Topic: Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT - page 2. (Read 2090 times)

Why rely on votes from DT1 members only when there is a concern that all of them will not vote and many of them don't care? Can't we do a weight-based voting system? DT1 members will have 3 voting power and DT2 members will have 1. To pass a decision at least 50% of DT1 member's vote should be mandatory. This can reduce potential bias as well.

I can't see how strict rules / not strict rules is making a difference. For example DT1 voting has no strict rules as well and bitching about DT1 inclusions / exclusions isn't a big problem at all.

Because voting out certain trust feedbacks is a completely different thing compared to flags because it's serving a completely different purpose.  

---

It's neither destroying the trust system itself and not even "destroying Trust system reputation". I don't see, where anything is "destroyed". Flags aren't destroying anything as well.

---

Yes, it's completely reasonable because right now, we have also DT1 and DT2 changing frequently and therefore also trust feedbacks changing frequently. It's currently like that due to DT1 changes: some trust feedbacks are displayed this month and next month, they are not displayed, it's no issue at all.

---

Same issue goes for DT2 manipulation and there, it's a much bigger issue because a DT1 member can add a DT2 member very easily by just including the account. Manipulation, where abusers would need at least 5 DT1 accounts is much more difficult than to manipulate DT2 inclusion, where only 1 DT1 member is necessary.
You can be sure that if there's possible abuse, more DT1 members will look into it and overturn any abuser's votes.

---

It doesn't make any difference as we know from DT1 voting, where it's also less strict and it's not an issue if it's not strict.
It basically boils down to what LoyceV wrote here:

Ah we both agree it is not ideal, but  the question is how to correct it.

Obviously my distrust of someone would carry more weight than his as I simply do not do a distrust or a flag with out very careful consideration of why it should be done.

I also feel most DT1 people are the same way. ( note most not all )

If a systematic method of checking poor distrust use is developed I would certainly want to study it. Maybe try it for 1-2-3 months see if it works. tweak it etc.

But we already have different levels of flags, why not introduce just one more, for example, Flag Type 0 (which would replace neg. trust).


Again, we already have such a system with flags. Besides, I believe the number of such cases would be relatively low. Consider this scenario: if a flag receives the necessary support from DT1 members to become active, and one of those members later drops out of the DT pool, we have two options. We can either keep the flag active, or the flag becomes inactive until it secures the support of at least one more new DT1 member.


But that is actually a good thing. Flags need thorough investigation and supporting evidence. That is why it is usually pretty straightforward to check out the evidence and investigation someone else has done and decide whether to support or oppose the flag. Tags, on the other hand, often get slapped on without much reference or clear evidence. Those kinds of tags should not be part of the trust system.

Flags have rather strict rules and feedback doesn't. Otherwise there was no need in flags, it could be done on a base of quantity of tags. Some tags are left on the very boundaries of a consensus of a Trust system; flags in the same cases would have been opposed, because of strict rules. If to make the same system as flags, then what will be the difference, why do we need two similar systems?


I said "destroy Trust system reputation", not the system itself. It doesn't matter if you are in DT1 or in DT2, your tags will stay visible by default the same way. If the number of votes for and against tags will change each DT1 reshuffle, there will be flickering in feedback: some tags will appear while some will disappear. Does it look reasonable and reputable when the same tag of a same person is correct when there's one DT1 composition and becomes totally incorrect with another DT1 composition in a month and the same way each month?


Right, no need for me, no need for someone else. So if someone will gather with several like-minded they can change a system as they will like, because majority won't get much additional time to do much additional work to monitor the correctness of Trust system work.

As for flag system: it is different. Tags are much less strict. I voted for 205 flags because it is easy in many cases, but I left just a 100 tags and big number of them is based on one big farm investigation.

5 DT1 members was just a rough number, could be 10 or 15 as well.
Because most likely, not many DT members will read everything about the case and many DT1 members won't join the vote.
Yes, 5 DT1 members seems to be a low number but it's also not easy in my opinion to convince 5 DT1 members to vote in favor of removing a feedback. And if you have 2 DT1 members against it, you need 7 in favor already.

---

That's why there was given a low number of 5 DT1 member votes. Many DT1 members won't bother to vote in it. But we can also increase it to 10 DT1 votes.


No need to require more DT1 members reading about it.
We can do it like flags, works pretty well currently.
Same procedure like flags and it's no issue at all.


Yes and it's working pretty well for flags currently.  


There's no final decision on that but changes depending on who's DT1 currently are definitely a good idea because it's representing DT1.


Seriously, where should it "destroy" the trust system?
DT1 is currently determined that way, our own trust scores change by a small margin every week, depending on who's DT1 and DT2 and even DT2 is changing due to that already.
Nothing got destroyed from that.  


No need for you to investigate such a case if you don't like to investigate. It'll be similar to flag support and it's working well currently.

Two users already distrust him, and if his feedback is inaccurate, you can exclude him for your Trust list already.
If DT1-members include the wrong users, they're supposed to be excluded. It's drama, but it comes with a decentralized system.

He's not the only one, and I wouldn't say it weakens the system. It's just the result of not moderating feedback.

I  have a few distrusts  buried deeply from when I used to try and scam bust bad sellers in the 2013-2015 timeline.

But that particular person jvanname is over the top abusive to everyone in every post.

If you look at his distrusts they are fairly ridiculous in every case.

More experienced members know that the distrust he gave is worthless but newer people do not.

So when you look at my trust feedback his is right on top 🔝 thus it is annoying.

Also any DT1 member can now include him at anytime and boom I have a fully visible distrust. Which would mean I would have to distrust the DT1 member that decided to trust him. And bla bla bla drama drama drama.

So when minor players do what he did it undermines the entire system.

Its a bit hidden because most Dt1 people are trustable.

please note most means 51% or more not 99%.

So to a large degree we need a mechanism to protect trusts from abuse.

Letting jvanname drop distrusts for poor reasons or no reasons weakens the system.

He's not on DT, so his feedback isn't shown by default. At least this part of the Trust system works fine.
I guess it's your first negative, I remember those days, the first one hurts the most. After that, you stop caring. Look at The Sceptical Chymist's untrusted feedback for example. Just scroll down fast That spam is one of the reasons theymos made changes in the number of line breaks feedback can have.

look at my trust

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=64507

I was given a negative trust by jvanname

not a good reflection of the trust system.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jvanname-1043276

if you read about him and see his posts and his distrusts it is exactly why the trust system needs help.

Maybe a review committee of egregious posts and trusts.

BTW is he banned? he posted on sept 4 so I think he is active.

They do not now, but they could if theymos makes it so. The guy from your example is a trade risk.

Trying to follow the alternating proposals here but failing to understand the logic of 2/3 or 3/4 of DT1 to vote. For starters, it's very unlikely to get 61 to 69 DT1 members to vote on anything imo.

I don't see the issue with having only 50%+ agreement as the threshold for having feedback removed, as long as there is the option to upvote in order to counter downvotes. I also don't understand why this is suggested for DT1 only instead of all DT. Many of the most trusted DT members aren't even DT1 anymore anyway, as have wiped trust list or opted for exclusion, but are their feedback is still highly trusted.

To me it makes more sense to keep it simplistic like with the trust flags, with the addition of requiring at least 5 DT votes prior to any removal of default feedback to take affect. After all DT/DT1 is determined by majority inclusion (even 50%) that determines whether feedback is trusted by default or not, so to me it makes sense that any feedback votes from DT/DT1 are treated in the same manner as inclusions/exclusions.

Either that or increase the voting requirement to 10 DT votes (as opposed to 5 DT1 votes) if you want to avoid too many feedbacks being countered which could well end up being the case with such a low threshold. This would require a minimum of 6 DT down votes (based on majority agreement) in order for feedback to no longer be trusted, or otherwise the full 10 DT downvotes if there is no opposition.

Also having only DT1 able to upvote/downvote means that some feedback will "flip flop" on and off a lot more than if the votes are based on DT, due to how the DT lottery works, which wouldn't be ideal imo.

LoyceV understood what I was trying to say. I didn't mean an 80-90% majority from those that voted, but a majority from the whole list of DT1s. Meaning from the list of 100 DT1 members. And LoyceV is right when he says it would be borderline impossible to get such a majority vote here. Even in a clear case like yogg's rug pull.

Maybe the criteria should be that 2/3 or 3/4 of all DT1s must vote. And then if that criteria is met, there must be a majority vote of 80-90% in favor of removing the trust rating.

Well, when we talk about DT we mean that every DT member understand the issue, makes own conclusion and then acts. In theory. So if we'll look at the situation with flags we'll see that there are usually just few votes from DT, because others don't want to waste their time on investigating each case and some are voting just because they believe some other reputable DT members understood the issue enough and made a correct choice.

Spreading of this practice on votes implies that DT members will find additional time on researching many other cases to make own conclusions in each of them. Or will put together a group of like-minded and vote for each others' tags and against tags which are not pleasant for one of them. And we'll see much more topics in Reputation to vote for and against.

Basing on experience with flags I can say that only minority of DT will vote for and against others' tags. So if someone will get a negative tags and will ask for help some known compassionate DT members in PM, he'll get an opportunity of cleaning the negative tag he got and probably no one will even see this. Especially if a DT member who left that tag is on a vacation or left the forum.

And next. When we count votes, how will we count: if someone is in DT this month but not in DT next month, will a tag become trusted and untrusted like now basing on who is in DT? Reviews becoming more and more flickering... it could destroy Trust system reputation. As for now everyone in DT has his own reputation, and if everyone would have a right of voting for each tag, then there will be a common reputation. Each one will have an opportunity to say: yes, I've made a mistake, but what others did at that moment? I'm not fond with idea to bear some part of responsibility for cases I didn't investigate enough to vote or leave my own tag. I don't have time on deep investigation for each tag of everyone, each flag, etc. And to vote, I think the one should make own investigation of a case.

As I already said, I see we have some problems, but I suppose we'll get even more problems if to change a system this way.

I think if a DT1 have this ability then I think it can be abused to remove a feedback that shouldn't be deleted or removed or maybe use it to earn money (payment in crypto) with it like a forum member will pay crypto like Bitcoin to the DT1 to remove a feedback. Maybe It will happen or maybe not in my opinion.

If DT1 have the ability to remove feedbacks and having other DT1 vote for it before the feedback is removed in my opinion is helpful and avoid a DT1 member abuse the system. I would definitely agree with this. I was thinking if all DT1 member should vote for it except in situations where a DT1 is the one that sent the feedback because I am sure that DT will oppose the removal of the feedback that he/she sent to that forum member.

The context was this:

That makes the argument not to require 50% or more support even stronger.

But that's not my point. The point is that there is not a single one who disagrees with the flag. This would seem to disprove the statement that


This would also apply to the number of negative feedbacks after the event. There is not a single one, not even neutral, defending him, so I think there is a clear agreement from the community, including DT1, in this case.

I don't really want to count, but how many of those votes are from DT1-members? I doubt it's 50% of them, let alone 80% or more. His negative DT-feedback is currently -44, and that's not only from DT1, it includes DT2, which has much more members.

Really?

I don't want to play devil's advocate here, because although it seemed like a good idea initially, and then seeing the arguments presented, I think it is better to leave things as they are, but when you said this I went to look at the first case that came to my mind, I guess because it was the most striking recently.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

There is not a single vote against the flag.

That sums up the entire DT1-system

The 2 top lines (red and blue) are theymos and me "toggling" the DT1 majority vote. Depending on the composition of DT1, there may or may not be a majority.