Topic: Trim or eliminate "default trust" - page 4. (Read 6174 times)

1) True.
2.a) You lied saying staffs protect Vod even after SaltySpitoon explained. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10062871
2.b) Lying is a quality of an untrustworthy person. Trust system is not only for trades and that's why it is trust feedback not trade feedback.
3) It was changed to neutral feedback and you continued what you did earlier and it was reverted.
4) True.

TBH, I think this anti-trust_system behaviour of yours came after you were removed from default trust list. You are trustworthy enough for me except your judgements.

At best, if it doesn't effect people personally or one of their pals, no one gives a shit about trust abuse complaints and ignore them 90% of the time. At worse it just becomes a form of entertainment for compulsive emotionally stunted adults. Then you become the target for protesting the situation. If you are new, you are just a scammer. If you have built a reputation, then that is something they can extort you with and it is just a matter of how big of a mob they need to rally. Justice at its best.

You can also check out my thread here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-gave-me-a-negative-trust-without-considering-any-possibility-1035687

Where I have provided all the proof of not being a scammer, and I literally have no one caring to even look at it.

I love how people's own standards suddenly morph into some thing else when they can be demonstrated to be in violation of their own values, instead of simply examining ones self and modifying their beliefs/behavior. It shows how much people demand what they are familiar with, right or wrong.

The trust system is designed to be about your trading history regardless of whatever little addendum people want to put into it to pretend it is ok. The fact that he modified his trust only shows he was pressured by the general public to reign in his abuse. He removes it for a while or turns it to a neutral, then next time he is offended he does it again knowing that everyone has already read about it the first time and no one will bother to look a second. That is not self moderation, that is a strategy to wear down the attention of the public of the forum.

Leaving a negative rating for "lying" has never been an acceptable standard for leaving a negative trust rating from some one on the default trust.  In fact Beastlymac was removed from the default trust for doing this ONE TIME because a user was attempting to extort him by slandering him with lies, and he was removed.

There are no official rules about how to use the trust system posted anywhere on the forum. It is purposely left this way so that an environment of selective enforcement can be maintained, so that a small group of individuals can dictate what can and can not be said on this forum whilst maintaining an illusion of openness and decentralization.

Well as it stands now with a default depth of "2" only 12 people need to be especially villigant with their trust list and those 12 people are generally very active in the forum and can easily be contacted if there are problems with their trust list.

If we were to expand the default trust debpth to "3" then there would be the potential that someone will not be active or would be taking a break from the forum when someone on their list turns scammer. (There are hundreds of people on level 2 default trust). This would also involve a lot more coordination with a much larger group of people turn scammer. Additionally it would be more difficult to mediate and resolve trust related disputes because of the much larger number of people having influence over the ratings that people see by default, many of which probably don't understand who is generally appropriate to be on their trust list as the trust system is very complex.

Additionally anyone who feels that debpth of "3" or "4" is more appropriate or "better" then "2" is able to make this change. The "2" setting is only the default.

I understand your logic completely. However I do think that those depths contain scammers and untrustworthy users because people don't really care about them. If the default depth was 3 or 4 then the users who understand the trust system would be more careful when adding users there and would also use exclusions more heavily.
Most probably default depth won't ever change and who knows if the lists would really be improved if more attention were given so this is just hypothetical. But I do understand what SaltySpitoon is saying. It would be nice to have a way to test new default settings by including a lot of (beta) users but not everyone.

Disclaimer: I'm in default trust on depths 3 and 4 and I just checked my profile looks awesome on those depths!

Edit: If more depths were included it'd be useful to be able to give them different weights:

Noted. The actual text in the feedback makes it clear that it does not relate to your trading history. The situation is not perfect. I recall that this feedback was updated and altered many times. Which kind of demonstrates it is self-moderated. I accept that you disagree with that feedback, but in the end it's their opinion of you. And their opinion is generally valued. Regardless of it being valid or not.


The idea is that others would notice this and exclude those scammers from their trust lists. If it works out as intended it might even help identify account groups (hey, this known scammer trust x, y and z... Let's have a closer look at them... Hey, it's a trust circle... and x,y and z are also scammy).

Of course I'm not sure how it would work out in reality and I didn't take the jump yet. I'm using a very limited trust list myself, and I think I might have more exclusions than inclusions...

Expanding your trust list out to level 4 means that a lot of scammers will stay in your trust network which means that their alts will possible have positive trust. The scammers will also have the ability to make it easier to give people negative trust that probably shouldn't have negative trust (just look at how many people woodcollector and his alts have given negative trust to, and I think he is (or at least was) in level 3 or 4 default trust (which is the case with a lot of other scammers)

Yes, I can.

1) I was never suspected of scamming.
2) My over 3 years of honestly trading here demonstrates I am legit. I was accused of "lying" on the basis of a topic which is under debate and neither party can prove the validity of the accusation. (additionally "lying" has never been an acceptable use of giving negatives from someone on the default trust.)
3) The negative feedback did not get removed.
4) The person who left the feedback is still on the default trust list.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

Thanks TerminatorXL.  Of course I think you're talking about the two threads dealing with Quickseller's personal attack on me.  I locked that thread (and the ancient one that he had necro-bumped) not because "they weren't going my way" but because endless flamewars are not equivalent to fruitfull discussion.  In that situation, it's clear that QS/ACCTSeller is intransigent and that Badbear is the one who will have to adjudicate the matter when he returns.  So I locked it to stop the mudslinging.  It may be worth emphasizing to you that this thread was started before QS's smear campaign against me, so, while it seems surprisingly predictively timed, it's actually not related specifically to that attack campaign.

@Salty, thanks for weighing in.  I think you have to be right that mods are going to have a more direct line of communication with Theymos than we normal folks do.  If you like suggestion (3), perhaps you could bring it up with him.  I think it would be an improvement.

Well first thing, the mods dont have any more say in the trust system than anyone else, though we probably have a more open line of communication with Theymos should we figure out the solutions to the trust system issues.


I agree with a decent portion of this, thanks for actually addressing specific points and making suggestions rather than just complaining. Im just going to mention my thoughts on each point.



1) people on default-trust <=2 aren't able to use their trust in a normal way
Why can't they use Neutral trust? If someone seems shady but you don't want to instantly mark them with a negative, leave them neutral feedback saying why.

a) everyone who doesn't dig into the "meta" of this forum reads their ratings as ground truth
Agreed, but this is a psychology question, how do you get people to read relevant information? How many people have actually gone in depth and read everything in their trust settings? Where would people go to find information about the trust system? There are stickies on other topics all around the forums, and people still post new threads even if there are 3 related to their questions on the front pages.

b) they have to defend the righteousnes of what should be simply their opinion
Agreed again, my solution would be to remove the red/yellow/green and all numbers involved in trust settings and just have a list of feedback. However that too has issues that I dont know how to solve.

2) people who have a negative experience with someone on a default trust list have no real recourse
Posting about it in meta has yielded many results in the past, so I dont necessarily agree with this point. Everyone is going to disagree with their negative feedback whether they are a scammer or not, posting in meta  gets public attention allowing people to read into it themselves and give their opinions. If person B is on Person A's trustlist, and it is proven that Person B does not belong in a position of trust, Person A can remove them, or risk losing their trustworthiness.

 a) mutual negative trust is asymmetric (one person ends up with a GIANT RED WARNING, the other with a gripe buried somewhere in the "untrusted feedback section)
I partially agree, you can still go to Meta and post about it if it isn't fair. If it is fair though, and the retaliatory feedback is unwarranted, then its for the best its in the untrusted section.

3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-trust-abuse-innacurate-negative-ratings-unprofesional-escrow-1023038, inter alia))
This goes back to your first point. I actually see Vod's point of view with the MSkey sellers but I agree that perhaps negative feedback isn't necessary, but perhaps neutral isn't strong enough either. People who abuse the trust system are removed, but what about those people who partially abused it, as they had no better options. I think additional options are necessary, but at the same time, adding 50 different types of feedback would make the system even more confusing and water down their meanings.

As for your suggestions, your third is the only one I agree with. I think the red letters saying TRADE WITH CAUTION have become a safety net that people rely on too heavily. People should be reading who gave feedback, why, and the proof to decide if the claim is valid. As far as default trust, default tends to mean its the automatic opt in, and people opt out from there. Think Internet Explorer, when you have a fresh copy of windows, IE is the default browser, maybe it works fine for someone, but most change their browsers to their prefered setup, why can't it work the same way with Default trust? Sure it will get you on the internet, but there are better options, so change when you have figured out which you like better. Default trust works just fine for newbies, but its not suitable for everyone. Without default trust, newbies wouldn't opt in, nor create their own trust lists, so we would be back to where we were years ago. Trimming the list is the opposite of what should happen, the theory is that by branching out to depth 5,6,20 etc eventually non staff/admins/old trusted members will be the ones moderating default trust, and issues will be solved between individuals as sort of a pseudo decentralized system. While there are still central entities, they become less and less involved.

Try not starting so many threads in this section & locking them when they stop going your way. Between that and your prodigious posting, my guess is most have simply put you on ignore

How can we solicit mods or admins to comment on the ideas in the OP here?  We've had some good discussion ourselves but it would be nice to find out what the bosses think.

Indeed.  This is basically the spirit of my OP.  Here's what's (actually not so) fun: now that you've agreed with me you can expect negative feedback from ACCTSeller (he says that thinking this way is scammy behavior), and if you dare to get snippy with him, you can expect him to go trolling through everything you've ever posted on the board to see if he can manage to potentially find something that he's ballsy enough to neg-rep you for with his main account, Quickseller who's on default trust.  After that you'll get booted from your signature-ad campaign, so I hope you aren't too used to getting a little btc from that advert.

Basically, yes, it would be wonderful if the trust system were taken with the grain of salt it's supposed to be taken with, but as things stand, having a negative feedback (substantiated or not) from someone on default trust actually causes financial repurcussions (even if you don't participate in trading).

I'd support a decision to remove default trust from the forum. It's sad to see a forum related to bitcoin have a hierarchy for its trust system in effect. People in power often use it to bash others over personal reasons effectively destroying an account's credibility to the eyes of everyone.

I, for example hate default trust, but won't stop using it (modified) because I'm afraid that I could get out of touch with the rest of the forum since everyone seems to rely on it (probably for the same reason). Theymos keeps telling us that we shouldn't rely on it and that it was initially a solution for newbies but no one will stop using it unless there's a better solution.

My suggestion would be to keep the part of the trust system where successful trades count for a positive rating and force users to form their trust network instead of forcing a default one on them.

Seems like every time I turn around there's some issue with default trust.

Maybe all the humans on there should be replaced with versions of that AI that just got released from Swiss police custody, which engage in transactions where they can verify if trust was broken. For example, a PayPal default trust bot sells BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens, ensures the buyer doesn't chargeback for 1 year, positive or neg trust for the risked BTC if they do or don't. A software default trust bot publishes unique coding tasks (that can't be plagiarized) for BTC-equivalent Bitcointalk tokens in various programming languages, then validates the code. Leaves neg trust if code is invalid/errors, removes neg trust if tokens are returned.

Any other ideas?

That does seems like a wonderfully creative idea for weighting the top of default trust.

Full disclosure, I've now become trolled by Quickseller in what seems to be be just the kind of potential abuse that I was suggesting that this would clear up.  To be clear, this was not the case when I started this thread.  I now have quite a vested interest in this issue (I've now been abusively negrepped by a person with whom I've had no business or trades) whereas it used to be more "academic".

What about giving different weight to trust feedback? I can think of 2 ways of doing it. One would be by trust depth so depth 1's weight is 1, depth 2's is 0.75, and even depth 3's could be 0.5 or something like that, the other option is encouraging users to set their own trust list by weighting 1 one's own list and 0.5 the default trust if included. An account would be red if it received at least 1-weight of negative trust so a single feedback from someone on depth 2 or depth 3 wouldn't be enough but would still appear as trusted feedback.