Topic: theymos could you sticky your intent on the reputation board - page 2. (Read 1639 times)

I saw that the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice of thunder, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a white horse and its rider had a bow. A crown was given to him, and he came forth to conquer and intent on conquering.

When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. To its rider was given power to take peace from the earth, so that people should kill each other, and a great sword was given to him.

When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a black horse and its rider had a balance in his hand. I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wage and three quarts of barley for a day’s wage! Do not damage the oil and the wine!”

When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth living creature say, “Come and see!” And behold, a pale horse, and the name of its rider was Death,g and Hades followed him. He was given authority over one fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword, with famine, with death, and by the wild animals of the earth.

When the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been killed for the sake of the word of God and for the testimony they had kept. They cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, holy and true Master, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” A long white robe was given to each of them. They were told to rest for a while longer, until their fellow-servants and brethren (who would also be killed as they were) should complete their course.

---

The four stages of the trustocalypse. Thanks to DireWolfM14 for the inspiration with this post.

I just remove personality from it and you are left with Good or Bad, which you would have to derive from their actions/behavior. This is going to be subjective based on who is casting judgement. In going through this you would be pointing to whatever the person has done to trigger that decision in tipping the scales for you to be confident in assessing them as a risk. This would then become your reference for the feedback.

Then pointing to the quoted portion I used in my previous reply, if the majority then agrees with it the feedback would be valid. The reference should be accurate and strong enough to warrant the proactive tag you decide to place. Active scam hunting will bring this about and there will rarely be a unanimous agreement. That alone doesn't necessarily mean you are abusing or misusing the system. Some will ~ maybe, some will include you. Then when it comes around to DT-1 there will be a more active discussion possibly on the validity of your ratings.
Touched on this above. I believe it comes down to actions. Take my stance on tagging accounts that use locked and self moderated sales topics to prevent legitimate discussion on their thread and lure people off forum for dealings. These actions and behaviors put up flags for me, but not everyone.

Including good or bad personalities to the list of what the trust system is "not for" seems to indicate that bad/dishonest personalities or ideas shouldn't be part of a rating at all. Am I not understanding the intent of this statement?..


My concern is being able to proactively identify someone as a trade risk. The retroactive actions are generally much easier to deal with or decide on, although IMO somewhat pointless after someone has scammed, because they'll likely just switch accounts until the community forgives their prior account for their behavior.. and if they don't, they just move on with their other accounts. (rinse & repeat)

theymos agrees proactive scam-hunting is good, but if you take personalities and ideas out of the equation, what is left which could be looked at in a proactive way to determine if someone is a potential trade risk and be able to warn others about it?

If you take personality out of the sentence how would you proceed. If someone is a blatant liar or has shown a dishonest approach to life it seems reasonable they would be a potential trade risk. Adding personality to the end of those descriptors makes no sense apart from trying to bridge the gap and bring personalities into the fold of taggable offences.

It does open up what you consider to be a lie and dishonest but I think that's covered in this portion.

So you're saying someone with a deceptive and dishonest personality does not constitute a potential trade risk??

I'd have to disagree.

The way I read it, theymos' comment is for mass-ratings. Instead of a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, I like to think of it as giving them a reason to change their actions.
For individual ratings, such as the ones on this scammer, I see no reason to remove my tag if he ever decides to stop scamming.

Very good post, and confirms what I was talking about the whole time. A more lenient system has an equal or wider amount of available reasons for ratings. The readers of ratings should not project their their conclusion on why it was given before even actually reading it.

Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives?

Dear theymos,

How they hanging?

Given you wrote this:


Can you confirm this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/flag-dt-ring-creation-discussion-merit-abuse-collusion-to-harm-bct-5181603 is an appropriate use of the Flag system please?

I've highlighted in blue the portion of your quote that interests me.

Thanks.

Glad this generated some discussion and a response. I try not posting a topic like this when I will be afk for the next few hours but figured it would get the ball rolling with or without me here discussing it. I think some missed the point of what I wanted out of this, and what I got from theymos was more than I had expected. I was not looking for policing or punishments or hard and fast rules, just clarification and opinion after seeing how the system has progressed and been used/misused.

There are many veteran members whom I've long given up on trying to discuss the system with, it was going no where. Some have been more receptive and even come around prior to this, with some seemingly regretting it soon after. My biggest concern was that as veteran or more noticeable members of the forum we set an example whether we want to or not to new/junior members on how this community should function. Similar to real life the loudest and most opinionated are the most visible and heard, which isn't always the best and many get sick of it or wore down in trying to defend the intent of an idea. I think this was a healthy addition to what was previously written in the [ANN] of the new system, and will be useful going forward.

People will abuse or deliberately try to use a system as they see fit. That isn't going to change and I would be foolish to believe that now everyone will just fall in line. I do feel strongly however that this will help shape the use of the majority towards appropriate feedback and flag usage in the future.

I am going to post this quote on the reputation board in a self moderated topic so that anyone can bump it at will, as I'm not always going to be able to keep it on page 1. I'm doing this as I want it to be visible continuously, which the quote in my OP was not. I'm open to opinions on if people think that is the place to discuss it or not, but am more inclined to let this thread be the discussion, and keep that one clean.

You missed my point a little here. I knew where to look for the quote and several others. The problem is they were scattered, hidden and buried. What benefit does that do for members who might try to educate themselves on the system. Like I said that quote in itself was the most recent I believe, and was buried as a paragraph that most members wouldn't find, without being led there by someone else. More people learn from what they see, and can be biased towards whether they like someone in deciding what they feel is right.
While my plan was similar to what LoyceV said about creating a topic myself, I wanted to publicly see if theymos felt like giving an update or would create the topic himself. It just means more as the architect behind the system, and as someone who people may be more inclined to listen to.

Edit: Reputation thread created Trust system - Feedback - Flags - intent - idealogy by theymos

That's a crap text spinner he's using.

Damn you... just had to jinx it, didn't you...

This guide make it open to wide abusive action. Any more warning to another member of risky, member must be able to show a behavior of try to scam or did scam must show example financial misconduct . Think in your own opinion more risky than average is not sensible.
If not provide example then red is abuse.
I investigate each of TOAA post and even the last challenge proof he supply correct evidence. Not even one person can beat his challenge last one. I enjoy his post and find the real history intresting
 
So much red trust is a abusive and spoils system. His dirty turds I research I find nothing wrong for 5he ones I follow his link, these same one gives him red and they did it more high risk. only member claim TOAA scammer is on dirty turd with evidence he find on them.
Now he gone who can fight for fair embers treatment. His swearing and anger his most trouble only. Should be calm. Each member relax and focus real scammer not your personal enemies. Enemies break sensible opinion emotional anger can influence. I think he can return soon. I try to support if he tell the truth.

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

I wouldn't trade either with him anything.
And newbies just maybe look at the Feedback when the boards show the trust score.
Most times they read the Feedback after they have done something with Users i guess.
For sure not all but still a few doing that.

Happend to me when i was starting here on Bitcointalk.

And on the 1277^th day Theymos said Let There Be Trust.  And it was so.
And behold there was trust.  And there was much rejoicing.  But soon the days of rejoicing faded into much kvetching and much moaning and much whining and much pissing on about the abuse and misuse of The Trust.  And woe be he who was so brave to speak out against those pillars of the system of DT, lest he be smitten with taggs of ruby colored leprosy.

And on the 3336^th day Theymos said Let There Be Changes to The Trust.  And it was so.
And there was much rejoicing.  And many merits were bestowed upon the harbinger of change, and Theymos the Just was exalted for decentralizing the system of trust, and behold the glory of the new system.  But yet again, the days of rejoicing again faded into much kvetching and much moaning and much whining and much pissing on about the abuse and misuse of The Trust.  And woe be he who was so brave to speak out against The Kingdom of Lauda, lest he be smitten with taggs of ruby colored leprosy.

And on the 3489^th day Theymos said Let There Be Trust Flags.  And it was so.
And many merits were bestowed upon the harbinger of change, and Theymos the Just was exalted for providing a system that warned the newbie among us, and behold the glory of the new system.  But in time the complexity and abuse of the flags came to be like a plague across land.  And the righteous and the just were flagged without concern for honor or truth.  

So now we plead to you Oh Mighty Theymos the Just, that you may leave us the Ten Three Commandments Use-Cases of thy trust system that we may rely on your words, and not attempt to interpret the proper use ourselves.  For we are unworthy of that honor.  Oh Mighty Theymos the Just, please return from your perch upon the High Mountain of Honor that we may revel in your words and your words alone.  Oh Mighty Theymos the Just!

---

Wait a minute, what's this now?


Okay, never mind.

Right on, bro.  I'm not entirely sure the self-policing always works, but it's better than the alternative IMO, which is to have Theymos crack the whip or offer very specific guidance about how the trust system ought to be used--and he probably wouldn't enforce it anyway unless things got way out of hand.

I had to check to make sure TOAA didn't post in this thread, and he didn't.  I'm really wondering if he's going to keep to his word that he's done with this forum.  It's been a nice respite so far, but who knows.

Trading with TOAA is high risk, a very high risk of losing your sanity. Also newbies won’t look at neutral feedback, they probably don’t even read positive trust half the time

I'm endorsing this topic, even though theymos shouldn't have to "police" the forum for feedback, it really seems like it needs more guidance.
Just recently I've considered posting a topic in Reputation with the title: "Use neutral feedback whenever possible", but I haven't done it yet.

The Trust system can handle people with only wrong ratings: they quickly get excluded. People with only good ratings aren't a problem either. But there seem to be more and more veteran users with overall very good trust ratings, who recently created some bad ratings based on opinions or retaliation.  If only those ratings would be neutral, there'd be much less drama on Bitcointalk!

I'd appreciate seeing theymos' opinion on LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system, and if he largely agrees: I've seen suggestions to sticky that topic on the Beginners board.

Since CH isn't even attempting to trade and the ratings are based entirely on stupid shit he says - neutral might be more appropriate. A neutral can say whatever you want without specifically claiming that trading with CH is high-risk. Who knows, maybe it's medium-rare risk. In hindsight the red ratings did more to inflame him than to provide any kind of useful warning.

Thule is a bit different, the moron actually threatened to sue me LOL but since he never did I'm considering a revision from negative to neutral. Being an idiot is different from an actual real threat and the threat doesn't seem to have been real, just keyboard warrior type of thing.

Bit of a loaded question though. Would I personally trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? No, but there's lot's of reasons for that. I wouldn't trust him to not try get one over me in some capacity, but that doesn't mean he's a scammer or would attempt to scam me and I haven't seen anything to suggest he would do such a thing. I probably wouldn't envision any problems with him and another neutral third party though, but if others were concerned of that without any evidence of anything shady a neutral should suffice as a warning of his problematic behaviour. I probably wouldn't trade with timelord either and certainly don't trust his judgement, but I don't think that means he's deserving of negative and a neutral if anything would be appropriate in that case if I was to leave anything.