could you sticky your intent on the reputation board (Read 1639 times)

Since I kinda started it in the other thread, I have to say that I very clearly stated the possible reason for red trust:


I don't think that would be abuse and it's specific to that situation, not a generic "red trust for commenting on a dispute" scenario. Keep in mind that a big part of the reason why the parties agreed to mediation is because they want to resolve the trust flag and put an end to it. Continuing to escalate it after it's been resolved (e.g. continuing to support the [obviously invalid at that point] flag, or continuing to claim it's a scam) - that'd be abuse of the trust system and malicious behavior.

I know the concept of binding mediation is alien to this forum because we want to keep trolling the shit out of every dispute, and that will probably preclude any such mediation from taking place in the future, but it is really simple. When a dispute is brought up for public debate - fair game. When mediation is agreed upon by the involved parties - the case is no longer up for public debate. We can't really prevent people from being assholes about it, but continuing to make accusations would be equivalent to simply making shit up out of the blue.

So ultimately it's about how you treat false accusations. Most of the time I would agree that a neutral is enough. But mediation is such a clear-cut scenario that I can't think of a non-malicious reason to continue making accusations. If you do - please enlighten

Moved here to stop going off topic.
Telling me what our disagreement really clears things up for a fella 

You can consider it leaning to a strawman all you want. I offered it up as a comparison as I find the idea of telling people they can't comment about a ruling after the fact with their opinions on either party, or risk being red-tagged; to be as ludicrous as my example. I see no difference in threatening to see people red tagged over commenting their opinions one way or another over an arbitration in a scam dispute. No point in my post did I say "Well this is what you say is okay and it's the same as this which is so stupid, can't believe you are for this."

What I quoted lends to the idea that this is a nuanced system and not as black and white as the "You think trading with this person is high risk". I was sharing what seems to be forgotten all to soon information and guidance. Telling people if they post in this thread after deserves a red tag, is well outside what I consider to be appropriate use.

I then left the caviat where the reasoning of tagging someone for their opinions/posts could warrant a tag. If it falls into unstable behavior which in itself is a wide net.

I would re-read your last sentence and apply it yourself in this case. I am not against pro-active use of the trust system, I am against the lines being blurred to the point where peoples opinions on a forum matter and comments about this afterwards are now negative tag worthy.

I straight up advocated to tag these users neutral if people feel a tag is necessary.

This topic deserves a bump

And theymos' post deserves more attention

Do you have an actual quote of me saying that, one that you didn't make up?

Because what I actually said is this:


The good news is that if many or majority of users ever agree with you then the trust system is able to handle such a shift.

Kind of my point. This arbitrary standard causes plenty of conflict and solves nothing.

Not on this forum...

I've seen too many bun fights break out here in Meta and on Reputation, where someone will say something that is simply "incorrect" (for whatever reason)... and the response is inevitably "That's a LIE!!!!!11!!11!1!!!ONEELEVEN!!!!!"

Then the "Tells lies, is untrustworthy" red tags start... and the next thing you know we have about 23983475893653456407498 threads titled something like "REEEEEEEEEEEEE tells LIES and is ABUSING TRUST"

Apparently nobody makes mistakes around here... instead they're all deliberately intending to deceive


Kudos to Theymos for attempting to clarify (again) what his thoughts are on Trust and Flags... The very muddy water is slightly less muddy

---

These people have no regard for their frivolous application of negative trust feedback and freely gloat they aren't using the trust feedback for what it is intended.

You aren't arguing against my points. You are just saying "no one will ever agree so I guess we have to have no standards". I like how you frame arbitrary tagging of users without documented basis as "freedom of choice". Almost makes it sounds like you are enforcing people's rights to take other people's rights to exist here like anyone else without being harassed over constantly shifting totally arbitrary rules. You have the right to shut the fuck up and be subject to the random whims of internet mobs. Que libertad!

I'm saying it's not possible to implement it the way you want it unless you manage to force everyone to agree with you. Your suggested criteria is based on your view that only committed scams should be subject to negative trust, but your view is clearly in the minority in DT1. Many other users prefer an early warning system.

The trust system actually allows your criteria to be used (anyone who agrees with your criteria can add you to their trust list) along with any other point of view. Your argument for limiting the freedom of choice is quite perplexing.

If it is absolute criteria it is not really based on anyone's views now is it? The point is, unless it is something observable based on factual documented events, transaction IDs, etc it is so totally subjective making it totally open to interpretation and abuse. It creates drama and is not preventing anything. The forum police are not Tom Cruise in Minority Report. Leave the future crimes to him. This is why due process exists in legal systems, so that a minimum standard of evidence is required before impugning on their freedoms with what would otherwise be arbitrary or abusive reasons. We need to have a more narrow definition of what is an acceptable negative rating, not a wider one.

Think of it like electricity. You are jacking the voltage way up but it has no amperage because all the energy is being dispersed more widely and fractured. If you reduce the voltage, the amperage can increase making the energy exerted more targeted and useful to have a positive impact when it is really needed. The over use of negative trust and the trust system in general for every little thing is asinine. Everything doesn't need to be a codification, but a universal standard for a base accusation before using a system of penalties would seem pretty basic.

Lets take your old tagging just for the sake of discussion:



So you have tagged 1 account because they are ponzi scammer. Someone else did the same thing as you did by tagging account bitconnectcoin https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annbcc-bitconnect-coin-decentralized-cryptocurrency-1681719. Another user has tagged another ponzi scammer https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/investtrend-investtrendbiz-5196904. Someone else tags yet another ponzi scammer https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-mining-5155943, so that makes 4 of them.

You are basically suggesting that only one account should be tagged/flagged, even thought they are all scammers. Which one would you pick to tag/flag? How? What if there is hundred such accounts(and there is)?

That's what the flags are for, type 2 and 3 in particular. Type 1 and red trust is for lesser stuff.


It can be. If someone is trying to sell a 1 PH 1 kW miner that's an obvious lie and a scam, even if they haven't violated any contracts.

Problems start when people try to come up with absolute universal criteria based on their personal views, like any deceptive behavior needs a tag, or any lie is acceptable if there is no theft... The trust system (in theory) should combine subjective views of its participants into some sort of a communal view of what is trustworthy and what is not. I think the system works reasonably well given the circumstances. But I don't expect it to ever meet my expectations 100%.

I think one of the main issues we are suffering from here is not one of intent, but application. It seems reasonable that ratings should be for objective documented circumstance right? "scam hunting" quickly turns into a nanny state when people inevitably start tribing up. Since this is the predictable end result, shouldn't we be basing these ratings on objective things like violation of contractual agreement, theft, or violation of applicable laws?

The trust system is supposed to operate as a platform for trusted individuals to build reputations, not just filter out con artists. It doesn't have to be used as a hammer to work. Used less with more specific intent would reduce conflict exponentially. People are treating it as a wide net application systematically spamming ratings by the thousands. That is not productive and is just endless signal noise that makes valid negative ratings invisible. The trust system is like a donkey you just keep whipping over and over to make it work then finally you realize the donkey is dead and whipping it isn't actually accomplishing anything.

Also is "lying" really a valid metric? I have seen plenty of cases of people who live in far away frozen wastelands that like to make claims about lies, but they always some how rely on their own personal interpretation of what happened, not what is plainly observable. This is way too arbitrary of a metric.

Egregious levels of lying could be tagworthy to me but probably not all "white lies"..
Any amount of lies would be in my consideration of them though on deciding wither or NOT to ever give them positive trust or add them to my trust list..

What constitutes "Egregious levels of lying" unfortunately will always remain subjective and therefore debatable..

Check some of my sent negative feedback for examples (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
These are quite obvious, but apparently people still fall for them (otherwise the spammers would have given up by now). It's more tricky when someone offers something that's very likely a scam, but could also be a very innocent Newbie trying to sell something.

I wouldn't risk trading with someone who is a known liar.  

Actually, the power of proactive approach is also trying to be severely limited.

That's the way that "intellectual liberals" rescue the society.

Perhaps if they lie about the actual trinkets they can be considered high-risk in trinket trade. If they lie to their wife about her totally not looking fat in that dress then they're only at high-risk of having a fat wife.

And we can still use a neutral for "lying to his wife", which has pretty much the same weight and visibility as "orange is the new red" but without the "scammer" stigma.

To answer the question, yes, I feel like there are enough people in the world that do not want to trade (or see it as more risky) to trade with someone who consistently exhibits lying and deceitful behaviors.

I'd say someone like that who is selling trinkets should not be on the same level of trust as an honest person selling the same trinkets. Whether you see them as "high" risk or not, I don't know, people can make up their own minds... but IMO, a person takes a higher risk trading with someone who exhibits certain personality traits and a higher chance of being ripped off, in one way or the other.

Providing a warning to other users (especially new/future members) via a red feedback, which doesn't carry anywhere near the weight it used to, I believe should be acceptable and a legitimate use of the trust system. It's not like it stops that person from selling their trinkets, but it identifies character traits that other people I believe would see as riskier to trade with.

Please, tell me how someone could be identified proactively as a high risk with your line of thinking. When can one assume a person is a high risk? .. Define "proactive scam-hunting".

The more we push the system into a retroactive-only approach, the more the Bitcointalk slogan should be "Free scam for every account! Unlimited accounts. We don't moderate scams, and we provide easy access from Tor. Let the games begin!"

It was always like that, you tag someone because they are advertising scam, if they remove signature (or any other scam advertising material) - you remove your negative or change it to neutral.

At least that's how I was tagging and removing tags from scam promoters. I didn't remove negative from accounts who waited "too long" (if you know what I mean) to remove scam promotional material because I generally think they are high risk accounts, and if someone has been "neutralized" and they again choose to advertise another scam, that second tag I won't remove because user is just high risk. And, I removed few neutrals as well.

I'd have to disagree with your disagreement. If someone has a horrible personality but hasn't used those personality traits in detriment to their trading partners, you can't automatically assume it's a high risk. If someone is a liar but delivers the trinkets they sell - should they be labelled with red trust?

That's not to say there aren't gray areas, particularly considering users without trading history, as well as in the interpretation of "high" risk.