Topic: Trust system abuse / DT2 member Vod is provably dishonestly rating people - page 9. (Read 5846 times)

I have pointed this out multiple times, to which I was promptly ignored. I would suggest ignoring digaran. His responses to my posts in other threads makes me believe he is trying to elicit a reaction from me and is trying to make people upset aka he is a troll.

If this is your honest opinion then you need to absolutely rethink the power you give to positive trust scores.

If DT1 members don't trust Vod's opinion then they won't include him on their trust list, or potentially exclude him. End of story. You want to get him off DefaultTrust? Talk to DT1 members.

Here are the DT1 members that have included Vod:
HostFat
dooglus
Cyrus

Here are the DT1 members that have excluded Vod:

We all know that people use their accounts to earn money in this forum, we also know that people are misusing merit and trade them with their alt accounts to get higher rank accounts just to earn more money.

What makes any of you think that DT members are not farming trust, or are not misusing the trust to have green trusted accounts either to sell or use them to scam people?
What makes you think that people are not abusing the trust system? more you try to expose them more they would support themselves, now trust system is in the hands of a few people and they are making rules to suit their long term agendas. they have made us all to believe that when you get tagged by a DT member you are automatically a scammer, what they don't know is that people can see who are the real scammers.

---

@Anduck, you have made your point, people know that Vod is a trust abuser and nobody is doing anything to stop him, that means they agree with him, those who disagree with him would either receive green trust from him or he would simply counter their feedbacks with negative trust. the fact is that Vod is a bully and when you see that he keeps at bullying others and do nothing to stop him, you are also a bully.

Yes I know: digaran if you don't like this system you are free to leave and start your own forum. guess what? day after day you people are losing your credibility and soon you'll become irrelevant to the crowd.

What is my suggestion though? I suggest that either a DT member tag Vod for misusing trust system or simply exclude him from your trust list until he comes to his senses and fixes the issues he has caused. but I guess exclusion is not going to happen because DT1 members would lose some green trust scores if they exclude Vod, so it's in their best interest if they keep him on DT2.

I would trust Vod more than I would trust you if that's what you're angling at. I don't recall Vod bidding on his own auction or insinuating that I'm your alt, for example. Besides I can read and I have read many of Vod's ratings and references and I find them very useful, even ones that I may disagree with. Disagreement being a concept that you appear to have no ability to handle.

Perhaps if you weren't lying yourself you'd have a point but you lost that pages ago.

One rating can tell a lot about the legitimacy of raters' other sent ratings. Would you trust a person who blatantly lies, tries to cover his lies, provably fails at it, still keeps on with the lies, and so on? Even if this happens only against one person, it's not just being "stubborn" anymore. It reveals so much.

This forum is a wonderful place (i'm serious )
A lot of good people willing to share knowledge and help. But, the power abuse here is a fact, and always worried me more than scammers or anything else. I've learned a lot here and became sentimentaly attachmented to my account.
Sincerly it's fells really bad be named as a "untrustworthy" by completly random reasons.

Absolutely.

It does more than you think, I've personally done this many times over the years with good results.
Nothing you can do with ego.

Can we agree to disagree on how to handle disagreements?

There can be different levels of disagreement I think:

1) I disagree with the rating and I wouldn't have posted such rating but I can see why the sender did - nothing to do here expect perhaps comment on the forum.
2) I disagree with the rating and I think there is additional context needed - I can post a neutral for the recipient.
3) I disagree with the rating and I think it shouldn't be there - that's where the counter-rating comes in handy.
4) I disagree with the rating and I don't trust the sender's opinion in general (unlikely just because of one rating) - I can exclude the sender from my trust list.

Escalating to DT1 may be a bit harsh if it's merely a matter of one rating, and merely talking to the sender may be a bit lacking if the sender is stubborn.

I don't think that ever works. I have seen a lot of people getting tagged, and a few ratings have been illegitimate and they have never been removed, even after having discussions. I don't want to point out names but yes that is the case. Sometimes, countering seems like a good option.

A few DT members have a lot of ego, doesn't matter if they are trustworthy. That ego does a lot of harm than good. This is one of the main reasons why the trust system doesn't function well.

Why would anyone agree with ratings that have proved lies as reason?


Also, as you can see, reasons stated in his ratings towards me have nothing to do with what he claims currently (in the quoted post below) to be the origin for the "distrust".

You message the leaver of said rating and talk it over. If that doesn't work, you talk it over with the D1 that sponsors that D2 member. If nothing there, you move on and agree to disagree.
Seriously, all you did was keep controversy going but turned up a notch. I didn't agree with your counter, should I have left a counter-counter to be counter-counter-countered by another?
Not everyone will agree with every rating because we are all individuals with our own ideals.

What would be the right course of action if there was a rating that you disagreed with, then? If a user was particularly unflinching in regards to changing it, then there don't seem to be many options.

I believe the counter ratings actually hurt the system. I know theymos has stated they are acceptable in some cases but I think they do more harm than good.

Here are my thoughts:

A negative rating means that you don't trust the person and by extension, their feedback. It doesn't make sense when you trust what the person says (but also don't really).
In reverse, someone can be trustworthy but you may choose to disregard what they say, resulting in an exclusion.

For me, leaving negatives to another individual requires any of the following (though not only restricted to):
a) Extremely shady behavior
b) Outright scams
c) Behavior that induces harm to other persons, the forum or objects of possession
d) Any action that casts a reasonable amount of doubt upon its moral standards or legitimacy (i.e. account sales)

---

In the case of Vod, I countered their rating because I disagreed with it. However, that doesn't mean that I don't trust Vod. It also doesn't mean that I don't trust their ratings. Rather, it was a single piece of feedback that I wanted object against.

The act of exclusion will affect all the user's feedback, not just the one that someone disagrees with. I don't think this is the way to go.
The act of giving the user a negative will not change the feedback and thus that also is not the way to change ratings that one disagrees with.
Counter-ratings make sense in this regard. Don't you think so?

So if one rating seems incorrect then ALL ratings are incorrect? Do you even logic?

Theymos has said in the past it is okay to counter a ln unjust negative with a positive as only a small number of people can get someone removed from DT and excluding someone yourself won’t solve the underlying problem.

A positive that counters a negative should probably also include an exclusion of the person who gave the unjust negative.

A negative to counter a positive is ridiculous as is a negative for “not trusting” someone, barring extreme circumstances.

I think a big part of the problem is educating on how the system works.  Let me try and simplify.

If you trust someone, you can leave a rating reflecting that.  
If you don't trust someone, you can decline to leave them a rating.  
If someone has engaged in untrustworthy behavior, you can leave them a rating reflecting that.

*Here's where it gets tricky.

If you don't agree with someone else's ratings, you can exclude them from your trust network.
If you agree with someone's trust ratings, you can include them in your trust network.

What you shouldn't do is...

Leave someone negative ratings because you don't like their trust ratings.
Leave someone a positive rating to counter someone else's rating.

There are of course extenuating circumstances for every action and that is where the importance of judgement and decentralization comes into play.  The goal here should be to create a network of trust that accurately reflects an individual's trustworthiness.

*Do not confuse excluding someone from your trust network with leaving negative trust ratings.

OgNasty has the ability to exclude me from the network outright. Any DT1 member does, in fact. Whether they want to or not is up to them.

But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list.