Topic: Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT - page 4. (Read 2081 times)

Those on DT1 that have given me negative / distrust are mostly the ones who have peddled in account sales or trades, lending using UID's as collateral etc so I can only imagine it would be more of the childish, retaliatory, wild west bile that fills my trust feedback wall.

Indeed, this is good to see  


In my mind the suggestion would be for acting DT1 to be able to downvote, not "voting-only" DT1 (those with negative strength). This would at least remove the arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback, instead requiring the variable of positive DT1 strength as well as inclusions from those with enough merit. I do get your point about micromanagement of DT feedback could be bad, as it wouldn't be a solution to the fundamental problems, but from another perspective the introduction of flags that are voted on do appear to be an improvement. Notably it could lead to less exclusions, if users had the ability to "hide" negative feedback, then there would be less of a need to exclude a user to achieve the same goal.

The main downside I see is that DT1 members could down-vote legitimate DT2 feedback (legitimate to DT2 members at least), which ultimately puts more power into the hands of DT1, which is unnecessary imo. Arguably I think it'd be better if a downvote required 5 DT1 members or 10 DT2 members, or a combination there of, so each DT2 vote counts as half a DT1 vote for example. But I also think this would be a very complex mechanism to introduce, even if the abuse of down-voting could be limited and restricted. Either way, there is current abuse, any positive changes would still be open to abuse (such as trust flags) - just possibly a little less.

Either way, I think any "fair" decentralized system will always be prone to abuse, the question isn't how to avoid this, but how to counter this in a decentralized manner (instead of further centralizing). Systems that aren't prone to abuse are usually very centralized and restrictive, but this is because they are usually fundamentally abusive as a construct.

Situation resolved, by the way.

The whole point of trust feedback is to have it so that people will look at them and write their own feedback, isn't it? I have always been hesitant to add any sort of regulatory micromanaging when it comes to DefaultTrust and I think adding an option for any arbitrary number of DT members (who cycle every month) based on another arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback is prone to abuse.

Even countered feedback in the past was just to stop someone from seeing the negative number on their profile sheet but given the breadth of the DefaultTrust network, with 100 DT1 members that include at least ten other users, you have a huge number of users in DT. This means that individual feedback is worth less and that users should be paying much more attention to the feedback comments rather than just the raw numbers (something that should have been done anyway).

Bump reference: To all DT1 members | Interesting negative feedback from JollyGood!


The more threads I read like this, the more I'm convinced that a type of down-voting would be beneficial.


A number like 5 adds up. 3 users can easily group together to "hide" negative feedback to untrusted, but not 5 so easily.
Would it be prone to trust abuse? For sure. Is the current trust system prone to trust abuse? Absolutely.
Would it reduce the amount of trust abuse compared to the current system? Probably.

I don't think this would be a good idea, not because of the idea, but of the current state of DT.

It would just increase the drama.  Right now for a few weeks each month after the DT reorg there is a lot of political play, trading of trust and negatives.  Now instead of lobbying to get someone off DT, you would be lobbying to remove a trust rating that next month prob will be irrelevant. 

At first when I read this I thought of it ass a not so great idea. I would turn it down.

But come to think of it, maybe the voting could work, if the voting is unanimous(as in all the DT1 members agree that the rating is bad), or if majority of them disagree. Also, the voting could be limited, as in you can vote only thrice a month, so people would have to be wise on who to vote for.

And if there's colluding of any sort, the admins can obviously undo this.

I vote no to this idea - this persons' gang will vote down the negative of that gang and then that gang's affiliates will step in an bolster the votes causing the first gang's affiliates to also step in and counter vote.

The same would happen with positives - imagine how many gang members will vote up positive feedbacks for the sale of a $1 trinket, or "being a great guy" or having been the escrow in a transaction (for a $1 trinket) or some other flimsy reason.

We all know who the gang members are who've outed themselves in recent threads, so you only need to play the numbers and game the system.

The exact solution: keep your team, all merits are yours, trusts are yours, DT1-DT2-DT3-DT843943240 get it all to you.
Let your profiles be emerald green and your rank "KING of The LEGENDARY".

lock everyone's account and turn the forum to whatsapp group

I meant personal as in "relating to me" as opposed to "private".

Sure, but that's not to stop someone saying/doing one thing in publicly viewable trust ratings/feedback and another thing in secret trust ratings. I really don't agree with giving DT1 users the ability to secretly alter the trust system, especially when it involves overriding public ratings from other DT1 users.

Then I would argue you are misusing the trust system for personal gain and don't belong on DT1.

It's not really the power in a single users' hands - you still need two supervotes (250 merit each) and 10 normal votes (10 merit each). I have previously argued to increase the number of votes required which would further dilute the power of any single user, and I think this argument is becoming more relevant over time as the list of potential DT1 users will continue to grow to unmanageable levels.

Actually.. It's kinda public..

You could judge them based on their philosophies, weather their ideas/positions align with yours or not, and their inclusions list, if the vote list was separate from their inclusions list, vote list being secret and inclusions list remaining public..

If I run for mayor of my town, should I have to publish all of my voting choices in all the past elections including propositions, judges, representatives, primaries, and presidential?

What if I don't want everyone in my town to know that I voted against the recreational marijuana proposition?
They would all hate me at its face value, but maybe I voted against it because the proposition basically hands the market to corporations making sure to squeeze the little guy out by requiring ridiculously high licencing fees and startup costs to comply with the stupid law, and it being a government tax collecting scheme even if they don't care that China is coming in to buy it all up..

Right.. The system is pretty good.. Nothing is perfect..

I don't know.. If I lived in sanfran and worked at Google maybe I wouldn't want everyone to know I voted for Trump..

What if I wanted to exclude a campaign manager because of their poor political philosophies but not want them to hate me and deny my signature application because of it?

Absolutely..
It is very useful and I like to think of all of these data collection projects by users here as a good reminder of, if this is what these relative amateurs are capable of, what do you think the professionals (3 letter agencies) are capable of?

Agreed...
This is 98% where I'm at right now too, but it is fun/interesting to hypothesize..

I'm not suggesting my hypotheticals to be included into the system, just thinking/rambling about what I perceive to be possible weaknesses..


------------
Good thing the power is in your hands and not who knows who else..
But do you think this amount of power in a single users hands should exist at all?

For example.. You might like the idea of your president using an executive action to do something that you like, but you must remember, what precedent does this set that the opposition may be able to use some day to do something you don't like if they get their hands on this same power..

Again, I want to encourage LoyceV here to keep working on ideas to improve the system around here as they do in fact have a very unique perspective on the systems in place, but this solution reeks to me as a strategy that has failed miserably in the past. That strategy is one of band-aid like patches on the system which just add another layer of complication, another layer of opacity, and an even more complicated system with more parts to break. This was the direction Theymos was going in for a while but I think he finally came to the realization that these kinds of patches are counterproductive. The more elements you add to a system, the more ways it has to break. As it stands right now as some one who has been around for all iterations of the trust system, I think the one we have now is the best so far (short of no trust system at all). I think we need to give it some more time to let the dust settle and let the disputes work their way through the system. The last changes to the system were pretty big and it took some adjustment from everyone. I think really we should be focusing less on the system itself and more on the mentality and culture we use to approach it. At the end of the day that is the real problem, not the system itself.

Agreed. But a Merit requirement is a good way to keep account farmers out. What else could be used to easily distinguish between a dedicated user and a spammer with many accounts before handing out voting power?

I have (almost) enough Merit Supervotes for all users on my Trust list, but many others vote for the same users, so effectively I'm probably not even using half of my voting power already.
Long-term, many users should have a lot of Supervotes at their disposal, which further reduces the individual voting power.

You can include your own (Newbie) alt-account (on Depth 0), and include someone from that account to put them on your Depth 1. That way you're not voting, but you do see their feedback by default.
The opposite doesn't make sense: if you don't want to include someone, why would you want him to be on DT1?

My Trust list viewer is often used to fuel drama, but as long as it's public information, I believe in making it easily accessible.

They way I approach it is to forget about DT1 altogether. After all, my personal trust list is, well, personal. If there is someone whose judgement I think is good (in terms of both feedback left and their own trust list) I'll include them. Poor judgement, I'll exclude them. If my inclusion or exclusion makes the difference to whether they are DT1 or not, then so be it, but I don't let it guide my decision.

I can see where you are coming from, but how can I judge whether someone is displaying good or poor judgement (so I can decide whether to include or exclude them as above) with secret ballots? It would be like allowing secret voting in Congress/Parliament/Government. How can I vote for a representative without knowing what they stand for?

I actually think the trust system is pretty darn good just the way it is..
Sure it isn't absolutely perfect in every aspect but nothing is..

My biggest gripe with the trust system is the way it is tied to merits and voting.. Just because a user can earn a lot of merits doesn't mean, to me, that they are necessarily a good choice to have a huge amount of voting power..

Merit is supposed to be for "good posts", and to rank up..  
When I give some merits it's hard for me not to think "How is this user going to use these merits to vote? Am I sure I want to give this user more voting power? Do I like the way this user votes?"
Their might also should be a cap on the amount of voting power any account has like 2000-3000 merits voting weight cap..

I also don't much like the way your inclusions list is one and the same as your voting list..
Maybe I would like to include someone but not vote for them to be on DT1, or the opposite..

And, votes not being anonymous is pretty silly to me..
Their would be less voter intimidation if votes were anonymous as in Secret Ballot Voting which is basically the standard of voting practices across the free-ish world for good reason IMO..


In any case, overall this new DT system is doing pretty good..
It has gotten and will continue to get better with time..


A lot of the time when someone recieves a negative tag, that is quite agreeable, many users will dogpile in replicating the same rating..
Maybe because they want the same reason for a neg-rating to have more weight, or possibly in many cases just to make it look like they are doing something important but really they are just copy-pasting to build their own perceived reputation..

A user could get like -5 this way for something as simple as asking for a no-collateral loan..


Also often times when a user gets their first negative rating they completely freak out and do a lot of stupid stuff because of it, fly off the handle, and wind up making their situations even worse and getting more tags for their resulting tantrum such as personal attacks or name calling any responders who don't agree with them right off the bat, or resort to less than respectable actions in their fury in multiple possible ways..

It is more like a witch hunt some times and the accused in analyzed until the inside of his pants to find out anyways to put him to multiple trust ratings, and curbe the abuse by blaming him as risky without any real victims complaining of such. Just like show me the man, I will show you the crime attitude.


Or what if just an upvote feature is added?  ( if upvotes of DT1 are more the rating would appear under the trusted feedback, else if downvotes are more it would appear under untrusted feedback )

All of the votings could be made anonymous so that no drama would arise and DT1s could up or down vote on ratings without being afraid of other judgment.

As drama I saw with my time here, there are DT members who know each other, are 'friends' (something like that), then what you mentioned is right. When one get first neg trust, it usually leads to more be trusts in a row.

It is a bit off topic but from your list of DT members update, it has become longer and longer with new DT2 members. How many of them are truly trusted and deserve to be called as DT2 members. It is a big question and hard to say.

The thing is, it may lead to the creation of consistent colluding (and conflicting) groups of 5, that down-vote other’s trust ratings for whatever common purpose. To avoid that, perhaps the down-voting power could be given at random to x DT1s (9 for example) during each month. That may avoid what I suspect would happen to a great degree.

This could definitely be used to reduce trust manipulation if implemented correctly, but I think it could be augmented such that it works like a net.

With that in mind, trust groups would be identified based on the percentage of people that have eachother added to their trust list. This would identify several trust factions as you could call them.

A trust would need to be downvoted by individuals from multiple trust factions in order to successfully take away the red (or green) colour and revert it to neutral.

I will just throw my 2 satoshis in... I do like the idea but there are issues with this "5 vote downvote" idea as well... What virtually could happen is 2 camps will keep fighting out each other's downvote and we will be back to ground zero. I will through in something I thought of long ago but never pitched in. We already have a section called "Untrusted Feedback" why not create another section called "Personal(Opinion) Feedback" ^{(I'm not good with names)} which won't be accounted for just like "Untrusted Feedback". This way DT members can neg the sh@t out of each other without causing any Drama, it's not a Fix to the problem but it can definitely reduce the Drama which surrounds the Trust system. If an "Opinion Neg" is thrown as a regular neg then mods could virtually remove it/move it as it won't belong in the "appropriate section". At the end of the day, People will always find a loophole, Anything which offers "Power" will be abused in some manner/time by humans. Fixing the Trust system is like fixing the Human nature but then again it can be definitely worked on...

Thanks for all the comments, the "5 DT1 downvote" thing sounds like a good compromise.

I'm just fed up with what I consider Trust abuse, and I noticed another thing: the moment veteran members receive their first negative feedback (on something controversial), they often quickly collect a few more negatives. It's as if people are waiting for someone else to make the first move.