Topic: Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT (Read 2090 times)

Of course I've read quite a lot, but because I haven't experienced what happened here in the past, I'm not very confident. BTW, I've also read your thread about trust systems, I think it's almost close to what Thyemos meant, but unfortunately there are still DTs who don't care or implement it. In many ways, you are indeed a great person

Read more, post less, so you can stand by your opinion when you share one.

Then good. Go ahead and start educating members on how to leave feedback on other profiles, and we see how it goes. You think all people will think a like?

With past valid feedback, I am making a reference to a member who used to give good feedback in the past but then started leaving useless feedback. You preserve the past feedback since it's still helpful, but then make the new feedback untrusted.

There's difference between being on DT and received positive feedback due to deals between other members. I have seen members who are on DT and have never traded here before. It's not about the positive feedback a member has. But the past accurate feedback he left on different profiles

Looks like you are replying angrily and not understanding what I even suggested.

Wow... Surprised, proposals like this have been around since 2019. Does that mean the drama has been going on for a long time?

Maybe I'm still a beginner and don't know the history of what has happened on this forum. but let me give a little of my opinion here.

I don't agree if DT1 has the capabilities you mentioned because DT1 has quite a lot of members. Maybe some of DT1 who have a high level of trust have this ability, one of which is you. Don't have too many members who have that kind of ability, maybe 5 or 10 members are enough. And also provide punishment if it turns out that the member who has the ability has made a mistake and doesn't want to admit it. So justice can be created because there are special abilities but there are punishments too

---

But don't pay too much attention to my opinion, because I don't really understand the trust system and the long history of this system.

That would be great to implement but a step further should be added so it doesn't get abused because of the so much drama that goes on here. My argument is consistent with when there's a deceased user who left such a tag. What happens next, then? What happens after they've left the tag and things suddenly change that disprove the reason for the tag in the first, what happens next where the said member can't be reached to remove the tag? Is the tagged member going to bear the indelible mark forever? Honestly, I'm in for a way that this type of tag can be removed.

How many scammers have you seen who are willing to spend $10k on their image? By the time they've done that, they have an actual reputation to lose.

An ID from someone in another country won't do you any good.

---

---

Let's face it: this idea I posted 4 years ago won't get implemented.

What past valid feedbacks? In case you and any other member here have your heads in to the sands, let me shout out so you can hear, how many of scammers, cheaters get exposed/doxxed after getting caught? Have you wondered why they never stop popping up like mushrooms the more you catch them?  You can't fight them like this, instead you have to educate the community in a way that they become vigilant and informed enough, not to fall for the scam.

---

Instead, you are actively trying to stop something that can easily be gamed. There are many farming services/ shilling services providing you with enough "bounty cheaters" "scammers" with low fees so that you could continuously catch them and tag them, then you'd become a useful member to get on DT. Once you are there, we'd have this current situation, you can easily spend $10,000 to become a reputable member with hundreds of "good" feedbacks.

Note, the price is much much lower than $10k, I give them credit by saying $10k, you could get positive trust by trading $1000 back and forth with a few old gang members.

---

Anyways I wouldn't trust anonymous individuals with money, no matter what, unless they reveal their ID for the public.

Edit, separated paragraphs to make it clear I'm not directly talking with Bitcoin_Arena, rather saying things in general. Lol

You nailed it. With the current DT system step up. It won't help that much, in fact it will lead to more chaos. In the new drama that Plaguedeath refers to, the case can easily be solved by both members agreeing to remove the feedback from each other's profile and ignore each other afterward. Simple as that. Both members are trustworthy or are not likely to scam, but the problem is maybe with the egos surrounding the feedback they left each other.

On giving the DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT, maybe there would be an additional clause like if a DT member gets his feedback revoked after a specified number of times, all his future trust ratings would no longer show up under trusted feedback but rather under Untrusted feedback. This would preserve the past accurate feedback
But with all this, it would mean the DT system would need an overhaul, and I don't think we are all ready for the drama that ensures afterward.

Well, even if it is bumped, I do not support this.

Adding downvote (and possibly upvote) functionality will turn Bitcointalk trust feedbacks into a toxic space like Reddit (people who use Reddit will relate to this). As if the drama in this forum is not already bad enough. So if I had the option between doing nothing and messing with some levers that might make the situation even worse, I'd rather do nothing.

So you bump this because 2 DT members having troubles in paradise?

---

Next subject on agenda, requesting a new system to support minorities, on top of that we'd need another system for human rights, animal rights etc.  But this is not a government/ nation, I thought it was at some point, but none of you(with a few exceptions) here really deserve any thing good, I came back after years to receive more tags, but do you see anyone doing something about it? It's because I hold no power, an  ordinary person's reputation is worthless for this community, and as you know, sometimes you are on top, sometimes under, the time for me to be on top is around the corner God willing.😉

How will it help? Of course many DT members can in such case vote against tags from both sides, but these tags are left on a base of emotions and those emotions are still strong, so we'll just get a new level of drama. There are several DT members in that topic who recommended to remove those tags, but there's no positive result. If we'll remove those tags basing on voting, what will prevent the drama participants of leaving new ones? If it was on rational base, it could be solved by arguments, but what is based on emotions... I don't think removing those tags through voting can solve the problem you mentioned. Unfortunately.

Bump this topic since we have a new drama.

It not work like that, the tag will be removed, but the score is still same as long as there's no user exclude or distrust him. Surely he can leave a same feedback to that account, but it's somewhat like a troll where you still selfish and not want to accept if the feedback you left wasn't appropriate according to the community, which would make other users to exclude or distrust him.

Yeah it’s annoying and a bit sad that people run around trolling the way he does.

It seems that it is you that is thinking this in a vague way.
Take it that I feel that I am u justly tagged by a DT1, I'll raise a judgement flag for the case and link the thread that lead to my tag. If I should have the support of 5 DT members or 10 DT members as the admin will approve, the red tag would be removed and the DT score of the one who left the tag will drop. But if I don't have enough DT support, the tag remains.

I don't like the idea of removing negative trust and making it neutral.
As much as current DT system is broken at the moment we still need to have the option of giving any member positive, negative or neutral feedback.
If something needs to be removed I would than remove all feedback, but this opens another can of worms.

I see your point that it wouldn't be ideal making it easy for feedback to be removed/un-trusted and you're probably right overall. For example a DT member could leave feedback that the majority of DT1 members agree with, but get's down-voted by a handful of DT1 and then removed. This is why I said having down-voting won't work without up-voting as well to counter it. The frustrating reality would be the possibility of having hundreds of pieces of feedback down-voted by certain members, that would require up-voting by others in order to remain, which sounds like an exhausting task for DT1 members.

Either way I don't think the feature should be rolled out without some sort of test-run first, for example a handful of feedback (proposed by users) that become available to vote on by DT1/DT members. Regardless of whether it requires 5 DT1 downvotes or otherwise a majority, I can see it going wrong either way, or being unpopular. Then ideally DT1/DT members would be able to vote on implementing the system or not.

edit: Am starting to think that this feature would work better by requiring a minimum number of users to initially propose voting on pieces of feedback, such as 3 DT members, before having the feature becoming available for the feedback in question - ie regulate the feature better. The idea of having every single piece of negative feedback available for up-voting/down-voting is starting to sound a bit insane in hindsight.

It will undoubtedly be difficult, yes. I just feel like it shouldn't be easy to have feedback removed and put in the untrusted category. You are protecting the trust system that way. It already has its difficulties. If it was an easy thing to do, it would stop being a valuable tool and slowly lose its purpose. Maybe I am exaggerating.

Hahaha. Sorry, had to laugh. If I had the power to make decisions here, such uses of the feedback system wouldn't be allowed. You are not the only that has that, and information that someone is stupid/crazy/gay/brain-damaged doesn't help anyone.

That is pretty much still relying on votes from DT1 members and if you are positive to get 50% of them to chime into different discussions, how do you say that they do not care?

Your idea is one that can work and also help to reduce bias even though many believe that the default trust is already a broken system and encourages backscratching.

I don't see any issue if there are not enough DT members for some cases. The feedback will just stay as it is, so even for these cases, nothing is changing from what it is right now.
And for most cases, I'm sure a sufficient number of DT members will be attracted to look into it.

I agree, that a weight-based voting system is an interesting idea but from an implementation viewpoint, it might be more complicated. Probably, keep it stupid, simple is a better approach here, also to explain it to more DT members easily. Sometimes, I'm still of the impression that the whole DT system is very complicated, for quite a few long-time forum members.
Still, your idea of an weight-based voting system is definitely a suggestion to be considered. 

50% of all DT1 members? That will almost never happen.