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 1395 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.
Well first of all you totally ignored the part about the DT being diverse. Second you did not at all address the point that it is easy to rate frivolously when you have nothing at risk yourself. Like I said you didn't actually address what I said, you just essentially said "no this not that". There was no refutation, just you repeating your narrative and saying I am wrong because lets focus on these things instead. A big part of good judgement is having accountability. Currently there is zero accountability. Having trade interest inherently creates accountability.
It creates a conflict of interest too. There is a reason we don't appoint CEOs as judges IRL. DT has accountability in the form of DT1 votes and exclusions.
It sure does doesn't it. Considering however there is financial interest in the act of being a "scam buster" itself, this is hardly an argument against my points. 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 of interest is severely limited.
Well first of all you totally ignored the part about the DT being diverse. Second you did not at all address the point that it is easy to rate frivolously when you have nothing at risk yourself. Like I said you didn't actually address what I said, you just essentially said "no this not that". There was no refutation, just you repeating your narrative and saying I am wrong because lets focus on these things instead. A big part of good judgement is having accountability. Currently there is zero accountability. Having trade interest inherently creates accountability.
It creates a conflict of interest too. There is a reason we don't appoint CEOs as judges IRL. DT has accountability in the form of DT1 votes and exclusions.
You mean like I am unwilling to rock the boat? You didn't actually address what I said, you just restated your opinion.
You're special, that's true.
My opinion that having something to lose may inhibit one's judgement is directly addressing your opinion that having something to lose leads to more accurate ratings. I don't believe I stated that recently so it's a bit of a stretch to call it "restated". I think you meant to say that you disagree with me.
And it is currently diverse is it? Seems to me the same people run it. Having business interest is not pre-requisite, no, but it is a lot easier to judge people frivolously when you have no personal financial stake in any of the outcomes. This does however lead to more accurate ratings because they have something to lose. A lot of people here run around judging everyone with nothing at stake themselves.
Well first of all you totally ignored the part about the DT being diverse. Second you did not at all address the point that it is easy to rate frivolously when you have nothing at risk yourself. Like I said you didn't actually address what I said, you just essentially said "no this not that". There was no refutation, just you repeating your narrative and saying I am wrong because lets focus on these things instead. A big part of good judgement is having accountability. Currently there is zero accountability. Having trade interest inherently creates accountability.
You mean like I am unwilling to rock the boat? You didn't actually address what I said, you just restated your opinion.
You're special, that's true.
My opinion that having something to lose may inhibit one's judgement is directly addressing your opinion that having something to lose leads to more accurate ratings. I don't believe I stated that recently so it's a bit of a stretch to call it "restated". I think you meant to say that you disagree with me.
And it is currently diverse is it? Seems to me the same people run it. Having business interest is not pre-requisite, no, but it is a lot easier to judge people frivolously when you have no personal financial stake in any of the outcomes. This does however lead to more accurate ratings because they have something to lose. A lot of people here run around judging everyone with nothing at stake themselves.
It goes both ways. People who have something to lose may also be unlikely to rock the boat and defy the "cliques" you're so concerned about.
I don't think having a business on the forum should have any bearing on one's DT position. We need people with good judgement in marketplace deals, as well as people with good judgement in gambling issues, ICO scams, fake mining hardware, etc.
You mean like I am unwilling to rock the boat? You didn't actually address what I said, you just restated your opinion.
And it is currently diverse is it? Seems to me the same people run it. Having business interest is not pre-requisite, no, but it is a lot easier to judge people frivolously when you have no personal financial stake in any of the outcomes. This does however lead to more accurate ratings because they have something to lose. A lot of people here run around judging everyone with nothing at stake themselves.
It goes both ways. People who have something to lose may also be unlikely to rock the boat and defy the "cliques" you're so concerned about.
I don't think having a business on the forum should have any bearing on one's DT position. We need people with good judgement in marketplace deals, as well as people with good judgement in gambling issues, ICO scams, fake mining hardware, etc.
Business and scams happen on other boards too - altcoins, hardware, gambling. DT1 should be more diverse, not less, and having a business interest is not a prerequisite for having good judgement.
And it is currently diverse is it? Seems to me the same people run it. Having business interest is not pre-requisite, no, but it is a lot easier to judge people frivolously when you have no personal financial stake in any of the outcomes. This does however lead to more accurate ratings because they have something to lose. A lot of people here run around judging everyone with nothing at stake themselves.
A lot of the controversial ratings are highlighting what is often a far cry from a "red flag" although it is often framed this way; there is often a weak/no link between the highlighted "red flag" and the potential to scam in the future.
A lot? Often? What is it? 1%? 10%? 90%?
In addition to the above, the DT1 selection criteria should be changed back to those who have an ongoing business interest in the forum marketplace.
Business and scams happen on other boards too - altcoins, hardware, gambling. DT1 should be more diverse, not less, and having a business interest is not a prerequisite for having good judgement.
Though I agree with Quickseller point but I do not agree with statement that add only those people who have some kind of business interest. There is no guarantee that these people with "business interest" will not misuse the system for their own gain. DT issue still remain the same but only faces will change.
The majority of ratings seem to be warning people about red flags, not punishing provable scams.
A lot of the controversial ratings are highlighting what is often a far cry from a "red flag" although it is often framed this way; there is often a weak/no link between the highlighted "red flag" and the potential to scam in the future. There are also some instances in which someone is displaying a lot of actual red flags, and would be appropriate for them to be labeled a "scammer" because the only reasonable explanation is they plan on scamming in the future. I would argue when there are a small number of "red flags" AND when all the red flags taken together do not indicate this person will (try to) scam in the future, a neutral would be most appropriate.
Predictability and guidelines are often good. I wrote some Trust guidelines recently, and I may write more. But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases.
The guidelines have little effect if you are explicitly saying you will not enforce them (within the DT network). If you have a set of rules and exceptions are consistently being made (or not being made) to a certain person or group of people, then perhaps there is a problem. If there is clear overreach, without accountability or at least an explanation or defense of a rating, there is another problem.
When the DT system was first introduced (or at least when I joined the forum), those on DT1 were businesspeople with a lot of (ongoing) trading/business experience within the forum. These people would select who would be on their trust lists, and when someone they "sponsor" did something wrong, their reputation would somewhat suffer, especially if this person was not removed 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).
I think a good solution to DT troubles is to display the sponsor of each rating for ratings given by someone not directly on a person's trust list. For example, if I was looking at kano's trust page, I would see a rating from -ck, who is in my trust network because theymos, OgNasty and cyrus all sponsor him, who are all in my trust network because they are trusted by DefaultTrust, so adjacent to ck-'s rating would be an indication I am seeing this rating because of themos, OgNasty and cryus, and that each of them are in my trust network because of DefaultTrust. This would give a bigger incentive for those on DT1 to maintain a trust list comprised of good/accurate/fair ratings.
In addition to the above, the DT1 selection criteria should be changed back to those who have an ongoing business interest in the forum marketplace.
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.
I think this is nothing more different than just using a neutral rating for such cases, it is more softer rating like a "warning" rating as you described. It just needs to be use at the instances, but due to the lack of forum endorsed rules to use them, a neutral rating is often replaced by a direct red, even if sufficient evidence is not provided.Now it is getting larger and in some ways unmanageable in the same ways, and frankly this obsession with not wanting any hard rules is hurting this community, not helping it at this stage. I don't think setting up a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating is at all excessive, and in fact is quite minimalist. Furthermore as I defined it would actually allow people to have a fair overview, not just a summary execution by suspicion and its over with.
I see this as a very valid statement as the forum has truly grown to a vast extent after some of the current rules were applied and it surely needs a new set of rules to manage the overgrowing community and at the same time scammers who try to attack in any way they can. Its not a bad idea to put more strict rules over a large community as it keep it bonded and productive. 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.
I think that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on this stuff, though:
Predictability and guidelines are often good. I wrote some Trust guidelines recently, and I may write more. But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases. Whenever an argument starts looking like it was written by a lawyer, or relying overmuch on precedent, you've stopped thinking about the real case and have started using rules to retreat into moral and intellectual laziness, divorcing yourself from the decision you're about to make. If you're making a decision about a case, then you're responsible for that case, and you can't say, "I don't agree with it, but I was just enforcing the rules." Every case needs to be handled individually.
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.
I think that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on this stuff, though:
Predictability and guidelines are often good. I wrote some Trust guidelines recently, and I may write more. But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases. Whenever an argument starts looking like it was written by a lawyer, or relying overmuch on precedent, you've stopped thinking about the real case and have started using rules to retreat into moral and intellectual laziness, divorcing yourself from the decision you're about to make. If you're making a decision about a case, then you're responsible for that case, and you can't say, "I don't agree with it, but I was just enforcing the rules." Every case needs to be handled individually.
I think you already set the system up to do that by creating neutral ratings. I don't think the trust system needs more additions, what it has needs to be more tightly directed. The more parts you add to a system the easier it is exploited or broken. I realize you don't like hard and fast rules, and I understand your fears here, but you should also realize if those are actually your primary concerns, the current environment allows for MORE of that type of behavior not less of it.
The fact is a negative rating is a penalty for people and inhibits their ability to trade here. These warning ratings will do little but slow down fraud at best. Either they should be a warning which can be widely applied, or a penalty, not both. If it is both then the counterproductive element of catching too many people in the wide net is a problem. This is why I am advocating for using neutral ratings with scam accusation/reputation threads referenced as the warning. This benefit is two fold, it reduces the signal noise of false ratings, and it teaches users to actually read the ratings before trading. Then when you see a red tag it actually means something.
You may want to run this place in a more anarcho-capitalist friendly way, but as I said before the forum is still inherently centralized, there is no way around this. As a result you inherently are the one to define these rules. When it was smaller this free for all kind of approach worked better, mostly because the community was more cohesive.
Now it is getting larger and in some ways unmanageable in the same ways, and frankly this obsession with not wanting any hard rules is hurting this community, not helping it at this stage. I don't think setting up a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating is at all excessive, and in fact is quite minimalist. Furthermore as I defined it would actually allow people to have a fair overview, not just a summary execution by suspicion and its over with.
Currently most of the people in control of the trust system have no accountability as it is. The arbitrary nature of the "guidelines" creates so much ambiguity you could drive a bus through to avoid responsibility for a bad rating. The standard I am advocating for would absolutely leave people responsible for their own ratings. Not only would most people expect them to back the rating up with evidence, but it would have to make sense in an objective way, as opposed to the non-standard we have now of "I feel like...[insert crime here]".
You are afraid of this place morphing into the standard authoritarian type environment. I get it. What I don't think you do get is that we are already largely there, it is just some thing you never see because of the complete ambiguity and lack of accountability of the people doing the ratings and exclusions. Anyone who has a complaint is easily dismissed as a scammer without a second thought, and to you it is as if it never even happened because it happens so often it might as well not have.
Theymos' proposal is definitely a step in the right direction I agree, but that doesn't really address the larger problem. It'd be great if people were willing to accept the differentiation between "This person scammed" and "This is a warning sign" categories, but I'd be willing to bet there will still be the same complaints. You'd essentially just be taking all of the controversial negative feedback people have received to this point, and shifting it to the warning category, except in the cases where actual theft has occurred, but I don't see many people contending that type of feedback anyway. I'm under the impression that most people read the type of negative feedback in question here already as warnings and not proof of someone being a scammer, but I could be wrong.
I agree that telling people what they can and can't leave feedback for completely ruins the point. If you can think of a system that allows people to still send negative feedback for spamming, abusive language, or whatever things may be considered "untrustworthy" in some people's opinion, yet isn't weighed the same as, this guy stole my credit card info! That'd be a step in the right direction.
Not that I think its a great thing, but the major rift thats been occurring between the factions of what I'll call forum police and people who don't like the forum police has been interesting. Its been forcing custom trust lists which is a positive thing in my opinion. Default trust really needs to be just default, and then unnecessary after a few months of being here. A guideline for newbies shouldn't be the end all be all that its become for trading with people. I've been a supporter of the default trust system for a long while, and I still am, but thats just because I use it how I imagine it should work.
I agree that telling people what they can and can't leave feedback for completely ruins the point. If you can think of a system that allows people to still send negative feedback for spamming, abusive language, or whatever things may be considered "untrustworthy" in some people's opinion, yet isn't weighed the same as, this guy stole my credit card info! That'd be a step in the right direction.
Not that I think its a great thing, but the major rift thats been occurring between the factions of what I'll call forum police and people who don't like the forum police has been interesting. Its been forcing custom trust lists which is a positive thing in my opinion. Default trust really needs to be just default, and then unnecessary after a few months of being here. A guideline for newbies shouldn't be the end all be all that its become for trading with people. I've been a supporter of the default trust system for a long while, and I still am, but thats just because I use it how I imagine it should work.
Seems very simple.
1. "extreme scam warning" ..those that stole the credit card information and bitcoins
2. " possible warnings" but still a strong case for them being potential scammer. This is still not a place for lemon love or hate to feature.
3. Lemons love or hate should really be neutral or just not really mentioned inside a trust system along with other things that have zero or very weak link to scamming.
Theymos' proposal is definitely a step in the right direction I agree, but that doesn't really address the larger problem. It'd be great if people were willing to accept the differentiation between "This person scammed" and "This is a warning sign" categories, but I'd be willing to bet there will still be the same complaints. You'd essentially just be taking all of the controversial negative feedback people have received to this point, and shifting it to the warning category, except in the cases where actual theft has occurred, but I don't see many people contending that type of feedback anyway. I'm under the impression that most people read the type of negative feedback in question here already as warnings and not proof of someone being a scammer, but I could be wrong.
I agree that telling people what they can and can't leave feedback for completely ruins the point. If you can think of a system that allows people to still send negative feedback for spamming, abusive language, or whatever things may be considered "untrustworthy" in some people's opinion, yet isn't weighed the same as, this guy stole my credit card info! That'd be a step in the right direction.
Not that I think its a great thing, but the major rift thats been occurring between the factions of what I'll call forum police and people who don't like the forum police has been interesting. Its been forcing custom trust lists which is a positive thing in my opinion. Default trust really needs to be just default, and then unnecessary after a few months of being here. A guideline for newbies shouldn't be the end all be all that its become for trading with people. I've been a supporter of the default trust system for a long while, and I still am, but thats just because I use it how I imagine it should work.
I agree that telling people what they can and can't leave feedback for completely ruins the point. If you can think of a system that allows people to still send negative feedback for spamming, abusive language, or whatever things may be considered "untrustworthy" in some people's opinion, yet isn't weighed the same as, this guy stole my credit card info! That'd be a step in the right direction.
Not that I think its a great thing, but the major rift thats been occurring between the factions of what I'll call forum police and people who don't like the forum police has been interesting. Its been forcing custom trust lists which is a positive thing in my opinion. Default trust really needs to be just default, and then unnecessary after a few months of being here. A guideline for newbies shouldn't be the end all be all that its become for trading with people. I've been a supporter of the default trust system for a long while, and I still am, but thats just because I use it how I imagine it should work.
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.
I think that would be fair. Regardless, there will be people who people who abuse the highest "Scammer" rating in retaliation for their own negative reviews.
Like suchmoon, I'd be curious to see what you have in mind to define what constitutes a warning vs. a full on scammer tag. Or, would you leave this to the community to work out? And be prepared for cryptohunter's walls of text complaining about whatever resolution is conceived.
Sounds like a great idea from Theymos. Let's implement it at once.
Theymos just told you. For red then
Either..
1. you are a proven scammer
or lesser warning sign for...
2. you have done something that STRONGLY indicates they will scam.
That sounds like excellent news.
Anything other than that is not red trust worthy. So let's get removing all the fake red trust abuse (because nobody will stand for this abuse by these proven untrustworthy scum) and if they in future do not operate within these guidelines they get black listed from DT.
So lets then see how these system abusers give out red trust.
I told a proven liar that if he continued to accusing me of lying without evidence (there was none so he was actually lying again) I would then encourage others to explore his post history when I knew there was evidence of him clearly telling a lie. For that I will not have red trust.
I think this new proposal sounds excellent.
It should be accompanied by a RULE that those on DT1 that can NOT present a case to demonstrate a person is either a scammer or a case to demonstrate there is STRONG evidence to suggest they will scam in the future get black listed from DT and get their merit source taken away.
Clear abusers of the trust system need some punishment else they will just abuse it as they see fit and nothing will improve. No point Theymos saying it should be like this then not punishing those that do not do as he tells them. Treat the trust system as he tells you or else get black listed from it.
So next time you go to red paint someones account make sure you have a strong case or boom black listed. Just having that threat a real possibility will mean most persons (who want to stay on DT) will make sure they start only giving red where there is STRONG case for someone being a scammer or is going to scam.
Why would I complain about this new suggestion Theymos just made. I think it is an excellent idea.
No more petty arguments and bickering resulting in red trust and no more being able to use red trust to silence people from voicing their opinions that are based on observable events demonstrating your prior wrongdoing.
Being able to use the trust system to try to silence others reporting wrongdoing is a total perversion of how it is supposed to operate.
I like Theymos new proposal. Let us introduce it at once. No complaints from me.
1. you are a proven scammer
2. you have done things that build a strong case you will scam people.
If you give red trust but can not prove they have scammed or present evidence that provides a STRONG case they will scam someone then you are black listed and removed. No more abuse for personal gain.
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.
I think that would be fair. Regardless, there will be people who people who abuse the highest "Scammer" rating in retaliation for their own negative reviews.
Like suchmoon, I'd be curious to see what you have in mind to define what constitutes a warning vs. a full on scammer tag. Or, would you leave this to the community to work out? And be prepared for cryptohunter's walls of text complaining about whatever resolution is conceived.
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.
I have a feeling this would lead to months-long debate on what "scam" means on a spectrum from "deception" to "stealing money".
For example, is Mt. Gox a scam?
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.
I think that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on this stuff, though:
Predictability and guidelines are often good. I wrote some Trust guidelines recently, and I may write more. But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases. Whenever an argument starts looking like it was written by a lawyer, or relying overmuch on precedent, you've stopped thinking about the real case and have started using rules to retreat into moral and intellectual laziness, divorcing yourself from the decision you're about to make. If you're making a decision about a case, then you're responsible for that case, and you can't say, "I don't agree with it, but I was just enforcing the rules." Every case needs to be handled individually.
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.
I think that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on this stuff, though:
Predictability and guidelines are often good. I wrote some Trust guidelines recently, and I may write more. But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases. Whenever an argument starts looking like it was written by a lawyer, or relying overmuch on precedent, you've stopped thinking about the real case and have started using rules to retreat into moral and intellectual laziness, divorcing yourself from the decision you're about to make. If you're making a decision about a case, then you're responsible for that case, and you can't say, "I don't agree with it, but I was just enforcing the rules." Every case needs to be handled individually.
@TECSHARE
I don't think that your argument is false in anyway, and I'll say again; I agree with your agenda and philosophy. We all live in societies of laws, and it's always best when those laws are unambiguous. I just don't think that, strictly speaking that has to be the way a forum is operated. It is just an internet forum.
To risk playing devils advocate; you said it yourself:
That argument alone demonstrates that he's less likely to implement a rigid set of guidelines for trust. And after all, it's his forum to operate as he sees fit. There are several illegal activities that play out here on the forum, and Theymos does little to prevent them. Some of those illegal activities are conducted legitimately, and people participate in them willingly. Some are down right scams. That's what I would expect from a self described anarcho-capitalist. The trust system applied the way it is allows the community to determine what is what is not trustworthy behavior despite the lack of rigid guidelines. It can lead to inaccurate ratings, but it can also be worked out when errors occur.
I certainly don't claim it to be perfect, but what set of rigid guidelines is perfect? Cryptocurrencey was born, and adopted out of the desire and need to decentralize wealth. A relatively libertarian and anti-authoritarian philosophy, and it's likely to attract those who would like to put that philosophy into practice.
I don't think that your argument is false in anyway, and I'll say again; I agree with your agenda and philosophy. We all live in societies of laws, and it's always best when those laws are unambiguous. I just don't think that, strictly speaking that has to be the way a forum is operated. It is just an internet forum.
To risk playing devils advocate; you said it yourself:
As far as I have read, Theymos actually considers himself "some what of a anarcho-capitalist"...
That argument alone demonstrates that he's less likely to implement a rigid set of guidelines for trust. And after all, it's his forum to operate as he sees fit. There are several illegal activities that play out here on the forum, and Theymos does little to prevent them. Some of those illegal activities are conducted legitimately, and people participate in them willingly. Some are down right scams. That's what I would expect from a self described anarcho-capitalist. The trust system applied the way it is allows the community to determine what is what is not trustworthy behavior despite the lack of rigid guidelines. It can lead to inaccurate ratings, but it can also be worked out when errors occur.
I certainly don't claim it to be perfect, but what set of rigid guidelines is perfect? Cryptocurrencey was born, and adopted out of the desire and need to decentralize wealth. A relatively libertarian and anti-authoritarian philosophy, and it's likely to attract those who would like to put that philosophy into practice.
Well the thing is this forum is centralized by its nature, so on some levels this anarcho-capitalist ideal will never be possible, but maybe on some. Anarchy means without rulers, not without rules. Unfortunately like it or not Theymos is the defacto ruler so by definition anarchy of any sort is out the window. IMO something close to libertarian would be closest to the anarcho-capitalist goal while still taking into account the fact it is inherently centralized. Unfortunately what we have now is closer to a pure Democracy, also known as mob rule. Under this system the majority is always right and the individual has no rights. I really don't think anyone wants that, even Theymos.
The guidelines don't have to be rigid. I would propose Theymos advise a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as the standard for users leaving negative ratings. Users would present the evidence of these things in the appropriate section, and if need be make a neutral rating reference to the thread on their trust. Once the standard of evidence is met naturally others will want to negative rate them. This has become too much about playing cops and robbers and too little about justice and building a community.
@TECSHARE
I don't think that your argument is false in anyway, and I'll say again; I agree with your agenda and philosophy. We all live in societies of laws, and it's always best when those laws are unambiguous. I just don't think that, strictly speaking that has to be the way a forum is operated. It is just an internet forum.
To risk playing devils advocate; you said it yourself:
That argument alone demonstrates that he's less likely to implement a rigid set of guidelines for trust. And after all, it's his forum to operate as he sees fit. There are several illegal activities that play out here on the forum, and Theymos does little to prevent them. Some of those illegal activities are conducted legitimately, and people participate in them willingly. Some are down right scams. That's what I would expect from a self described anarcho-capitalist. The trust system applied the way it is allows the community to determine what is what is not trustworthy behavior despite the lack of rigid guidelines. It can lead to inaccurate ratings, but it can also be worked out when errors occur.
I certainly don't claim it to be perfect, but what set of rigid guidelines is perfect? Cryptocurrencey was born, and adopted out of the desire and need to decentralize wealth. A relatively libertarian and anti-authoritarian philosophy, and it's likely to attract those who would like to put that philosophy into practice.
I don't think that your argument is false in anyway, and I'll say again; I agree with your agenda and philosophy. We all live in societies of laws, and it's always best when those laws are unambiguous. I just don't think that, strictly speaking that has to be the way a forum is operated. It is just an internet forum.
To risk playing devils advocate; you said it yourself:
As far as I have read, Theymos actually considers himself "some what of a anarcho-capitalist"...
That argument alone demonstrates that he's less likely to implement a rigid set of guidelines for trust. And after all, it's his forum to operate as he sees fit. There are several illegal activities that play out here on the forum, and Theymos does little to prevent them. Some of those illegal activities are conducted legitimately, and people participate in them willingly. Some are down right scams. That's what I would expect from a self described anarcho-capitalist. The trust system applied the way it is allows the community to determine what is what is not trustworthy behavior despite the lack of rigid guidelines. It can lead to inaccurate ratings, but it can also be worked out when errors occur.
I certainly don't claim it to be perfect, but what set of rigid guidelines is perfect? Cryptocurrencey was born, and adopted out of the desire and need to decentralize wealth. A relatively libertarian and anti-authoritarian philosophy, and it's likely to attract those who would like to put that philosophy into practice.
The problem with enforcing an "objective standard" is that that in itself can be pretty subjective and is dependent on enforcers of the standard to themselves be completely unbiased, which isn't gonna happen. I don't know what OP's problem is. He has a good trust rating. None of the changes effect his ability to carry out his business on the forum, which it sounds like his life is dependent upon -- he can still see negative trusts he leaves for other people. He won't rest until things are exactly the way he wants them, which again, isn't gonna happen.
It just sounds like he's been crying for the last 4 years straight. Sorry for "derailing" your thread.
It just sounds like he's been crying for the last 4 years straight. Sorry for "derailing" your thread.
It is far more objective than what is the standard now, not even close. This standard relies on statements of fact, not feelings or suspicious which are completely open to interpretation and abuse rationalized 1000 different ways. Any dispute over what is and is not evidence is already regularly examined by the community in the scam accusation section as it always has been. There is no reason this can not be used as the rubric for what is an acceptable rating. Really it is not subjective at all, which is the whole point.
My problem is I don't want to be subject to a system of arbitrary enforcement, stalking, and abuse that is the standard around here. This is creating an extremely caustic environment on the forum and is destroying the core of the community from the inside out. The trust system as it is, is wide open for scammers and trolls to slide right in and make is user base tear itself apart as we have seen so many examples of.
I am being so vocal about this because I am one of the FEW cases where these complaints can not simply be dismissed as some kind of scammer trying to cover up their crimes which is standard operating procedure any time a complaint is made. I am one of the few people that is willing to step forward and risk harassment by these entrenched abusers in the current system. For the most part everyone doesn't want to get involved because they fear retribution themselves, but the problem with that is it lets the abusers run the forum. I don't intend to stand by quietly and allow this to happen like most of the rest of the forum unwilling to take the risk of speaking up.
That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
I have no disagreements to this philosophy, and I agree it would be easier to have guidelines to follow. But I'll risk a speculation: that's probably not the decentralized vision theymos has for this forum. In the short time I've been here it's been made pretty clear that theymos is libertarian. And so yes, libertarian philosophy and lack of authority may lead to anarchy. As long as nobody loses an eye, I'm enjoying witnessing this unique study in human behavior.
Theymos has already issued "guidelines" but they are so subjective as to be completely meaningless in effect. Regardless of what Theymos's vision is, this objective standard would serve the forum and its user base much better as it would eliminate the VAST amount of conflict and abuse simply by creating that objective standard.
As far as I have read, Theymos actually considers himself "some what of a anarcho-capitalist", which is all fine and dandy, but after a while it becomes a bit childish to run a forum as your personal social experiment when some very simple rules would prevent so many problems for the user base. The fact is the forum is a centralized entity. All the fantasizing in the world about anarcho-capitalism is not going to make that any different. It is kind of hard to have anarchy when he is ultimately the dictator of the forum. Also anarchy means without rulers, not without rules.
That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
I have no disagreements to this philosophy, and I agree it would be easier to have guidelines to follow. But I'll risk a speculation: that's probably not the decentralized vision theymos has for this forum. In the short time I've been here it's been made pretty clear that theymos is libertarian. And so yes, libertarian philosophy and lack of authority may lead to anarchy. As long as nobody loses an eye, I'm enjoying witnessing this unique study in human behavior.
The problem with enforcing an "objective standard" is that that in itself can be pretty subjective and is dependent on enforcers of the standard to themselves be completely unbiased, which isn't gonna happen. I don't know what OP's problem is. He has a good trust rating. None of the changes effect his ability to carry out his business on the forum, which it sounds like his life is dependent upon -- he can still see negative trusts he leaves for other people. He won't rest until things are exactly the way he wants them, which again, isn't gonna happen.
It just sounds like he's been crying for the last 4 years straight. Sorry for "derailing" your thread.
That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
I have no disagreements to this philosophy, and I agree it would be easier to have guidelines to follow. But I'll risk a speculation: that's probably not the decentralized vision theymos has for this forum. In the short time I've been here it's been made pretty clear that theymos is libertarian. And so yes, libertarian philosophy and lack of authority may lead to anarchy. As long as nobody loses an eye, I'm enjoying witnessing this unique study in human behavior.
There is nothing wrong with my tiny handful of negative ratings left. I wonder what I would find if I went through you ratings since we are talking about hypocrisy here?
I'm not the one advocating some new standards so not sure where you see the hypocrisy.
I am confused because I refuse to let you hijack this thread and make it what YOU wish it was about? There is nothing wrong with my ratings, even if there was THIS is not the forum for it, perhaps you should move your complaints to reputation as you like to say so much any time some one brings up ratings YOU DON'T want to discuss.
Ok. You don't want to discuss what's in the OP. Weird but ok.
Does everyone see the same pattern here of every time some one tries to point out the flaws and abuse in this system and tries to advocate for a change toadies like Suchmoon come out of the wood work to constantly derail the threads. The trust system needs an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.
All I said is that you should lead by example. I find it weird that you want standards but you don't want to adhere to them yourself. Anyways, enjoy the discussion with somebody else who will hopefully have better luck understanding what it is that you're discussing here.
None of your horse shit derailing was in the OP no matter how much you are going to pretend it was. This is the same pattern you play out any time some one is critical of the current trust system status quo, only you can't just easily dismiss me as a scammer like every other person who brings these issues up is. As a result you need to pick thru my tiny number of ratings to find something to blow out of proportion to distract from the fact that the trust system is counter productive and widely open to abuse. Now that you have dropped your turds on the thread and you have run out of ammo you are now forced to move along with your further dismissive comments on the way out never once having addressed the actual arguments made, just the way you like it. I have been leading by example, by standing up to power hungry little toads like you for years regardless of how much harassment results.
I would call that a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here.
Then I'm not sure where we went wrong.Let's avoid the tirade of drama and talk about improving DefaultTrust as a system. The individuals can come later (or in separate discussions). Agreed?
There was a post by someone when explaining negative trust. Paraphrasing here, but I believe this is critical: "Is the negative feedback worth ruining the user's reputation?"
This should be mainly for preventing the degradation of the forum. Scams, egregious abuse of forum systems, etc.
I don't usually send out negative feedback based on dissenting opinions. (if there is feedback that I sent of which you disagree with, please let me know.)
There are some cases in which consistent blatant lying that is not outright scamming (i.e. does not involve any monetary transaction) might deserve a strongly-worded neutral or at worst, a negative.*
*may not have actually occurred yet
As I stated in previous posts we need this core set of principles because it is what will ultimately achieve those goals of preventing abuse, scams, and general degradation of the forum. It is not rocket science. Look at any society without a rule of law and see how it is controlled. This forum is not quite that chaotic, but operates under systematic arbitrary enforcement.
Arbitrary enforcement results in not only confusion of what the rules are but creates a feedback loop of disregard for the "rule of law" or observing rules on the forum in general. You combine this with a small handful of cliques that have made an industry out of going after scams or manufacturing them to then "bust" them with various levels of complication, and now you have direct incentive for abuse without recourse for those abused. This again breeds disrespect for any authority around here, as well again creates a feedback loop of driving away constructive users who simply didn't understand the arbitrarily enforced patchwork of rules, while actual scammers are back in seconds with a bought account.
There needs to be a standard of evidence for negative ratings of some kind of documentation of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. This would cut out SO MUCH of the bullshit we are seeing right now. The sky will not fall. The forum will continue. There will be less drama, more cooperation, more constructive users, less scamming (because they can't hide in the noise), and most importantly people can enjoy the peace of mind of generally BEING LEFT THE FUCK ALONE if they haven't harmed anyone else as is traditional in this community.
Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.
The only problem with Neutral trust is if a person has a zero trust rating, many people don't even bother to check the trust comments. Perhaps a message under trust to "click here to read peer comments" should be warranted.
That is the issue. The trust system is supposed to be a simple guide for noobs right? Unfortunately though no system is free from exploitation. We should be encouraging users to use the green and red numbers as a QUICK REFERENCE, then to do their own due diligence before trading. By overly applying the ratings we are just creating signal noise and confusion allowing this kind of manufactured crime of suspicion creating complete ambiguity as to who is actually a scammer and who is not. The net is too wide so you catch too many innocents, or for very petty reasons, people notice, then the whole system becomes useless for its intended purpose.
We need a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating, otherwise it can never be a useful quick reference as explained above. Even if it WAS a good quick reference, teaching noobs to just use those numbers and not do due diligence is feeding them into a wood chipper of fraud by teaching them to trust a system that can be manipulated. Furthermore these trust police feed into this feeling by giving the perception that they actively stop scams.
I am sorry but this whole thing that has arisen here is what we call a clusterfuck and it needs to stop. I can't even imagine how much more we could have accomplished if all of this energy was redirected towards constructive things rather than playing cops and robbers and ripping apart the foundation of the cohesiveness of the culture of the forum itself.
There is nothing wrong with my tiny handful of negative ratings left. I wonder what I would find if I went through you ratings since we are talking about hypocrisy here?
I'm not the one advocating some new standards so not sure where you see the hypocrisy.
I am confused because I refuse to let you hijack this thread and make it what YOU wish it was about? There is nothing wrong with my ratings, even if there was THIS is not the forum for it, perhaps you should move your complaints to reputation as you like to say so much any time some one brings up ratings YOU DON'T want to discuss.
Ok. You don't want to discuss what's in the OP. Weird but ok.
Does everyone see the same pattern here of every time some one tries to point out the flaws and abuse in this system and tries to advocate for a change toadies like Suchmoon come out of the wood work to constantly derail the threads. The trust system needs an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.
All I said is that you should lead by example. I find it weird that you want standards but you don't want to adhere to them yourself. Anyways, enjoy the discussion with somebody else who will hopefully have better luck understanding what it is that you're discussing here.
Yes, why take into account the other 8 years of trust ratings when you can pick one single event and use it to delegitimize every argument I make for years. That sounds logical to me.
After all it does serve as quite a convenient tool to distract from the fact that none of this confusion would have happened to begin with if there was an objective standard. Perhaps when that standard is met and you pick the beam out of your own eye, I will remove the speck from mine.
After all it does serve as quite a convenient tool to distract from the fact that none of this confusion would have happened to begin with if there was an objective standard. Perhaps when that standard is met and you pick the beam out of your own eye, I will remove the speck from mine.
You're confused. Your own OP quotes those events from ~5 years ago. Why do you post stuff that you don't want to be discussed?
And it's not the only rating that doesn't meet your own standards. Some others that stand out:
Hippie Tech (at least the first rating)
Quickseller (not that he lacks reasons to be untrustworthy but your feedback is quite ridiculous)
I'm not "delegitimizing" your arguments, just finding it impossible to take you seriously when you sound like a spoiled brat in your posts and in your trust ratings every time someone disagrees with you.
There is nothing wrong with my tiny handful of negative ratings left. I have left less than 4 negative ratings per year on average since it existed. I wonder what I would find if I went through you ratings since we are talking about hypocrisy here? I am confused because I refuse to let you hijack this thread and make it what YOU wish it was about? There is nothing wrong with my ratings, even if there was THIS is not the forum for it, perhaps you should move your complaints to reputation as you like to say so much any time some one brings up ratings YOU DON'T want to discuss.
Does everyone see the same pattern here of every time some one tries to point out the flaws and abuse in this system and tries to advocate for a change toadies like Suchmoon come out of the wood work to constantly derail the threads and attack the posters? The trust system needs an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not by far the only one who thinks the status-quo is a problem.
I think the trust system does way more harm to the community than good, it should be removed IMO. The amount of people I get direct messaging me on Twitter complaining how they stopped using this forum because of issues around trust is noticeable, or ranting about Lauda. I don't think these people are necessarily scammers either.
Better to just remove it. I'm sure the overall happiness of the community would go way up. Let people figure out for themselves if someone or a business is trustworthy, as they do on the rest of the internet. It's a noble idea but it just builds resentment among members which might actually lead to more shady and dubious behavior. Mobs going around bullying members with trust scores is shady activity. Feels like more people complain about getting their trust fucked with and characters like Lauda than they do about scams here.
Trust scores are mostly meaningless, it's closer to a popularity contest than a true measure of someone's trustworthiness. Just by using this site, all of you are implicitly trusting me, but that isn't reflected at all in my trust score, in fact I probably seem less trustworthy on first observation than some actual shady people on here. There's so much angst with the whole system, maybe there's a way to make it work better, and tweaking it could eventually lead to that, but for now it just looks like something that's dividing the community.
Better to just remove it. I'm sure the overall happiness of the community would go way up. Let people figure out for themselves if someone or a business is trustworthy, as they do on the rest of the internet. It's a noble idea but it just builds resentment among members which might actually lead to more shady and dubious behavior. Mobs going around bullying members with trust scores is shady activity. Feels like more people complain about getting their trust fucked with and characters like Lauda than they do about scams here.
Trust scores are mostly meaningless, it's closer to a popularity contest than a true measure of someone's trustworthiness. Just by using this site, all of you are implicitly trusting me, but that isn't reflected at all in my trust score, in fact I probably seem less trustworthy on first observation than some actual shady people on here. There's so much angst with the whole system, maybe there's a way to make it work better, and tweaking it could eventually lead to that, but for now it just looks like something that's dividing the community.
Yes, why take into account the other 8 years of trust ratings when you can pick one single event and use it to delegitimize every argument I make for years. That sounds logical to me.
After all it does serve as quite a convenient tool to distract from the fact that none of this confusion would have happened to begin with if there was an objective standard. Perhaps when that standard is met and you pick the beam out of your own eye, I will remove the speck from mine.
After all it does serve as quite a convenient tool to distract from the fact that none of this confusion would have happened to begin with if there was an objective standard. Perhaps when that standard is met and you pick the beam out of your own eye, I will remove the speck from mine.
You're confused. Your own OP quotes those events from ~5 years ago. Why do you post stuff that you don't want to be discussed?
And it's not the only rating that doesn't meet your own standards. Some others that stand out:
Hippie Tech (at least the first rating)
Quickseller (not that he lacks reasons to be untrustworthy but your feedback is quite ridiculous)
I'm not "delegitimizing" your arguments, just finding it impossible to take you seriously when you sound like a spoiled brat in your posts and in your trust ratings every time someone disagrees with you.
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.
There should be guidelines for leaving trust if you are going to have your trust ratings show up by default. Granted there are the descriptions of each of the types of ratings, however some people seem to think they are no longer applicable, both because they have said so and because they give out ratings contrary to the descriptions.
I also agree with Wardrick above in that many are in DT without anything resembling a trade history. Many of these people are power hungry and won’t see any real repercussions because they never had a business prior to obtaining DT ‘power’ (that often has recently resulted in additional positive trust ratings).
There doesn’t seem to be any accountability for mistakes in regards to trust ratings anymore, this includes both the person leaving the ratings and their “sponsors”.
I personally think xx should bring back TC and let him have similar influence in the trust system as he did previously, that is if he wants to.
Anyone who leaves a negative rating for personal reasons and doesn’t even pretend it is for reasons related to someone’s trustworthiness (like Vod likes to do), should have no place in DT. Someone who is inaccurate even a small number of times should not be in DT until they can show they will no longer make mistakes.
Interesting how you are allowed to interpret your own ratings how you like, but my rating for a SINGLE USER you take objection with is some how out of line even though it falls well within your currently accepted standard under the guidelines. The point that you think this single user's rating is some how impugning my character is fucking laughable. Hey tell me, where is that user now? Oh right he was just operating a fly by night "charity" and is long gone.
You're free to post any ratings you want (even outside of the guidelines) and other users are free to evaluate your judgement based on that. I'm fine with that approach.
However you're also advocating for a regulated system where everyone is supposed to post ratings according to your rules, which you aren't following yourself. I consider that hypocritical.
Yes, why take into account the other 8 years of trust ratings when you can pick one single event and use it to delegitimize every argument I make for years. That sounds logical to me.
After all it does serve as quite a convenient tool to distract from the fact that none of this confusion would have happened to begin with if there was an objective standard. Perhaps when that standard is met and you pick the beam out of your own eye, I will remove the speck from mine.
Interesting how you are allowed to interpret your own ratings how you like, but my rating for a SINGLE USER you take objection with is some how out of line even though it falls well within your currently accepted standard under the guidelines. The point that you think this single user's rating is some how impugning my character is fucking laughable. Hey tell me, where is that user now? Oh right he was just operating a fly by night "charity" and is long gone.
You're free to post any ratings you want (even outside of the guidelines) and other users are free to evaluate your judgement based on that. I'm fine with that approach.
However you're also advocating for a regulated system where everyone is supposed to post ratings according to your rules, which you aren't following yourself. I consider that hypocritical.
I and corrected the value, making the rating perfectly valid. It seems to me you are more interested in character assassination than discussing the crux of the issue, the ambiguous state of the trust system and the rules in general. That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
Your suggested "standards" are a subset of the current guidelines of the trust system so there is nothing to prevent you from using it the way you want to use it. However you don't seem to be following "an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws" so it looks like you're just trolling.
My suggested standards are inherently objective, while the "guidelines" are inherently ambiguous and open to interpretation resulting in not only tons of unnecessary conflict but systemic abuse.
Interesting how you are allowed to interpret your own ratings how you like, but my rating for a SINGLE USER you take objection with is some how out of line even though it falls well within your currently accepted standard under the guidelines. The point that you think this single user's rating is some how impugning my character is fucking laughable. Hey tell me, where is that user now? Oh right he was just operating a fly by night "charity" and is long gone.
I and corrected the value, making the rating perfectly valid. It seems to me you are more interested in character assassination than discussing the crux of the issue, the ambiguous state of the trust system and the rules in general. That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
Your suggested "standards" are a subset of the current guidelines of the trust system so there is nothing to prevent you from using it the way you want to use it. However you don't seem to be following "an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws" so it looks like you're just trolling.
If anything this shows you've sounded like a broken record for the last 4 years.
Please point out the flaw in my argument. The fact that I have been on point for 4 years does not in any way prove that my argument is flawed.
So... you posted a frivolous trust rating, whined about being pressured by TPTB into removing that rating, got booted out of DT, but now you want to coerce everyone into posting ratings the way you want them to be.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
Define frivolous for me please.
Posting a rating for someone in retaliation for posting in your thread and using a fake "risked" amount is frivolous, to put it mildly. Perhaps "irresponsible" suits you better?
I and corrected the value, making the rating perfectly valid. It seems to me you are more interested in character assassination than discussing the crux of the issue, the ambiguous state of the trust system and the rules in general. That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
If anything this shows you've sounded like a broken record for the last 4 years.
So... you posted a frivolous trust rating, whined about being pressured by TPTB into removing that rating, got booted out of DT, but now you want to coerce everyone into posting ratings the way you want them to be.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
Define frivolous for me please.
Posting a rating for someone in retaliation for posting in your thread and using a fake "risked" amount is frivolous, to put it mildly. Perhaps "irresponsible" suits you better?
So... you posted a frivolous trust rating, whined about being pressured by TPTB into removing that rating, got booted out of DT, but now you want to coerce everyone into posting ratings the way you want them to be.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
Define frivolous for me please. While you are at it please explain what methods of coercion you think I am using.
So... you posted a frivolous trust rating, whined about being pressured by TPTB into removing that rating, got booted out of DT, but now you want to coerce everyone into posting ratings the way you want them to be.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
That doesn't sound to me as rational or even sane.
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...
Jump to: