It is bizarre that Vod would effectively be condemned (finally) but no specific action taken against him.
He has a very long history of using the trust system for personal reasons, along with using (unverified) doxes as weapons.
SAD
Topic: This Is NOT A New Problem... A Walk Down Memory Lane (Read 1381 times)
I was going through my post history trying to find some information and I came across a few posts that really reminded me exactly how long these supposedly new issues with the trust system and the ambiguity of rules have been a problem around here, and how long ago I detailed exactly how this would turn out... and here we are...
I agree 100% with what you said here. The key in your statement is that from start to finish it is YOUR CHOICE, not some one else telling you what to do with your own ratings. I agree due diligence is important as as far as making sure there is good reason for the ratings, which is why I have left so few. I don't go around looking for people to negative. Everyone I left a rating for had some kind of interaction with me, usually trade related.
When I left the negative for Armis I expected he would delete his posts and stop harassing me and I could simply delete it and we could both be restored to our former states and go our own ways. As you said if the person can demonstrate a willingness to change their behavior it can always be reconsidered. This was exactly my thinking, yet never at any point did Armis admit to any wrongdoing, let alone back down his trolling, insults, rhetoric, or slander. His unwillingness to take actions to restore us BOTH to our previous states by deleting his slanderous posts from several of my marketplace ops demonstrated to me he was unrepentant, and was under the impression that the moderators would some how "fix" his rating by making me look abusive as possible. Because of this he went as far as he possibly could to try to harm my reputation in a bid to make it look as if his rating was undeserved and unprovoked.
The moderators then emboldened him in this logic by attacking me for my actions, so in his mind he had no reason to compromise because he was going to get what he wanted anyway. Now he is stuck with a permanent negative rating and I was removed from the default trust list as a result rather than him having the rating removed and me having my marketplace OPs free of his slander and trolling. This is what happens when uninterested 3rd parties get involved in moderating trust ratings. Even EBAY doesn't touch feedback ratings, and they are one of the most corrupt companies on the planet. They don't do this because they understand what a mistake it is to try to moderate feedback as a 3rd party. So rather than a logical moderated action on my part to limit the actions of trolls in my marketplace OPs, this was then cast as some kind of abuse of authority for using my trust ratings as leverage against him (even though lots of people on the default trust use it this way, including VOD).
This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff).
Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries.
That list is ordered by user ID, not added time.
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
What is the recurring theme here? Unwritten rules and ambiguous selective enforcement. We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as a standard for leaving negative ratings. Or we can just keep letting the forum eat its own face...
Yet you have it both ways, picking and choosing who does and does not get to have influence in the trust system. It has basically now come to a point where people who have dedicated enough time here to be really trusted now are SO TRUSTED that it is unacceptable for them to even defend themselves, and you expect them to sit by idly and be harassed. You sure aren't doing anything about it when it is reported, but again you "have the right to interpret the rules" now don't you. Why would you care if I am being harassed, no skin off of your back.
I never really thought the trust system was a good idea because it gives people a false sense of security, but I never really had a problem with it because what I was told is that the system was UNMODERATED, but clearly that is not the truth. Some one dictating from a central position who is and who is not to be trusted is not a trust NETWORK, it is a trust DICTATORSHIP. Solution: stop dictating to people who they should and should not trust. Of course this all happens behind closed doors so no one ever really gets to witness this coercive process, so how would anyone know unless they experienced it themselves?
I never really thought the trust system was a good idea because it gives people a false sense of security, but I never really had a problem with it because what I was told is that the system was UNMODERATED, but clearly that is not the truth. Some one dictating from a central position who is and who is not to be trusted is not a trust NETWORK, it is a trust DICTATORSHIP. Solution: stop dictating to people who they should and should not trust. Of course this all happens behind closed doors so no one ever really gets to witness this coercive process, so how would anyone know unless they experienced it themselves?
I never asked to be on the default trust list, not once. I harp on the subject because the rules are unwritten and selectively enforced. It is a corrupt system. I don't want to be on it, I want it to end. I left my negative rating because I was told over and over again that trust ratings are not moderated, yet Theymos and other staff members had no problem coercing me into changing my rating by personally seeing to it that I was not only removed from the default trust, but then a new feature was added, so that I could be excluded from it 2x so that others on the default trust list could not re-add me.
That does not sound like an unmoderated trust system, this is a trust dictatorship where Theymos and only Theymos chose who stays and who goes. Furthermore they can't be bothered to post rules, or even uniformly enforce their unwritten rules. Armis was the perpetrator, and Theymos was happy to have an excuse to get personally involved and make sure I was removed and then excluded for the unforgivable crime of not following his orders to change my rating.
That does not sound like an unmoderated trust system, this is a trust dictatorship where Theymos and only Theymos chose who stays and who goes. Furthermore they can't be bothered to post rules, or even uniformly enforce their unwritten rules. Armis was the perpetrator, and Theymos was happy to have an excuse to get personally involved and make sure I was removed and then excluded for the unforgivable crime of not following his orders to change my rating.
All you are doing is feeding into trolls and fueling their desire to continue to bait and make such complaints after users react. You the mods and staff are now ripping the community apart yourselves by insisting on enforcing this failed policy. You can characterize me as disgruntled or paranoid all you like. The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.
There is no sensible way to moderate people's trust. What you are demanding is impossible to be delivered without there being other tremendous pitfalls being created by dictating to other people how to use their trust. You might think it is for the wrong reasons, clearly he thinks it was for the right reasons. Uninterested 3rd parties have no stake in making sure justice is done, only in making the drama go away as quickly as possible. Because of this strategy, all a troll has to do is kick ans scream and the mods and staff will come running in an endless self fueling cycle of troll-baiting of trusted members followed by claims of abuse. Trusted members operate IN THE OPEN. Trolls use endless disposable accounts. There is a cost to operating out in the open so that people know you can be trusted, and people who are reputable should be supported, because they are what makes this community work, not the trust system.
Being in the default trust is not an elected position. No one on it signed up to be a servant of the community even when it costs them personally. We got on that list for demonstrating we follow through on our agreements and operate in an open an honest manner. A long history of operating in a reputable way does not some how create an obligation on the part of the trusted party to serve you as if they had some kind of capacity of a public officer. Basically what you are saying is you were joking with this user on a professional thread of his, he did not find it amusing and left you a negative trust. Now that you are faced with the consequences of your actions you demand that he uphold the good name of this forum at his expense, but you yourself hold no liability in this circumstance.
Being in the default trust is not an elected position. No one on it signed up to be a servant of the community even when it costs them personally. We got on that list for demonstrating we follow through on our agreements and operate in an open an honest manner. A long history of operating in a reputable way does not some how create an obligation on the part of the trusted party to serve you as if they had some kind of capacity of a public officer. Basically what you are saying is you were joking with this user on a professional thread of his, he did not find it amusing and left you a negative trust. Now that you are faced with the consequences of your actions you demand that he uphold the good name of this forum at his expense, but you yourself hold no liability in this circumstance.
Complete ambiguity of unwritten rules. Apparently the staff don't like to write any rules down, because, you know some one might hold them to it. Apparently people are supposed to just GUESS what the rules are, and if they break one well there isn't usually a warning, just punishment metered out without discussion. Apparently because the staff know what the rules are, the rest of us should know, like via osmosis or something.
... the trust system is broken, staff have absurdly ambiguous standards which they selectively enforce and refuse to clarify, along with their disconcerting eagerness to toss out and slander trusted members who have worked very hard to build trust over years for infractions that they refuse to enforce uniformly for all users. In stead of confronting their broken system they would rather rip apart the community starting with the MOST TRUSTED members (except for them and their special pals of course).
I have never been a big fan of the default trust, but until I was removed I had no way to know that trust was actually moderated, default trust users has unwritten and unspoken responsibilities, or that it was so insanely simple for trolls, scammers, and extortionists to have some one removed from the default trust. In short, I had no way of knowing these abuses existed until they were perpetrated upon me personally.
... the trust system is broken, staff have absurdly ambiguous standards which they selectively enforce and refuse to clarify, along with their disconcerting eagerness to toss out and slander trusted members who have worked very hard to build trust over years for infractions that they refuse to enforce uniformly for all users. In stead of confronting their broken system they would rather rip apart the community starting with the MOST TRUSTED members (except for them and their special pals of course).
I have never been a big fan of the default trust, but until I was removed I had no way to know that trust was actually moderated, default trust users has unwritten and unspoken responsibilities, or that it was so insanely simple for trolls, scammers, and extortionists to have some one removed from the default trust. In short, I had no way of knowing these abuses existed until they were perpetrated upon me personally.
The simple fact is moderation of the trust list from any central authority is a disaster and these types of things will become more common. If the staff/moderators don't admit the flaw in their reasoning here they will simply end up tearing the Bitcoin talk community apart with their own hands.
Trust exclusions are just a back door way for you and the highest ranking in the trust to take quiet retribution upon contributing members who have worked to build their reputations while not taking responsibility for it because no one really sees it, unlike a trust rating where you have to explain yourself and everyone can see it.
There need not be some master conspiracy plot for this to happen, just plain old nepotism which happens everywhere every day. The word conspiracy is bandied about by people who disagree with me and wish to marginalize my valid points about the inconsistent application of rules regarding the default trust system, and the trust system in general.
IMHO I think that members of the Default Trust and Depth 2 Trust should be extra diligent about handing out negative ratings. I also feel that the ratings should never be set in stone and are subject to reevaluation if the subject has demonstrated that he has changed. That's why I'm always willing to take a second look at a rating that I've given out and see if it's still applicable. If not, it gets removed, simple as that.
I agree 100% with what you said here. The key in your statement is that from start to finish it is YOUR CHOICE, not some one else telling you what to do with your own ratings. I agree due diligence is important as as far as making sure there is good reason for the ratings, which is why I have left so few. I don't go around looking for people to negative. Everyone I left a rating for had some kind of interaction with me, usually trade related.
When I left the negative for Armis I expected he would delete his posts and stop harassing me and I could simply delete it and we could both be restored to our former states and go our own ways. As you said if the person can demonstrate a willingness to change their behavior it can always be reconsidered. This was exactly my thinking, yet never at any point did Armis admit to any wrongdoing, let alone back down his trolling, insults, rhetoric, or slander. His unwillingness to take actions to restore us BOTH to our previous states by deleting his slanderous posts from several of my marketplace ops demonstrated to me he was unrepentant, and was under the impression that the moderators would some how "fix" his rating by making me look abusive as possible. Because of this he went as far as he possibly could to try to harm my reputation in a bid to make it look as if his rating was undeserved and unprovoked.
The moderators then emboldened him in this logic by attacking me for my actions, so in his mind he had no reason to compromise because he was going to get what he wanted anyway. Now he is stuck with a permanent negative rating and I was removed from the default trust list as a result rather than him having the rating removed and me having my marketplace OPs free of his slander and trolling. This is what happens when uninterested 3rd parties get involved in moderating trust ratings. Even EBAY doesn't touch feedback ratings, and they are one of the most corrupt companies on the planet. They don't do this because they understand what a mistake it is to try to moderate feedback as a 3rd party. So rather than a logical moderated action on my part to limit the actions of trolls in my marketplace OPs, this was then cast as some kind of abuse of authority for using my trust ratings as leverage against him (even though lots of people on the default trust use it this way, including VOD).
Actually it very much is the case that the trust list is one big boys club, and how I was dealt with is proof of it. Yet some people here make a part time job out of leaving negative feedback for the most flimsy of reasons and they are allowed to stay on the default trust. I EARNED my position on the default trust by trading honestly for YEARS. Additionally I was removed not because I was untrustworthy (the entire point of the trust system), but because staff DICTATED that I be removed under threat of removal of the trusting party. If he chose on his own to remove me that would be fine, but he didn't, he was directed to remove me "or else".
What you call abuse, I call a justified use. Supposedly the trust system is unmoderated, but here you are specifying the right and wrong kinds of trust based on your own interests and completely disregarding my own concerns. How was I supposed to be aware that the staff/mods operate like this if it is all done behind closed doors? I guess I should just know it because you know it, like via osmosis or something.
What you call abuse, I call a justified use. Supposedly the trust system is unmoderated, but here you are specifying the right and wrong kinds of trust based on your own interests and completely disregarding my own concerns. How was I supposed to be aware that the staff/mods operate like this if it is all done behind closed doors? I guess I should just know it because you know it, like via osmosis or something.
...the staff clearly did attempt to extort me into changing my trust by threatening removal of the party that trusted me from the trust list himself if he did not comply. He didn't remove me because I was untrustworthy, he removed me because he was DIRECTED TO by the forum staff.
People have left me negatives before, and I haven't complained about it because people have enough sense to judge feedback for themselves. You insist on treating everyone like children you have some right to dictate to because you have buttons to play with. You can pretend you know what I would do all day to cast me in whatever light suits you, but it does not make it true. This is a nice way of using circular logic and fantasy to justify your stance as opposed to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
The default trust has ZERO INTEGRITY, not because of people "abusing" it, but because it is selectively moderated ONLY WHEN IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF STAFF, MODERATORS, AND THEIR BUDDIES. You guys handed me down a maximum punishment because I DEFIED YOU not because of the reason I left the trust. STAFF use the default trust as a form of EXTORTION over honest traders by threatening to remove something they did not create, THE HONEST TRADERS DID, over a period of YEARS. Because of this the default trust is nothing more than a sham designed to give staff complete control over all high level traders here by dangling years of their work in front of them and saying "obey or else".
People have left me negatives before, and I haven't complained about it because people have enough sense to judge feedback for themselves. You insist on treating everyone like children you have some right to dictate to because you have buttons to play with. You can pretend you know what I would do all day to cast me in whatever light suits you, but it does not make it true. This is a nice way of using circular logic and fantasy to justify your stance as opposed to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
The default trust has ZERO INTEGRITY, not because of people "abusing" it, but because it is selectively moderated ONLY WHEN IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF STAFF, MODERATORS, AND THEIR BUDDIES. You guys handed me down a maximum punishment because I DEFIED YOU not because of the reason I left the trust. STAFF use the default trust as a form of EXTORTION over honest traders by threatening to remove something they did not create, THE HONEST TRADERS DID, over a period of YEARS. Because of this the default trust is nothing more than a sham designed to give staff complete control over all high level traders here by dangling years of their work in front of them and saying "obey or else".
...I wonder what kind of governments have laws which are unwritten and must be constantly guessed about by the population.... doesn't sound like a very reliable place. Making the rules unwritten may make things A LOT easier for you, but if it makes no difference and some one will complain anyway, why is it you insist on subjecting everyone to unwritten, non uniform, unpredictable enforcement for rules they don't even know exist?
...Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible...
This is quite an assumption to make. The forum itself is earning income and interacting with users of the forum. The moderators are paid, and that income comes from ads sold. There is a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in keeping this trust list under control of the people who are the primary beneficiaries of this (mods, any paid staff).
Even assuming that you are all 100% honest at your word, that alone is enough to influence your actions drastically regarding how you moderate the default trust. This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES, not from a central position of a small group of otherwise disinterested financial beneficiaries.
When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in.
That list is ordered by user ID, not added time.
I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.
...Involving disinterested 3rd parties in trust moderation is a failed policy.
Centralized policing of the trust system is a failed policy.
Until Theymos wises up an realizes this he is going to personally participate in shredding this community from the inside out with his own hands. Threads like this will come up more and more until they are just like the good old "centralized communist system" days, only with a nice pretend veneer of a distributed system to make it look like legitimate community consensus. People are free to point out trust abuse, and in many cases extreme abusers are themselves tagged with negatives from other respected community members. You guys CLAIM you don't want to have to deal with disputes, but you are CONSTANTLY INJECTING YOURSELVES INTO THEM.
Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.
Centralized policing of the trust system is a failed policy.
Until Theymos wises up an realizes this he is going to personally participate in shredding this community from the inside out with his own hands. Threads like this will come up more and more until they are just like the good old "centralized communist system" days, only with a nice pretend veneer of a distributed system to make it look like legitimate community consensus. People are free to point out trust abuse, and in many cases extreme abusers are themselves tagged with negatives from other respected community members. You guys CLAIM you don't want to have to deal with disputes, but you are CONSTANTLY INJECTING YOURSELVES INTO THEM.
Let the trust system moderate itself. Going around telling people who to remove from their trust under threat of themselves being removed is little more than a loophole to let Theymos personally dictate who gets to join his special little club, and anyone who doesn't obey his directive gets removed. That is not a community based distributed trust system, that is a centralized trust dictatorship, in many ways even worse than the old "scammer tag" days, because now everyone thinks it is distributed. This strategy of trying to moderate trust in any way is a failed one and will only lead to this community destroying itself from the inside out as trolls and scammers leverage it as a wedge against the core of the community.
What is the recurring theme here? Unwritten rules and ambiguous selective enforcement. We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as a standard for leaving negative ratings. Or we can just keep letting the forum eat its own face...
And we are officially here. This is the tyranny of ambiguity, selective enforcement, and avoidance of responsibility you carefully fostered here Theymos. People's real lives and freedoms are being threatened because you refuse to make hard choices in favor of utopian fantasies. Enjoy the fruits.
I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
- The evidence was very thin.
- Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
- The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
- It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.
It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.
Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.
For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.
- The evidence was very thin.
- Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
- The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
- It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.
It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.
Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.
For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.
A good example of this happening was CITM who had an outsized trust list that was not kept up with, which resulted in many scammers eventually getting onto DT via him; after some time, it became widely known his trust list was not good, and there became calls for him to be removed from DT1 (IIRC, he was only removed when he gave a frivolous rating to Dogie, which IMO was far too late).
Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/canaryinthemine-is-further-abusing-the-trust-system-fixed-990074. CITM was effectively selling DT2 positions as a free perk for buying as little as a USB miner from him.
Despite the problems related to CITM, I think this was a time when the DT system worked best. There was a fairly small amount of controversy and when there was controversy, issues were usually resolved in one way or another after a public discussion.
The introduction of trust exclusions gave people an excuse to not remove a controversial (inappropriate) person from their trust list.
The exclusions were a hand crafted feature to allow people who control the trust to never have to take responsibility for who they choose to use their inordinate amount of influence to deny others any say in how the system works. They never even have to explain themselves. It is just acceptable to exclude people now because you don't like them. This is a pathetic popularity contest spawned from systematically avoiding responsibility, not a trust system.
There is no reason to relitigate the underlying reasons, however theymos did not want you on DT. If there is someone who theymos does not want on DT, theymos should try to persuade the DT1 sponsor to remove that person, listen to any feedback he gets in response, and at the end of the day if the person is still on DT, theymos should be willing to remove the sponsor from DT1 if he still believes the person should not be on DT.
The implementation of trust exclusions allowed a DT1 sponsor to include a person on their trust list who should not be in DT without any real consequences. After Blazed was added to DT1, he added multiple inappropriate people to his trust list, and instead of forcing (or even attempting to) Blazed to address the issue, other DT1 sponsors ended up excluding multiple people Blazed had added to his trust list, some were excluded from DT, others were not. This absolved both Blazed and theymos from taking any kind of responsibility.
With the introduction of the "new" DT system, implemented this January, DT has become more of a popularity contest with those who are unpopular receiving exclusions, and those who say the right things receiving a bunch of unwarranted trust and trust inclusions.
A good example of this happening was CITM who had an outsized trust list that was not kept up with, which resulted in many scammers eventually getting onto DT via him; after some time, it became widely known his trust list was not good, and there became calls for him to be removed from DT1 (IIRC, he was only removed when he gave a frivolous rating to Dogie, which IMO was far too late).
Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/canaryinthemine-is-further-abusing-the-trust-system-fixed-990074. CITM was effectively selling DT2 positions as a free perk for buying as little as a USB miner from him.
Despite the problems related to CITM, I think this was a time when the DT system worked best. There was a fairly small amount of controversy and when there was controversy, issues were usually resolved in one way or another after a public discussion.
The introduction of trust exclusions gave people an excuse to not remove a controversial (inappropriate) person from their trust list.
The exclusions were a hand crafted feature to allow people who control the trust to never have to take responsibility for who they choose to use their inordinate amount of influence to deny others any say in how the system works. They never even have to explain themselves. It is just acceptable to exclude people now because you don't like them. This is a pathetic popularity contest spawned from systematically avoiding responsibility, not a trust system.
A good example of this happening was CITM who had an outsized trust list that was not kept up with, which resulted in many scammers eventually getting onto DT via him; after some time, it became widely known his trust list was not good, and there became calls for him to be removed from DT1 (IIRC, he was only removed when he gave a frivolous rating to Dogie, which IMO was far too late).
Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/canaryinthemine-is-further-abusing-the-trust-system-fixed-990074. CITM was effectively selling DT2 positions as a free perk for buying as little as a USB miner from him.
Despite the problems related to CITM, I think this was a time when the DT system worked best. There was a fairly small amount of controversy and when there was controversy, issues were usually resolved in one way or another after a public discussion.
The introduction of trust exclusions gave people an excuse to not remove a controversial (inappropriate) person from their trust list.
A good example of this happening was CITM who had an outsized trust list that was not kept up with, which resulted in many scammers eventually getting onto DT via him; after some time, it became widely known his trust list was not good, and there became calls for him to be removed from DT1 (IIRC, he was only removed when he gave a frivolous rating to Dogie, which IMO was far too late).
Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/canaryinthemine-is-further-abusing-the-trust-system-fixed-990074. CITM was effectively selling DT2 positions as a free perk for buying as little as a USB miner from him.
Mr.TECSHARE,
I respect most of your thoughts about decentralization of the trust system and also honour your efforts in making Bitcointalk a better place to go around.
Today, I was just going through the trust system working history and I found it to be in action Mostly in the Marketplace section from 2013 IMO announced here.
And while going through it, I was shocked to see your name on the initial pages in 2013, and to guess what was you talking about, it's original quote stands here.
I was shocked to see you firm on your motive's from such a long time, I just don't remember what was I working on in 2013 by the way!
I would just like to take this opportunity to honor your work of spreading ways to make the system work better.
Hats off to you!
I think this is the oldest trace I found about your "Walk Down Memory Lane" and would look good in the OP for sure.
I respect most of your thoughts about decentralization of the trust system and also honour your efforts in making Bitcointalk a better place to go around.
Today, I was just going through the trust system working history and I found it to be in action Mostly in the Marketplace section from 2013 IMO announced here.
And while going through it, I was shocked to see your name on the initial pages in 2013, and to guess what was you talking about, it's original quote stands here.
Quote from: TECSHARE link=topic=211858.msg2229639#msg2229639 date=May 22, 2013, 01:48:46
Is anyone else concerned that this system's may make it a lot easier for malicious parties to regulate, abuse, or target some of the most active members of the Bitcoin economy by turning it into an easy to use exportable database available to the public?
I was shocked to see you firm on your motive's from such a long time, I just don't remember what was I working on in 2013 by the way!
I would just like to take this opportunity to honor your work of spreading ways to make the system work better.
Hats off to you!
I think this is the oldest trace I found about your "Walk Down Memory Lane" and would look good in the OP for sure.
I appreciate the effort and the kind words. Some people refer to me as a broken record. I prefer to refer to it as having principles. It still amazes me we are repeating all the same patterns around here with very little changed after all of these years.
Mr.TECSHARE,
I respect most of your thoughts about decentralization of the trust system and also honour your efforts in making Bitcointalk a better place to go around.
Today, I was just going through the trust system working history and I found it to be in action Mostly in the Marketplace section from 2013 IMO announced here.
And while going through it, I was shocked to see your name on the initial pages in 2013, and to guess what was you talking about, it's original quote stands here.
I was shocked to see you firm on your motive's from such a long time, I just don't remember what was I working on in 2013 by the way!
I would just like to take this opportunity to honor your work of spreading ways to make the system work better.
Hats off to you!
I think this is the oldest trace I found about your "Walk Down Memory Lane" and would look good in the OP for sure.
I respect most of your thoughts about decentralization of the trust system and also honour your efforts in making Bitcointalk a better place to go around.
Today, I was just going through the trust system working history and I found it to be in action Mostly in the Marketplace section from 2013 IMO announced here.
And while going through it, I was shocked to see your name on the initial pages in 2013, and to guess what was you talking about, it's original quote stands here.
Quote from: TECSHARE link=topic=211858.msg2229639#msg2229639 date=May 22, 2013, 01:48:46
Is anyone else concerned that this system's may make it a lot easier for malicious parties to regulate, abuse, or target some of the most active members of the Bitcoin economy by turning it into an easy to use exportable database available to the public?
I was shocked to see you firm on your motive's from such a long time, I just don't remember what was I working on in 2013 by the way!
I would just like to take this opportunity to honor your work of spreading ways to make the system work better.
Hats off to you!
I think this is the oldest trace I found about your "Walk Down Memory Lane" and would look good in the OP for sure.
The majority of ratings seem to be warning people about red flags, not punishing provable scams. IMO this isn't a bad thing, since once someone has scammed, it's kind of too late.
What do you think about splitting the scam rating, with a "warning" rating for scammed previously OR you strongly believe that they will scam in the future, and a "scammer" rating for scammed previously AND you strongly believe that they will scam in the future? And then if you only have warning ratings, the indication displayed next to posts will be softer.
What do you think about splitting the scam rating, with a "warning" rating for scammed previously OR you strongly believe that they will scam in the future, and a "scammer" rating for scammed previously AND you strongly believe that they will scam in the future? And then if you only have warning ratings, the indication displayed next to posts will be softer.
For both of these instances you've provided they deserve "Scammer" or the current warning, as it was a committed act. As techshare pointed out you do have the 3rd option already created, it just goes unused in a large amount of cases because it isn't as visible, and sometimes the feedback left is meant to hurt/punish more than warn others.
"Neutral" if displayed in the same fashion as positive and negative as a tally in the profile information. Ideally people could be persuaded to use this as their "Warning" or "Take Note" feedbacks regarding users. Encouraging the use of this system, a user who may have fallen into your example under "warning", could gt their red trust removed if they redeem themselves in the eyes of the whoever left the feedback.
Instead of having hard and fast rules we need people who can be flexible in the degree of feedback left to different situations, and apply the same reasoning consistently. I have noticed some newer DT members that do ask community advice on tags they've left or are considering leaving. Some are receptive to advice, some have made there minds up already and are looking for reassurance. Either way with this much further reaching DT network, we should ideally be able to get some diluted form of community consensus on most issues. Not everybody will be happy ever, but if we are at least willing to consider the other side of things we could see this system actually work. I think this can be done using minimal direction from the top; if people actively try and think about: Why they are leaving the rating? Is it supported? (reference) Is the information accurate How will this help the reader?
it depends to theymos but you presumed that its not happening what the
Feel free to presume otherwise. If it happens remind me to admit that I was wrong.
Oh finally ran out of arguments? Time to shift those goal posts eh? Back to pretending I have not answered this question for like what the 8th time now?
Your answer still doesn't provide details on enforcement, not matter how many times you repeat your slogan. As far as I could tell it depends on theymos changing the guidelines (not happening) and on the majority of DT1 agreeing to apply exclusions according to your standards, which is also quite unlikely.
the next alt-account made by a scammer, and it's obviously a scam waiting to happen. But technically he hasn't "scammed previously" until a victim shows up.
its obviously acceptable if you have alts accounts here not unless you abuse bounties,and having alts account doesnt mean you will abuse bounties,you're perfect example you are using your alt when using mobile,theymos when hes away the point is do not shoot now then ask questions later.If the alt was from a known scammer of anyone who scammed previously then his alts should be tagged like what his main account have.i have ideas,
Red tag for account sellers/scammers/
Gray for alts but it wont be highlighted on every posts like what in red tag is will serve as indication that that/this are alts of someone else.
Merit abusers? like what we have in alts,gray..cause if you have alts its morelikely you will merit your own alts... its always together.
Orange for suspiscious account that might scam but i dont agree with this because it will lead to another abuse.retaliatory feedbacks will morelikely be used.
Sellers/Scammers and other shady things should be red tagged and highlighted to the profile and each posts..below the signature.
What do you think about splitting the scam rating, with a "warning" rating for scammed previously OR you strongly believe that they will scam in the future, and a "scammer" rating for scammed previously AND you strongly believe that they will scam in the future?
I'm trying to decide which rating I would have used for my past ratings, and I think this leaves a large gray area.A new user who posts this for example hasn't scammed anyone, although I'm certain it's just the next alt-account made by a scammer, and it's obviously a scam waiting to happen. But technically he hasn't "scammed previously" until a victim shows up.
A few DTs tag account sellers/buyers, I'm curious if they'd use the lesser warning for this if it's possible.
I wouldn't mind getting more feedback (pun intended) on the feedback I've left. I think I'm doing the right thing, but some feedback from upper management wouldn't hurt.
Your answer still doesn't provide details on enforcement, not matter how many times you repeat your slogan. As far as I could tell it depends on theymos changing the guidelines (not happening) and on the majority of DT1 agreeing to apply exclusions according to your standards, which is also quite unlikely.
I don't think theymos said its "not happening" rather he said he is already trying to make some new set of rules recently but he finds it hard to make specific rules for specific cases to be acted upon by DT. But if a good discussion about it is made he would surely able to make some better guidelines for usage of the trust system.
its a good idea but how will the previous ratings like mine will be more presentable to people? are those people who aggressively missused the trust ratings how will these people remove those ? i mean if you dont have standards/guidelines into how these new ratings should be tagged there will always be abuse with these people esp with the gang who are the most powerful DT's here.
1.Set a guideline for each trust categories
2.Remove/change those inappropriate ratings according to the new rules/guidelines (this will take forever esp to those trust abusers you know who)
3.Set punishment to those DT members who will abuse the new ratings like (disable them for 30days on first offense/3months/permanently from using trust/or best way remove them from the DT list)
these are my opinion"
1.Set a guideline for each trust categories
2.Remove/change those inappropriate ratings according to the new rules/guidelines (this will take forever esp to those trust abusers you know who)
3.Set punishment to those DT members who will abuse the new ratings like (disable them for 30days on first offense/3months/permanently from using trust/or best way remove them from the DT list)
these are my opinion"
Yeah, I don't see Theymos saying that is "not happening"
"Fundamental disagreement" I think was the phrase used by him regarding strict rules. Not sure how you expect to overcome that but feel free to surprise me.
Oh finally ran out of arguments? Time to shift those goal posts eh? Back to pretending I have not answered this question for like what the 8th time now?
Your answer still doesn't provide details on enforcement, not matter how many times you repeat your slogan. As far as I could tell it depends on theymos changing the guidelines (not happening) and on the majority of DT1 agreeing to apply exclusions according to your standards, which is also quite unlikely.
You just denying it provides details on enforcement does not magically make it true. I am confident anyone reading my response who is not as willfully ignorant as you will comprehend my reply.
Yeah, I don't see Theymos saying that is "not happening", but hey maybe your marginalization tactics will suddenly start working on me all of a sudden eh?
Oh finally ran out of arguments? Time to shift those goal posts eh? Back to pretending I have not answered this question for like what the 8th time now?
Your answer still doesn't provide details on enforcement, not matter how many times you repeat your slogan. As far as I could tell it depends on theymos changing the guidelines (not happening) and on the majority of DT1 agreeing to apply exclusions according to your standards, which is also quite unlikely.
It sure does doesn't it. That is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws so this ability to abuse this potential conflict is severely limited.
Is this where you finally tell us how you'll enforce that standard?
Considering however there is financial interest in the act of being a "scam buster" itself
Good to know that's how you see it.
How I see it is scam busters get a reputation off the backs of others risking nothing. Then once they have power then the financial interest comes in to play. This is a big difference from the risk a trader takes getting involved.
Oh finally ran out of arguments? Time to shift those goal posts eh? Back to pretending I have not answered this question for like what the 8th time now?
Exactly. Common ground. Instead of suspicion and guesses, you don't act to harm some ones ratings without a review of evidence. I would say the best way to do it frankly would be to present any evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to the community in the scam accusation area, then allow others to review it. If the evidence presented is sufficient naturally people will want to negative rate them. The standard should be evidence, review, then penalty of negative rating. It is not just a warning system it is also a penalty and this can not be glossed over. I genuinely effects people's ability to trade here and that should be accounted for. You know, the due process everyone in free countries enjoy so much?
Your assertion that Theymos will be required to officiate over every dispute is false, and provably so. Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both. The only difference is the standard becomes more exclusive, and less open to interpretation leading to less disputes and selective enforcement.
We need a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.
Your assertion that Theymos will be required to officiate over every dispute is false, and provably so. Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both. The only difference is the standard becomes more exclusive, and less open to interpretation leading to less disputes and selective enforcement.
We need a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.
It sure does doesn't it. That is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws so this ability to abuse this potential conflict is severely limited.
Is this where you finally tell us how you'll enforce that standard?
Considering however there is financial interest in the act of being a "scam buster" itself
Good to know that's how you see it.
Jump to: