Topic: theymos could you sticky your intent on the reputation board - page 3. (Read 1616 times)

Would you trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? I know I wouldn't, even with escrow and a reshipper I still wouldn't spend $1 with that punk, so no matter what account it should still be tagged, main or alt. Anyone dealing with a user who is that mentally retarded needs to be warned.

Techshare is just a wanker as I said and I don't actually agree with people tagging him. When we start talking about the likes of Thule and those loonatics then warnings are fair game IMO

Well these are two perfect examples. I disagree with a lot of stuff tecshare says but I don't think he's a troll and I don't think he deserves the negative feedback he's received. I agree that he seems to be a trusted trader so his opinions and whether you disagree with them or not shouldn't effect his ability to trade here but people seem to be leaving him feedback because they've been rubbed the wrong way by him. TOAA is obviously an alt account made as a throwaway to antagonise people without fear of retribution and to spare his main account and obviously has no interest in trading here, but that also leads back to my first point: Did he create that account because he didn't want to dirty his other one any further with inevitable negative feedback? Would he have even created that account in the first place if his main one hadn't been left negative or he was worried about getting more?

Quite an example here, but yeah this is what it really looks like when people try to leave their trust rating into someone. Though on the surface a user might seem to be a troll and just spouting nonsense and making others feel a little uncomfortable at times, IMO that per se isn't sufficient to red-tag that particular person especially if the same person has completed tons of confirmed trades, all of which went smooth and went well. Then again, you'll never know when would a good guy turn into a bad guy, so a neutral rating IMO is okay.

As for theymos having to weigh in his own thoughts into the trust system, it's best to leave it as it is. Even if the guidelines for trust-rating is stickied, I feel that some will ignore it and continue to paint someone's rating red anyway especially if they have some personal issues with the said uaer.

Techshare is a prized cuntsmouth of a troll but I wouldn't tag him for that as he has had many successful trades and can be trusted to do as he says he will, I wouldn't believe a word he posts but I would buy something from him and be secure in the trade. Then you have the likes of TOAA, imagine a shipment going missing from him? fuck that, the total fucknugget would make the whole process so painful, so newer members need to be warned about his general behavior on the forum

I think theymos has already stated how people should use it, and users really need to stop leaving feedback for 'trolling', especially after it's someone they've got beef with or just disagree with. There are some idiots on this board and ones I often strongly disagree with but that doesn't mean they're trolling or should have negative left. I might make exception if there are people who come here and have no business other than to try troll and harass people but I think people are stretching the definition of what theymos means here:



People seem to be leaving feedback based on well this guy is a troll so he obviously can't be trusted and I don't think that's right. You might not trust them because of their behaviour but neutral probably seems more appropriate here unless there's very strong evidence that they can't be trusted to trade with.

I think we have enough guidance from the top, and it's common sense, like no tags or flags for opinions or trolling. The problem is that any word from theymos gets interpreted and misinterpreted in ways that completely skew the intent. If he says "this behavior may be a reason for negative trust but..." you can bet that some people will ignore the "but" part (and treat "may" as "must") and some will focus entirely on the "but" ignoring the first part.

Just use common sense and good hygiene in your trust lists. I've found that it's far more valuable to build my trust list not based on whom I agree with but based on honesty and ability to reason with. Your mileage may vary.

The quote of Theymos in the OP is pretty clear cut, but in reality any stated intention isn't going to stop people from using the trust system outside of what might be the intended scope.

The trust system is not policed by moderators and Theymos. In my opinion, rightly so. We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.

What would really help is a change in sentiment. High ranking members of this community find ways to accuse each other, and when so many man hours end up being spent trying to find faults in each other, it ends up just being disappointing. Most saddening part to me, is that members of this forum tend to take sides when a dispute arises, even if it's about the most minuscule things and it's obvious that the accuser tries really hard to build an accusation even though there might have been no harmed parties forming an accusation.

How about, next time there's a spat between two forum members, they get no attention unless evidence is presented? In my very humble opinion, biased reports formed out of spite should result to shunning, with the accuser getting out of trust lists. What's currently happening in my view, is that other members form bandwagons by picking a side, with huge arguments going on and bloated threads over minuscule points related to relatively subjective matters such as ethics, laws etc.

On the above note, I think that scrapping the 'red tag' and establishing flags was a step to the right direction. It's no longer possible for a single member that is included in default trust to ruin somebody's reputation in a snap. Flags require popular support and are focused on evidence rather than opinions. In my opinion, this solves the issue of 'game of throwns' styles spats. A single negative rating, no matter how influential a user might be, doesn't do much on its own. Now, for the troubles to stop, we need a change in mind.
Theymos stating the intention even more coherently wouldn't actively change anything.

It seems there is a growing disagreement/misunderstanding on the appropriate use of feedback, I know shocking. Hell I might even be the one who misunderstands how feedback should be left, though I feel it's fairly self explanatory. Some out there feel it is wildly open to interpretation, without some sort of statement made by you. All I'm asking for is a sticky at the top of the reputation board that can serve to replace people needing to piece together snipits you've posted in various locations. Lay out your intent behind the 3 levels of feedback, and maybe an example or 2 of what falls outside acceptable use in your opinion.

This would also be a nice update so people aren't relying on posts from several years ago when the trust system landscape was vastly different. Given that the system has been in place for some time now, you can see how it has been used or misused, and if you like the direction it's going. Paint with broad strokes if you like, but anything would help clarify things for newer members who are grappling between opposing views on what is an acceptable use. Think of it as adding to the net benefit the system brings the forum as a whole.

Below is the best quote I can think of by you for the intended use. The problem is it's in a topic floating in meta, and the title doesn't reference the feedback portion making it difficult for users to find. Title "Trust Flags"

Edit: Reply from theymos below
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53741011