Topic: What will happen with deceased DT members' feedback? (Read 657 times)

Nice idea, but it must be shown directly to the user's profile, such as "This user has inactive feedbacks, take a look before you do any deal with him" to prevent scammy account being active again, just in case lots of DT members died and there is no other feedback from active users.

Can we add one more category in feedback as "Inactive Feedback". That feedback will remain but will not take part in trust calculation.

Any person who has not logged into the forum for 1 year has all the feedback sent shown as Inactive feedback on other profiles. Inactive feedback still can be positive or negative.

The precedent would be that it is now ok for the administration to change trust ratings. Of course Theymos/Cyrus get to decide, that is not the question, the question is why should they break the current precedent of NOT moderating trust ratings to suit a single user? The cost is that now moderating trust ratings will be an accepted thing, opening the door for manipulation and abuse by the staff. Even if they are not actively abusing their positions, this still necessitates a position where they have to pick and choose when to intervene, meaning some people will get this special privilege, and some will not, automatically creating an imbalance in the trust system as far as equitable treatment under it. SwingFirst fucked up by not securing his account properly, he should bear the cost, not the entire community in the form of debasing the reputability of the entire trust system even more than it already is.

Emotions aside.

1-   I checked all of Zepher's negative sent feedback,  there is not a single user who is tagged by Zepher alone. ( even if there was, another DT can tag those a few acounts)

2-   I have also checked some of his "old" positive feedback which either now or in the future can be very misleading or inaccurate. ( based on the fact that people change)

an example : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1245199;dt

3-  He also left many positive feedback for small deals that were done using escrow/ members who went first , etc.. , many of those users could be trust farming, they can turn to scammers at any moment, and that positive feedback will help them a lot assuming not everyone knows about Zepher's death.


Nothing personal , Zepher seems like he was an excellent member, may he rest in peace but i think the proper option now is to exclude him from both DT1 and DT2 . IMO that would be the best thing for the forum as a whole.

Yeah Qwep account is done for IMO.

I knew Zepher quite well - Will it help you all if I add his ratings to mine (the valid ones that won't cause me too many pm's), that way if/when he gets removed from DT/lists etc)?  ... He was quite active tagging people for a few months I believe so many are likely still valid.

Thanks.

The precedent is that the person who left him the negative trust is dead. So it's not possible to have it removed in the normal and established way. Furthermore, I already presented the posting from Zepher himself that made it clear that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered. Shouldn't someone carry out his intentions for him, since he is now dead?


Theymos or Cyrus gets to decide.



I already left him a counter positive and do not have Zepher on my trust list. What additional efforts can little old me do? I only have control over my own trust list. It's up to the 19 DT1 members and 30 other members on whether they want Zepher on their trust list or not. Also, I really don't see what the "loss" is for the forum? All I see is a fine tuning of the rules to account for cases when the person who leaves trust is now dead, and cannot modify it themselves. (And since Zepher already posted that he would remove the negative trust once the account was recovered, I really do not see the "loss" for the forum of carrying out the intentions of the dead.)


Edit: Just for reference, here is Zepher's post again. I don't see how this is such an issue for having theymos carry out what Zepher stated that he was going to do.

You are asking the wrong question. The question you need to be asking is why is he so special that the standards we all agree are there for a reason should be deviated from just to selectively suit this single user? What precedent does this set? Who decides who is special enough to get this extra effort? Yeah I wish he could be completely restored, but I also think it would be a net negative if a precedent of meddling in trust ratings is set for any reason as it degrades the reliability of the entire system. You need to make a choice between leaving him a counter positive and leaving him to deal with the minor setback, or making efforts to remove Zepher from the default trust instead of collectivizing the loss.

Hmm, I'm not sufficiently convinced that qwep is indeed a hacked account. In 2016, qwep asked for a loan.


In May of 2017, after a long period of inactivity, they applied to join a signature campaign using the same address.


Then in June of 2017, the account suddenly promotes some ponzi scheme, and suspicions are raised that it could be hacked or sold. Furthermore, I am not seeing a thread referenced that has a victim come forward and provide evidence that they were hacked. I'm more inclined to think the account was either sold by the original owner or never changed hands.  If someone comes back now and "recovers" this account, I'm not certain the negative trust about promoting a ponzi scheme should to be removed by others.

Overall trust ratings shouldn't be changed by the mods unless they are obviously of abusive nature. But cases like this are rare because it is clear that Zepher left that negative rating because the account got hacked. He didnt have a problem with the tagged user and would have surely removed his rating if the account got recovered, which is now the case. theymos could intervene and remove the negative rating but also the positive ratings that were left by other DTs to counter the negative.

I knew there is going to be a discussion here with different opinions.
I value the rest of the feedback left from Zepher, and I don't think it should be removed.
But here is one another example with hacked account and negative feedback left from Zepher :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=114334

If by chance the original owner shows up with a signed message we will come back to the same situation as now.
I guess reporting to theymos those isolated cases should be ok but we need confirmation from his side.

Hey Jet Cash, have you seen my thread : [Postmortem crypto plan] : making sure my wife will know what to do !

Maybe it can help you

     If this was a normal case, everyone who had left the negative rating for the account being hacked would have removed the negative rating because it no longer applies. However, Zepher is dead, so that is just not possible at all. Sure SwingFirst's probably made a small mistake, but why should he not be restored to whole while someone else who made similar mistakes gets to get their account made whole. It isn't SwingFirst's fault that Zepher died. SwingFirst's getting restored back to whole as much as possible is the very definition of "fair."
    Personally, I don't have Zepher on my trust list. However, I'm not going to ask 19 DT1 members to remove him either.

This is also a viable solution to this issue without playing the game of moderating trust ratings from the top down.

^^I am not 100% sure that is the most up to date information, although I don’t recall it being any different than what I posted.

The above is why I don’t think it is appropriate to simply add positive ratings to counter the negative. My suggestion is to act as if he will not remove the rating, which technically is true (absent action from theymos).
What specifically should be done when someone leaves up an inaccurate rating is up for debate. However my opinion is they should not be in the DT network and if they have left other good/accurate ratings, then others can review the ratings and echo them if they feel it is appropriate.

This wouldn’t apply in this case, but if they leave additional negative ratings that others deem accurate they can also be echoed.

Not fair according to who? Why is it the entire community now has to suffer a potential exploit because this individual user did not secure their account correctly? Yes it sucks, but if there are not standards then it is a continual never ending slow creep toward abuse. SwingFast made a mistake, they should bear the responsibility for it, not pass it on to the community as a whole.

Unfortunately, the way that the trust score is tabulated, it is not fair to SwingFirst. He has 3 positive comments, followed by Zepher's negative, followed by Jet Cash's and my counter trust. SwingFast's current score is 1 when it should be 30. This is an exception case; however, since we know Zepher is dead and Zepher made it clear what his intentions were in a post when he left the negative rating.
What makes it worse is that each unique positive rating that SwingFirst receives from now on will only add 1 point to his trust score instead of slowly counting up to 10 points toward his trust score.

In my opinion changing ratings for inactive accounts is a rabbit hole we do not want to go down and will inevitably create more avenues for manipulation and abuse. I think that if a user is trusted, they should appeal to other users to leave them positive ratings to counteract the negative rating, specifically noting the situation at hand with a referenced thread. This should rectify the situation to a large degree.

On cases like this I think its possible for you to call the attention of theymos. On SwingFirst's case I think we can already confirm that it is in the hands of the owner himself and the only thing left is the negative trust given by Zepher. Manually removing the trust might be more challenging compared to removing Zepher's DT status so SwingFirst really need to ask theymos for assistance on this part.

In this particular case, Zepher had already made his intentions clear.


I have already advised the particular member to contact theymos to see if he will remove Zepher's negative rating since the original owner recovered his account. I hope this does come to theymos' attention and the negative trust is removed since Jet Cash's and my counter rating are only patches, and does not help restore the person's account to the trust score that they deserve.

Your trust ratings are based on your judgement of what is deserving of a tag. Your judgment is subject to change over time as you gain additional insight and experience. You may leave a rating today that you would disagree with in the future. There is no universal criterion for what deserves a rating (this is part of a larger problem with the trust system, but that is another discussion).

The question ultimately is who gets to decide if someone’s appeal to have a rating removed is successful? If you are around, then the answer is you, and this is based on your judgment. If you are not here because you passed away, are retired from the forum, or otherwise, then the decision becomes complicated. If someone else, or a group of people gets to decide then those who have you on their trust lists may not trust the judgment of this group of people. If you are alive but are (temporarily) away from the forum, perhaps unexpectedly, you might not agree with the decision of whoever decides the appeal, and if the rating is removed and you disagree then adding it back on would be controversial.

My suggestion would be to treat this as if someone will not remove a particular rating. If this means you take any particular action, or don’t take any particular actions, I would do the same in this case.