In my experience, theymos is always open to change if a sufficient argument can be made.
I don't think getting new/different forum users is an option. My upgrades would result in different incentives for users of the trust system that will encourage people to use the trust system in a better way.
Topic: Trust System Upgrade (Read 1118 times)
The poll has ended. It appears a lot of people are afraid of loosing the power the current system gives them.
One of the biggest problems the current system causes is the tribalism among various groups of people. This results in certain people to effectively do whatever they want without consequences, defeating the point of the trust system.
I would argue my proposals would reduce if not eliminate this tribalism.
One of the biggest problems the current system causes is the tribalism among various groups of people. This results in certain people to effectively do whatever they want without consequences, defeating the point of the trust system.
I would argue my proposals would reduce if not eliminate this tribalism.
Even if the poll has a different result, I don't think it would be accepted by theymos. Besides, it wasn't really about the system, but the people who're using them. Even if we will make a countless upgrades, remakes, etc on the system it wouldn't give fine results like we're expecting. As long as people are being abusive every thing will have its weakness points.
So I think, there's no need for an upgrade, it is us who must have an upgrade. 😋
The poll has ended. It appears a lot of people are afraid of loosing the power the current system gives them.
One of the biggest problems the current system causes is the tribalism among various groups of people. This results in certain people to effectively do whatever they want without consequences, defeating the point of the trust system.
I would argue my proposals would reduce if not eliminate this tribalism.
One of the biggest problems the current system causes is the tribalism among various groups of people. This results in certain people to effectively do whatever they want without consequences, defeating the point of the trust system.
I would argue my proposals would reduce if not eliminate this tribalism.
Alright, but the issue with neutral ratings is in the name. They have no effect, and are practically invisible unless you specifically go looking for them. I understand (and agree, to an extent) with your point about users doing due diligence before trading, but you're assuming every user that would see the problematic post will:
1. Be logged in, so able to see the trust system. My example included that the potential scammer was not trading on the forum, but instead linking off the forum for their sales. Potential victims have no reason to even have an account here, as they could just as easily stumble upon the thread through other means.
2. Know what the trust system is, and know what to look for. As much as you may dislike the 'red and green flashy bits', it's one of the only sure-fire ways to get people to actually notice something. If the potential victim doesn't know what the trust system is, let alone what a neutral rating is, your plan to deal with these scenarios is useless for them. You could argue that someone shouldn't be trading if they don't understand the trust system, but given the massive variety in users here (in age, proficiency of language etc) that is somewhat unfair.
Whether you agree with the way the current trust system is used or not, an invisible-until-looked-for rating on a potential scammer is going to do diddly squat to help a good portion of potential victims.
The only staff intervention (as in use of staff powers) that happens within the trust system currently is deletion of spam. I can't imagine that would change.
I understand that you want accountability, but what exactly would that change? You say yourself that they may just continue to 'gang up', but now everyone can see what they're doing. Without intervention or forced removal of ratings by staff, which wouldn't work anyway, how exactly would this system be any different to the one we have currently? If there is always a big spooky mafia that neg rates everyone that disagrees with them, what difference would accountability make?
1. Be logged in, so able to see the trust system. My example included that the potential scammer was not trading on the forum, but instead linking off the forum for their sales. Potential victims have no reason to even have an account here, as they could just as easily stumble upon the thread through other means.
2. Know what the trust system is, and know what to look for. As much as you may dislike the 'red and green flashy bits', it's one of the only sure-fire ways to get people to actually notice something. If the potential victim doesn't know what the trust system is, let alone what a neutral rating is, your plan to deal with these scenarios is useless for them. You could argue that someone shouldn't be trading if they don't understand the trust system, but given the massive variety in users here (in age, proficiency of language etc) that is somewhat unfair.
Whether you agree with the way the current trust system is used or not, an invisible-until-looked-for rating on a potential scammer is going to do diddly squat to help a good portion of potential victims.
The only staff intervention (as in use of staff powers) that happens within the trust system currently is deletion of spam. I can't imagine that would change.
I understand that you want accountability, but what exactly would that change? You say yourself that they may just continue to 'gang up', but now everyone can see what they're doing. Without intervention or forced removal of ratings by staff, which wouldn't work anyway, how exactly would this system be any different to the one we have currently? If there is always a big spooky mafia that neg rates everyone that disagrees with them, what difference would accountability make?
1. Nothing is stopping these users from looking thru the scam accusation and reputation areas as well as the user's post history to do due diligence. Why does the productive membership of the forum have to suffer for people who can't even be bothered to make an account or do any due dilligence?
2. Part of the effect of having people make a habit of reading the ratings is to breed the habit of doing due diligence. Reinforcing this culture in itself will help teach people to do so. Using negative ratings as a warning system is also a sure fire way to create lots of signal noise and send confusing signals to those same people, because it is over used it will not be seen as much of a big deal and will more often go ignored. It is also a sure fire way to hide lots and lots of abusive ratings.
I explained the answer to your last question here:
I never said the end user needs to know how the calculations are made, however this system is already too complicated and opaque to the point that hardly anyone understands it as it is. Adding more parts to a system creates more opportunities for the system to be broken. Furthermore every time one of these little patches are added it just gets worse and worse. We should be simplifying this cluster fuck, not just duct taping over it.
You are correct in pointing out that my proposal would not solve the issue of people including people in their clique regardless of how extreme their behavior is as well as selectively excluding their opponents. Regardless of this though, they would under my proposal still be required to substantiate using evidence any actual negative ratings and that tool of abuse would largely be removed from them as the barrier of entry of manufacturing false evidence is much higher. Furthermore this again returns accountability back upon an accuser that negative rates without substantiation. This mass shitting of negative ratings all over the user base with zero accountability is the primary tool of retribution and abuse used. As a result they can exclude and include away all day, but the ones leaving the negative rating will be required to substantiate their claims, unlike now where they can just say "I believe XYZ and I don't need to explain myself" regardless if they actually have any evidence or actually believe it.
This will build a clear trail of patterns of behavior people can reference that will be created each and every time they attempt to leave an abusive rating, as opposed to now where they just put on their little clown show and hide in the confusion because they have no obligation (accountability) to take any of it seriously. The difference is my metric is inherently objective in subject matter, whereas currently the metric is totally subjective leaving a 4 lane highway of a loophole for abuse. I want to use the objective metric to turn that highway into a narrow dirt road that leaves mud caked all over them when they take the abusive route. They will continue to abuse, yes, but now they will have to lie to the whole forum over and over and over again about objective facts, which is far more difficult.
There may be situations where people may want to label some one is a scammer when it does not fit firmly within the rubric of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, yes. However nothing is preventing people from simply creating a thread in the appropriate subforum and leaving a neutral rating with the thread referenced. If a user is doing due diligence, this is something they will see. If a user is not doing due diligence, no one is going to save them from themselves as a fool and his money will always be parted. We should be training new users to do due diligence and carefully review ratings, not just look at flashy red and green bits next to the avatar. Additionally the lack of due diligence combined with a squad of pretender police gives a false sense of security that scams are moderated, making users more open to cons when they should instead be doing their own due diligence.
You are correct in pointing out that my proposal would not solve the issue of people including people in their clique regardless of how extreme their behavior is as well as selectively excluding their opponents. Regardless of this though, they would under my proposal still be required to substantiate using evidence any actual negative ratings and that tool of abuse would largely be removed from them as the barrier of entry of manufacturing false evidence is much higher. Furthermore this again returns accountability back upon an accuser that negative rates without substantiation. This mass shitting of negative ratings all over the user base with zero accountability is the primary tool of retribution and abuse used. As a result they can exclude and include away all day, but the ones leaving the negative rating will be required to substantiate their claims, unlike now where they can just say "I believe XYZ and I don't need to explain myself" regardless if they actually have any evidence or actually believe it.
This will build a clear trail of patterns of behavior people can reference that will be created each and every time they attempt to leave an abusive rating, as opposed to now where they just put on their little clown show and hide in the confusion because they have no obligation (accountability) to take any of it seriously. The difference is my metric is inherently objective in subject matter, whereas currently the metric is totally subjective leaving a 4 lane highway of a loophole for abuse. I want to use the objective metric to turn that highway into a narrow dirt road that leaves mud caked all over them when they take the abusive route. They will continue to abuse, yes, but now they will have to lie to the whole forum over and over and over again about objective facts, which is far more difficult.
There may be situations where people may want to label some one is a scammer when it does not fit firmly within the rubric of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, yes. However nothing is preventing people from simply creating a thread in the appropriate subforum and leaving a neutral rating with the thread referenced. If a user is doing due diligence, this is something they will see. If a user is not doing due diligence, no one is going to save them from themselves as a fool and his money will always be parted. We should be training new users to do due diligence and carefully review ratings, not just look at flashy red and green bits next to the avatar. Additionally the lack of due diligence combined with a squad of pretender police gives a false sense of security that scams are moderated, making users more open to cons when they should instead be doing their own due diligence.
I just wanted to make a quick side note as well. I know we haven't always agreed in the past, but I appreciate you having a legitimate discussion about this rather than the usual dismissive cuntery that is increasingly standard operating procedure around here. You can disagree with me all day, as long as you manage to not be a cunt about it its all cool with me. I would rather have this kind of conversation but a lot of people go out of their way to make sure it never goes down like that, usually because they are afraid I might make some good points they are incapable of arguing against.
1. This could be addressed first of all by making a thread in the "reputation" subforum to discuss the issue and alert others to it. This thread could then be referenced with a neutral rating. This has the additional benefit of training new users to read trust ratings instead of just looking for little red and green flashy bits and moving on. We are already operating under "a kind of natural selection deal." People who are not doing due diligence can not be protected from themselves, and their behavior currently under the existing model already gets them into a "shit spot". Even if by happenstance they get protected once or twice, the cause of the issue is still not being resolved, resulting in the inevitability of their being robbed.
Alright, but the issue with neutral ratings is in the name. They have no effect, and are practically invisible unless you specifically go looking for them. I understand (and agree, to an extent) with your point about users doing due diligence before trading, but you're assuming every user that would see the problematic post will:1. Be logged in, so able to see the trust system. My example included that the potential scammer was not trading on the forum, but instead linking off the forum for their sales. Potential victims have no reason to even have an account here, as they could just as easily stumble upon the thread through other means.
2. Know what the trust system is, and know what to look for. As much as you may dislike the 'red and green flashy bits', it's one of the only sure-fire ways to get people to actually notice something. If the potential victim doesn't know what the trust system is, let alone what a neutral rating is, your plan to deal with these scenarios is useless for them. You could argue that someone shouldn't be trading if they don't understand the trust system, but given the massive variety in users here (in age, proficiency of language etc) that is somewhat unfair.
Whether you agree with the way the current trust system is used or not, an invisible-until-looked-for rating on a potential scammer is going to do diddly squat to help a good portion of potential victims.
2. This seems to be the constant refrain, that more staff will be needed to do this when in actuality no additional staff intervention would be needed, in fact probably even LESS would be needed than the current system. This theoretical gang would with every retaliatory or baseless rating be subjecting themselves to public scrutiny as there is a standard of evidence and a simple form of due process (requirement of the objective standard). As it is currently, no one has any accountability for their ratings or exclusions, it is just a matter of "I believe XYZ" and I am not even going to bother explaining myself. This objective metric makes this giant loophole for abuse MUCH smaller, and again redirects accountability back to those making the accusation if it is seen to be lacking. They may very well gang up to continue abuse, but now everyone will see exactly what they are doing and it will be MUCH more difficult for them to justify their actions as opposed to the current system we have now where no one is obligated to explain any of these choices or "beliefs".
The only staff intervention (as in use of staff powers) that happens within the trust system currently is deletion of spam. I can't imagine that would change.I understand that you want accountability, but what exactly would that change? You say yourself that they may just continue to 'gang up', but now everyone can see what they're doing. Without intervention or forced removal of ratings by staff, which wouldn't work anyway, how exactly would this system be any different to the one we have currently? If there is always a big spooky mafia that neg rates everyone that disagrees with them, what difference would accountability make?
With exclusions, if there is a group of people who show a willingness to exclude anyone who doesn’t leaves ratings the way they want, this group of people effectively control the entire trust system, and will effectively be immune from ever being held accountable if they were to scam in a way that is less than 100% clear is a theft, and is refusing to answer questions.
This is actually a huge security flaw, I am not sure why anyone thinks having a group of untouchable users here is a good idea. Humans are flawed, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network:
This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.
As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.
I would agree with you, if this would only be about users' custom Trust lists. It would work fine there.This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.
As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.
However, if a bad actor gets elected onto DT1, DefaultTrust loses it's value without exclusions. As of last Friday, 236 users had receive 250+ Merit, making them eligable to vote for DT1-members. As far as I know, even banned users can still change their Trust list and vote. Long-term, we can expect many more users with voting rights, and I don't think theymos wants to manually handle all DT1-exclusions.
Further, the idea behind these proposals is to prevent any group of people from taking over the trust system. I mentioned that the way those in the DT network are selected should be separately reformed. It is my belief that someone who has a person who leaves inappropriate ratings on their trust list should not be on DT1, period. With exclusions, if there is a group of people who show a willingness to exclude anyone who doesn’t leaves ratings the way they want, this group of people effectively control the entire trust system, and will effectively be immune from ever being held accountable if they were to scam in a way that is less than 100% clear is a theft, and is refusing to answer questions.
Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network:
This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.
As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.
I would agree with you, if this would only be about users' custom Trust lists. It would work fine there.This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.
As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.
However, if a bad actor gets elected onto DT1, DefaultTrust loses it's value without exclusions. As of last Friday, 236 users had receive 250+ Merit, making them eligable to vote for DT1-members. As far as I know, even banned users can still change their Trust list and vote. Long-term, we can expect many more users with voting rights, and I don't think theymos wants to manually handle all DT1-exclusions.
These changes could IMPROVE matters. Voted on but still think a few basic enforced rules would cure most of the abuse.
3 simple rules could FIX most of the issues with the trust system.
Scamming = lying or deceiving for unfair financial gain.
1. Proven scammer = red trust
2. Strong case is trying to scam or has scammed = red trust * can be reversed later if there was an adequate explanation.
3. If you are presented with proof or strong evidence of ANYONE scamming or trying to scam = YOU MUST red trust
Any case that does not meet the threshold of STRONG case and has been given red will result in the DT being black listed. Anyone refusing to red trust a member having received proof or STRONG case of scamming must be blacklisted. No more double standards for "pals".
All theymos has to do is give a few blacklistings out to the blatant abusers and the rest will fall in line.
Have a STRONG case ready or risk getting blacklisted.
We can have a period of 3 months to start getting some precedents set up.
All this eating lemons makes you a scammer, or presenting observable instances of DT members scamming makes you a scammer is a fuckup theymos created and needs to fix.
This additional warning at the top of every thread you start claiming STRONG belief you are a SCAMMER is fucking insulting especially when your SCAM tags are a direct result of you presenting observable instances that a DT member IS A SCAMMER.
Get this changed theymos you are making this forum a laughing stock where REAL scammers can give scam tags to those that expose them. Or those that even present any observable historical instances certain DT's wish to remain hidden. THIS FACILITATES SCAMMING at the highest level and gives them added financial bonuses of being eligible for the highest paid sig campaigns at the same time? is there something we are telling you that you do not understand?
REAL OBSERVABLE SCAMMER gives a scam hunter a scam tag for speaking up? this is your trust system?
Our trust history is full of liars and deceivers giving scam tags for DEFAMATION when we presented irrefutable evidence that they could not debunk or deny? Or vod giving red trust for deleting his 3rd IDENTICAL unsubstantiated claim of OG lying whilst 2 claims still remain on the thread and we said he must present proof before continuing to make the SAME claims. He says we are scammers for asking him to present some evidence to substantiate his claims. We bring undeniable evidence to substantiate our QUESTION and we are scammers and defamers.
There is no point tweaking this junk. Put down some solid rules and enforce them. It will only take a few abusers to be blacklisted before the other ass lickers and weak morals gimps fall in line. It will be a lot less work than it is now.
Give 3 months to correct ALL red that they can not present a STRONG case of scamming or intending to scam or they are blacklisted for good from DT and removed from merit source. Can't have these untrustworthy scumbags gaming either system.
Let's get on with it.
3 simple rules could FIX most of the issues with the trust system.
Scamming = lying or deceiving for unfair financial gain.
1. Proven scammer = red trust
2. Strong case is trying to scam or has scammed = red trust * can be reversed later if there was an adequate explanation.
3. If you are presented with proof or strong evidence of ANYONE scamming or trying to scam = YOU MUST red trust
Any case that does not meet the threshold of STRONG case and has been given red will result in the DT being black listed. Anyone refusing to red trust a member having received proof or STRONG case of scamming must be blacklisted. No more double standards for "pals".
All theymos has to do is give a few blacklistings out to the blatant abusers and the rest will fall in line.
Have a STRONG case ready or risk getting blacklisted.
We can have a period of 3 months to start getting some precedents set up.
All this eating lemons makes you a scammer, or presenting observable instances of DT members scamming makes you a scammer is a fuckup theymos created and needs to fix.
This additional warning at the top of every thread you start claiming STRONG belief you are a SCAMMER is fucking insulting especially when your SCAM tags are a direct result of you presenting observable instances that a DT member IS A SCAMMER.
Get this changed theymos you are making this forum a laughing stock where REAL scammers can give scam tags to those that expose them. Or those that even present any observable historical instances certain DT's wish to remain hidden. THIS FACILITATES SCAMMING at the highest level and gives them added financial bonuses of being eligible for the highest paid sig campaigns at the same time? is there something we are telling you that you do not understand?
REAL OBSERVABLE SCAMMER gives a scam hunter a scam tag for speaking up? this is your trust system?
Our trust history is full of liars and deceivers giving scam tags for DEFAMATION when we presented irrefutable evidence that they could not debunk or deny? Or vod giving red trust for deleting his 3rd IDENTICAL unsubstantiated claim of OG lying whilst 2 claims still remain on the thread and we said he must present proof before continuing to make the SAME claims. He says we are scammers for asking him to present some evidence to substantiate his claims. We bring undeniable evidence to substantiate our QUESTION and we are scammers and defamers.
There is no point tweaking this junk. Put down some solid rules and enforce them. It will only take a few abusers to be blacklisted before the other ass lickers and weak morals gimps fall in line. It will be a lot less work than it is now.
Give 3 months to correct ALL red that they can not present a STRONG case of scamming or intending to scam or they are blacklisted for good from DT and removed from merit source. Can't have these untrustworthy scumbags gaming either system.
Let's get on with it.
What is a custom trust list?
Basically, any change you make to your Trust list makes it "custom".Very short summary: it decentralizes the decision power away from theymos, you can choose who's judgement on others you trust or distrust.
Quote
Is it something that is for our own good to keep/ remove/ untrust someone in our list with a ~ and will it be seen in those users' trust ratings when I visit their profile?
Your own Trust list directly influences how you see other users' trust scores.Quote
And what about the original DT members?
That system changed, see DefaultTrust changes.Quote
If I exclude them out of my list 'for test issues', will I still see the exact trust ratings in number in their profile or will it change? I will be very thankful to someone to explain me this depth part of DT membership.
There are some infographs posted in Meta, but if you want to know all details, you'll have some reading to do.Quote
What is DT1, DT2, DT3 and DT4? Which one of these hold the highest power?
DT1 selects DT2 which selects DT3 which selects DT4.If you're interested, I produced a lot of data on Trust lists.
I don't get a few things here -
What is a custom trust list?
Is it something that is for our own good to keep/ remove/ untrust someone in our list with a ~ and will it be seen in those users' trust ratings when I visit their profile? And what about the original DT members? If I exclude them out of my list 'for test issues', will I still see the exact trust ratings in number in their profile or will it change? I will be very thankful to someone to explain me this depth part of DT membership. What is DT1, DT2, DT3 and DT4? Which one of these hold the highest power?
Most important one here -
Why are the questions having biased options with a Yes or No before same statements as an alternative?
What is a custom trust list?
Is it something that is for our own good to keep/ remove/ untrust someone in our list with a ~ and will it be seen in those users' trust ratings when I visit their profile? And what about the original DT members? If I exclude them out of my list 'for test issues', will I still see the exact trust ratings in number in their profile or will it change? I will be very thankful to someone to explain me this depth part of DT membership. What is DT1, DT2, DT3 and DT4? Which one of these hold the highest power?
Most important one here -
Why are the questions having biased options with a Yes or No before same statements as an alternative?
While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.
The end user does not need to understand how the calculations are made. The end user only needs to know they should leave a negative rating if they strongly believe the person to be a "scammer" and a positive rating should be left if you have affirmative reason to believe the person to be trustworthy AND you should not leave a positive rating if there is a good reason to believe the person is a scammer (this is a lower threshold than to leave a negative rating, but will prevent a scammer from completing a small number of trades to erase the 'trade with extreme caution' warning. This particular proposal is designed to ensure there is something semi-resembling consensus for any labeling of someone as a scammer. I don't think the requirement to present evidence of xxx alone is sufficient to prevent frivolous negative ratings. I am following both your and OgNasty's separate disputes with Vod, following what is being posted, it is clear that Vod is in the wrong, yet he continues to have many trust inclusions despite his lies and deception -- I believe this is because he has sufficient allies that he supports and who in turn support him regardless of either being right or wrong, they all simply refuse to criticize eachother no matter how outrageous they behave. I believe if it is required to publicly post evidence of "xxx" to post a negative rating, unless the administration gets involved in trust disputes, which I know theymos does not want to in ~all cases, those who are currently giving frivolous ratings will continue doing so, and will present troll posts as evidence, and others will continue to support these people out of fear of getting tagged themselves, or getting excluded from the trust network.
I also believe that someone displaying (multiple) red flags of being a scammer should be grounds for being labeled as a scammer. A brand new user asking for a loan without collateral is fairly clearly intending on scamming (even though their scam attempt is so transparent that labeling these people a scammer is probably unnecessary). If someone were to explicitly say they intend on stealing money once given the opportunity, I don't believe they would meet your criteria for receiving negative trust, but I believe others should be warned about this person's intentions. marcotheminer is another good example of someone I believes should be tagged as when he recently returned from a long hiatus, he started taking out loans in escalating sizes, and eventually tried taking out a $xx,000 loan, which is constant with someone trying to engage in an exit scam (he was actually tagged by many before this, which was not appropriate). Someone running what is very clearly a ponzi should also be tagged.
Yes, someone displaying a "red flag" of being a scammer is very subjective. My proposal would address this problem by requiring there to be something resembling consensus for someone to be labeled a scammer. If I label someone as a scammer because they are displaying x red flag, and you disagree this red flag means this person will scam in the future, you can counter my negative rating, and others can chime in via their own ratings, and the system will only display a 'trade with extreme caution' warning if there is consensus, while leaning towards not displaying the warning, constant with the principal of the presumption of innocence.
I never said the end user needs to know how the calculations are made, however this system is already too complicated and opaque to the point that hardly anyone understands it as it is. Adding more parts to a system creates more opportunities for the system to be broken. Furthermore every time one of these little patches are added it just gets worse and worse. We should be simplifying this cluster fuck, not just duct taping over it.
You are correct in pointing out that my proposal would not solve the issue of people including people in their clique regardless of how extreme their behavior is as well as selectively excluding their opponents. Regardless of this though, they would under my proposal still be required to substantiate using evidence any actual negative ratings and that tool of abuse would largely be removed from them as the barrier of entry of manufacturing false evidence is much higher. Furthermore this again returns accountability back upon an accuser that negative rates without substantiation. This mass shitting of negative ratings all over the user base with zero accountability is the primary tool of retribution and abuse used. As a result they can exclude and include away all day, but the ones leaving the negative rating will be required to substantiate their claims, unlike now where they can just say "I believe XYZ and I don't need to explain myself" regardless if they actually have any evidence or actually believe it.
This will build a clear trail of patterns of behavior people can reference that will be created each and every time they attempt to leave an abusive rating, as opposed to now where they just put on their little clown show and hide in the confusion because they have no obligation (accountability) to take any of it seriously. The difference is my metric is inherently objective in subject matter, whereas currently the metric is totally subjective leaving a 4 lane highway of a loophole for abuse. I want to use the objective metric to turn that highway into a narrow dirt road that leaves mud caked all over them when they take the abusive route. They will continue to abuse, yes, but now they will have to lie to the whole forum over and over and over again about objective facts, which is far more difficult.
There may be situations where people may want to label some one is a scammer when it does not fit firmly within the rubric of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, yes. However nothing is preventing people from simply creating a thread in the appropriate subforum and leaving a neutral rating with the thread referenced. If a user is doing due diligence, this is something they will see. If a user is not doing due diligence, no one is going to save them from themselves as a fool and his money will always be parted. We should be training new users to do due diligence and carefully review ratings, not just look at flashy red and green bits next to the avatar. Additionally the lack of due diligence combined with a squad of pretender police gives a false sense of security that scams are moderated, making users more open to cons when they should instead be doing their own due diligence.
I am just amazed at how important this system is to people. I have seen so many posts for so many years now... I think the original system was better than this constantly changing one.
While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.
The end user does not need to understand how the calculations are made. The end user only needs to know they should leave a negative rating if they strongly believe the person to be a "scammer" and a positive rating should be left if you have affirmative reason to believe the person to be trustworthy AND you should not leave a positive rating if there is a good reason to believe the person is a scammer (this is a lower threshold than to leave a negative rating, but will prevent a scammer from completing a small number of trades to erase the 'trade with extreme caution' warning. This particular proposal is designed to ensure there is something semi-resembling consensus for any labeling of someone as a scammer. I don't think the requirement to present evidence of xxx alone is sufficient to prevent frivolous negative ratings. I am following both your and OgNasty's separate disputes with Vod, following what is being posted, it is clear that Vod is in the wrong, yet he continues to have many trust inclusions despite his lies and deception -- I believe this is because he has sufficient allies that he supports and who in turn support him regardless of either being right or wrong, they all simply refuse to criticize eachother no matter how outrageous they behave. I believe if it is required to publicly post evidence of "xxx" to post a negative rating, unless the administration gets involved in trust disputes, which I know theymos does not want to in ~all cases, those who are currently giving frivolous ratings will continue doing so, and will present troll posts as evidence, and others will continue to support these people out of fear of getting tagged themselves, or getting excluded from the trust network.
I also believe that someone displaying (multiple) red flags of being a scammer should be grounds for being labeled as a scammer. A brand new user asking for a loan without collateral is fairly clearly intending on scamming (even though their scam attempt is so transparent that labeling these people a scammer is probably unnecessary). If someone were to explicitly say they intend on stealing money once given the opportunity, I don't believe they would meet your criteria for receiving negative trust, but I believe others should be warned about this person's intentions. marcotheminer is another good example of someone I believes should be tagged as when he recently returned from a long hiatus, he started taking out loans in escalating sizes, and eventually tried taking out a $xx,000 loan, which is constant with someone trying to engage in an exit scam (he was actually tagged by many before this, which was not appropriate). Someone running what is very clearly a ponzi should also be tagged.
Yes, someone displaying a "red flag" of being a scammer is very subjective. My proposal would address this problem by requiring there to be something resembling consensus for someone to be labeled a scammer. If I label someone as a scammer because they are displaying x red flag, and you disagree this red flag means this person will scam in the future, you can counter my negative rating, and others can chime in via their own ratings, and the system will only display a 'trade with extreme caution' warning if there is consensus, while leaning towards not displaying the warning, constant with the principal of the presumption of innocence.
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings.
Again, you are jumping to a conclusion based on the wrong information.
Noise is by definition unwanted or unpleasant.
Anything you find unpleasant you judge invalid?
Example: A woman posts she wants to have an abortion. You don't believe that is valid, so you would silence her?
-snip-
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?
I'm not excluding bad results of subjective ratings, I'm saying that individuals can determine for themselves whats good or bad. Subjective ratings are fair, because everyone is free to voice their opinions and everyone is free to ignore any opinion that they don't agree with. Your definition of abuse is probably different from mine, and my definition is different from user A, user B, etc. Leaving a system wide open so people can make their own judgement is fair, because ultimately no matter the situation its your word versus someone else's. There are an uncountable number of factors that someone might want to know before deciding to trade with someone, we can't tailor rules to allow every single scenario.
The infighting we have now is among a small handful of people. Its a personal problem rather than a systemic problem. I also think its worthwhile, because people can make their own judgement from it. I think its annoying spam, but it has also been useful in deciding who's feedback is worthwhile and who is overly reactionary and not to be trusted. But, each person can form their own opinion on it.
I think a few changes should be made, such as removing any sort of numerical scoring towards the feedback system, but a lot of changes that I've wanted to see are slowly happening anyway.
Yet the trust system is supposed to help new users the most now isn't it? Is not a new user's defining characteristic the fact that they are less able to determine these nuances? On one hand you claim that we need to protect them from themselves by leaving preventative ratings, yet on the other hand they can determine what is good or bad for themselves. Which is it? It seems you just juxtapose whatever fits your narrative at any given time. You are in fact dismissing the negative consequences and determining we should only look at the positives. It is not a matter of being fair, it is a matter of accuracy, efficiency, and signal noise resulting directly in many other issues. I am not asking we tailor a litany of rules. This is another refrain I hear regurgitated from you over and over. Having a simple standard of evidence and accountability for that evidence is not "tailored rules for every scenario", it is a quite general objective metric.
It is a systemic problem, and it has been for years. Most people just walk away and never come back. For every conflict you see there are about ten times more people that just say fuck this place and never come back. People don't want to invest time and resources into a place where ones hard earned reputation can be stripped over arbitrary bullshit at any given time with no due process or recourse whatsoever. It is more than "annoying spam", it is causing the overall community itself to fragment and destroy itself. Furthermore it is way too easy for a bad actor to step in and manufacture this kind of drama purposely and create more and more of these wedges. You go ahead and dismiss my warnings as you always have, one day it will be your turn on the hot seat and I will point and laugh as I reference all your poo pooing quotes.
-snip-
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?
I'm not excluding bad results of subjective ratings, I'm saying that individuals can determine for themselves whats good or bad. Subjective ratings are fair, because everyone is free to voice their opinions and everyone is free to ignore any opinion that they don't agree with. Your definition of abuse is probably different from mine, and my definition is different from user A, user B, etc. Leaving a system wide open so people can make their own judgement is fair, because ultimately no matter the situation its your word versus someone else's. There are an uncountable number of factors that someone might want to know before deciding to trade with someone, we can't tailor rules to allow every single scenario.
The infighting we have now is among a small handful of people. Its a personal problem rather than a systemic problem. I also think its worthwhile, because people can make their own judgement from it. I think its annoying spam, but it has also been useful in deciding who's feedback is worthwhile and who is overly reactionary and not to be trusted. But, each person can form their own opinion on it.
I think a few changes should be made, such as removing any sort of numerical scoring towards the feedback system, but a lot of changes that I've wanted to see are slowly happening anyway.
...
I get what you mean now, and it's understandable. I do have a few queries regarding it though:1. Your method only seems to come into effect after the fact, and could miss out some problematic scenarios. For example:
- A new member makes a thread offering to sell $200 gift cards for $50. The thread links to another website where the gift card is for sale, and locks the topic. This user hasn't broken any laws and hasn't necessarily scammed anyone yet, and so there is no solid evidence of any wrongdoing despite several red flags being present.
- A legendary account that has just had it's password and email address changed puts out a loan request for $200, citing it's self (the account) as collateral. The user has been inactive for years before this, and the type of language they use has completely changed. Again, they haven't broken any rules and haven't necessarily scammed anyone, despite there being several red flags present that the account has been hacked.
2. Your idea for how to moderate this kind of behavior works in theory, but in practice would always need a staff member to babysit it to ensure it's working properly in their subjective opinion. For example, if there is a gang present in the trust system as you seem to believe, would this gang not just work with each other to mitigate any potential punishment for leaving invalid ratings?
1. This could be addressed first of all by making a thread in the "reputation" subforum to discuss the issue and alert others to it. This thread could then be referenced with a neutral rating. This has the additional benefit of training new users to read trust ratings instead of just looking for little red and green flashy bits and moving on. We are already operating under "a kind of natural selection deal." People who are not doing due diligence can not be protected from themselves, and their behavior currently under the existing model already gets them into a "shit spot". Even if by happenstance they get protected once or twice, the cause of the issue is still not being resolved, resulting in the inevitability of their being robbed.
2. This seems to be the constant refrain, that more staff will be needed to do this when in actuality no additional staff intervention would be needed, in fact probably even LESS would be needed than the current system. This theoretical gang would with every retaliatory or baseless rating be subjecting themselves to public scrutiny as there is a standard of evidence and a simple form of due process (requirement of the objective standard). As it is currently, no one has any accountability for their ratings or exclusions, it is just a matter of "I believe XYZ" and I am not even going to bother explaining myself. This objective metric makes this giant loophole for abuse MUCH smaller, and again redirects accountability back to those making the accusation if it is seen to be lacking. They may very well gang up to continue abuse, but now everyone will see exactly what they are doing and it will be MUCH more difficult for them to justify their actions as opposed to the current system we have now where no one is obligated to explain any of these choices or "beliefs".
What is your point even? If they are smart enough to erase their trail completely then you aren't catching them anyway. Again, what evidence is available would be submitted for public review. Neutral ratings could serve as warnings with the thread referenced. I agree "untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective", which is why I am arguing for an OBJECTIVE standard of evidence before negative rating. Account sellers could again be neutral rated with a reference thread. This is not covering it up. This is defining a very objective line so that the community can focus on fraud, not absolutely everything being perceived as subjectively "untrustworthy". The negative trust factory farmers would just have to find a way to get their dopamine hits elsewhere rather than from dropping negative ratings on people assembly line style and fellating themselves over the moderate amount of authority it gives them.
My point is that everyone that uses the internet is used to reading through bias and noise, restricting noise is going to reduce real valuable ratings. The current feedback system already works with public review. Most claims have reference links to a thread in question where a user can read more about the issue themselves. Poor feedback isn't insignificant either, it helps people follow patterns of who they should and shouldn't trust from feedback senders. The proposal here is to change the capability for tens of thousands of users, due to the actions of a half dozen people. They have their side of the story, and everyone else has theirs. Public review can take care of whether their feedback is significant or not.
Setting up rules so that people can't be jackasses just means that they'll find other ways to be jackasses. Let everyone put their worst self forward, and its not an issue.
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?
What is your point even? If they are smart enough to erase their trail completely then you aren't catching them anyway. Again, what evidence is available would be submitted for public review. Neutral ratings could serve as warnings with the thread referenced. I agree "untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective", which is why I am arguing for an OBJECTIVE standard of evidence before negative rating. Account sellers could again be neutral rated with a reference thread. This is not covering it up. This is defining a very objective line so that the community can focus on fraud, not absolutely everything being perceived as subjectively "untrustworthy". The negative trust factory farmers would just have to find a way to get their dopamine hits elsewhere rather than from dropping negative ratings on people assembly line style and fellating themselves over the moderate amount of authority it gives them.
My point is that everyone that uses the internet is used to reading through bias and noise, restricting noise is going to reduce real valuable ratings. The current feedback system already works with public review. Most claims have reference links to a thread in question where a user can read more about the issue themselves. Poor feedback isn't insignificant either, it helps people follow patterns of who they should and shouldn't trust from feedback senders. The proposal here is to change the capability for tens of thousands of users, due to the actions of a half dozen people. They have their side of the story, and everyone else has theirs. Public review can take care of whether their feedback is significant or not.
Setting up rules so that people can't be jackasses just means that they'll find other ways to be jackasses. Let everyone put their worst self forward, and its not an issue.
...
I get what you mean now, and it's understandable. I do have a few queries regarding it though:1. Your method only seems to come into effect after the fact, and could miss out some problematic scenarios. For example:
- A new member makes a thread offering to sell $200 gift cards for $50. The thread links to another website where the gift card is for sale, and locks the topic. This user hasn't broken any laws and hasn't necessarily scammed anyone yet, and so there is no solid evidence of any wrongdoing despite several red flags being present.
- A legendary account that has just had it's password and email address changed puts out a loan request for $200, citing it's self (the account) as collateral. The user has been inactive for years before this, and the type of language they use has completely changed. Again, they haven't broken any rules and haven't necessarily scammed anyone, despite there being several red flags present that the account has been hacked.
2. Your idea for how to moderate this kind of behavior works in theory, but in practice would always need a staff member to babysit it to ensure it's working properly in their subjective opinion. For example, if there is a gang present in the trust system as you seem to believe, would this gang not just work with each other to mitigate any potential punishment for leaving invalid ratings?
Jump to: