Topic: Trust system abuse / DT2 member Vod is provably dishonestly rating people - page 7. (Read 5825 times)

I mean the factor of how trusted the DT is (= how trusted are the people in DT) seen from the DT administrator point of view. It is only their view, but they are still in full control of DT.

The trust system is like a nuclear weapon..
Some times it is used on others if they don't step in line..
It turns scoffs between old members into MAD, mutually assured destruction, wars..
Adding more DT members is like nuclear proliferation..
If you have nukes and they don't, you don't want them to get nukes..
Unless you are empowering allies, puppet states.. 

It is against the interest of nuclear trust holders to spread it, making themselves more common and less powerful relatively, while those without trust will naturally be in favor of joining the party..
If their was a vote the elites would lose hands down but this ain't no democracy, they own the media..

Nobody banned you in this forum for Alt accounts , so forum rules are followed.
Since I do not see you made your Alt account public and probably you cheated the bounties and get busted, so here the DT ratings come into picture.

Bump.

Ideas are needed to make trust system better. As said before, I think adding more DT1 members would improve the situation. Of course that drops the "trustness" as perceived e.g. by forum staff, but on the other hand the trust system is supposed to be used in a way where people should make their own trust lists/networks instead of trusting default trust list. In a way, adding more DT1 members would improve both of these goals: there would be less fear of getting e.g. "dropped" (from the DT list) for arbitrary/silly reasons, more decentralization (wider amount of people "in charge") etc. AND people would want to adjust / make own trust lists because they would detect *individual* wrongdoing making them want to correct it. Such "individual wrongdoing" doesn't affect many in the current system, so it is largely dismissed in the community.
Maybe there should be official guidelines about the *community acceptable* use of trust system. Then people would better know how to use the trust system. E.g. will you rate or will you not rate, who will you exclude, who will you not. Do you want to signal others something or do you want to record something for your own information, what are the "offences" to earn red trust, what means getting positive trust --and so on.

As an example (my personal experience) about the problems, there's this case where Vod rates me provably dishonestly. He also claims other things and presents no evidence, proof or anything to back those claims. And he blackmailed me. Vods standing in the DT system is too strong as people who have added him there are either inactive or do not care. This means that Vod can keep on doing whatever he wants, and everyone knows it. It shouldn't be like this. One shouldn't be able to freely harass others as a salary for doing good deeds for the community. Red trust from DT1/DT2 member has (or can have) significant negative effect on the target, that's the reality right now.

Theymos wont listen to your moaning,i was tagged because of the alts accounts,didnt cheat bounties nor scammed people..

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/creating-an-alt-account-4624272 hilariousandco who is a global moderator does know that my reds are inappropriate.
The Pharmacist has his own rules,this forum is being run by these DT Members.

If theres only one can remove these abusers it is Theymos.

Can't allow DT members like Vod to abuse their position. Read this thread to learn what's going on. Start from e.g. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40906371

We can but dream.

I'm not sure about o_e_l_e_o and others, but I would certainly prefer if you posted less of your made up nonsense and more of actual facts and proof, if any.

So you saying it is wrong to do trades with DT members in hopes of receiving positive trust from them after getting tagged red? would you prefer buying trust by the means of counter feedback?
So you also agree that people shouldn't go and farm trust after getting tagged? because people have done this for years, if you don't believe me, look at several positive trusts left on profiles after they got tagged red. or rather look at counter feedbacks left on profiles after getting tagged red.

Taking out loans or doing trades that you don't want or need for the sole purpose of appearing more trustworthy is a pretty untrustworthy thing to do. In all likelihood this kind of behaviour would simply earn you more red trust.

It's a stupid idea, but I'm not surprised in the least that digaran would suggest it.

Yes I satire much. :/

I'm here to suggest a way out for Anduck, you could easily go and farm trust, here is how:

Find a DT member and do some trading with them, they will leave you a positive trust and nobody could ever counter that if you don't bid on your own auctions or do something tag worthy. don't wait for Vod's forgiveness, after all he is on DT because of bullying other people.

Quickseller abusing the trust system is on topic.

Vod. Let's not let important posts get drowned.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.39447493
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.39588914
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40529245
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40537284
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40538407


Stop derailing and try to back up your dishonest & derogatory claims about me. For one example, your current rating to me is inconsistent with your reasoning e.g. referenced in the fifth link above.

Everyone: See the links for further pointers, or read this thread completely. No benefit of doubt anymore: Vod should be dropped from Default Trust list. Untrustworthy and dishonest people do not belong to DT list in any case. No matter if they rate correctly most of the times. When rated provably incorrectly (dishonest rating after scummy blackmailing attempt), and their ego is too big to go back to acknowledge and fix their wrongdoings, they simply do not belong to Default Trust list.

Have you seen the dozens of negative trust ratings that scammer has left others with no reference?

Why would you reward such a hypocrite with merit?   

If you look at the way the trust system is built with both trust ratings and a trust list, the latter is the mechanism to cope with the issue you've described.
If you deal "mobster" trust, you'll be excluded from trust lists.
Then again, since most people don't seem to really understand the system, and even less use it accordingly, the elegant mechanics of the trust system just don't seem to work in real life.

That's a very wise general rule, which would be appropriate for displaying on the page where you leave trust ratings

That needs a bigger heart... and who has that?

So when are you going to remove all those unarticulated "scammer" tags without references?

I generally don't have an issue with leaving negative trust with very little evidence of wrongdoing (or planned wrongdoing) in order to warn others of general suspicions while an investigation is ongoing (for a short time), provided that after a few days, the rating is either removed, or justified with more solid proof the person is a scammer. This time can be used to either gather more information or ask questions about suspicious activity.

My concern about using the "I don't trust someone" standard, is that it encourages a mob mentality and removes any kind of accountability to those leaving ratings -- both of which seem to be a problem as of recently. It also makes it much easier to leave ratings for personal reasons, which appear to be happening at a greater frequency as of recently.

If you are unable to articulate how someone is a scammer, as a general rule, a negative rating is not appropriate.

You make a good point that I completely overlooked when I made that post. Although, I would like to argue that your very likely not going to include people you don't trust no matter if they leave accurate feedback or not. I would argue that they both go hand in hand.

I've deleted old feedback a few times. However, I normally tend to leave an update especially if we've made a trade recently because after all we did complete a deal, and they showed they were trustworthy in that deal. Honestly, I'm not very active on the trust front anymore, and mostly rely on others to do it for me now. (Thanks!)