Bitcoin Forum

I was checking sandy-is-fine (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=400366)'s Untrusted feedback, and noticed a lack of arguments from for instance Konnow_ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2472081):
The account has been Nuked (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Konnow_), but the feedback is still visible. I know feedback in general isn't moderated, but once a user has abused the forum up to the point where all his posts got Nuked, shouldn't his Sent feedback get Nuked too?

There are more examples, the next feedback comes from Nuked (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Mallex) user Mallex (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2465071):

Not all trust abusers got Nuked, but it would be a great start to do some Trust cleaning.

I would be inclined to agree with you.

I know that just because an account is banned, it doesn't negate everything that account has ever done, and indeed there are a small number of banned accounts which have made significant contributions to the forum. (Thankfully these bans are now being reversed.) However, the vast majority of newbies leaving trust ratings are doing so in a retaliatory or spamming fashion, and I'm sure among the subset of nuked newbies the percentage of nonsense ratings approaches 100%. As you say, if we deem their account so useless as to delete all their posts, then there is no good reason to also keep their trust ratings.

You know I'd like that!  :D  Or for all I care it can be left alone but just edited down to 1 or 2 lines!  :D :D  Makes for sloppy red trust.  I like neat red trust so everyone can see it then be able to more easily see and click on who left it.   

I am agree with this suggestion and supporting as well. Since an nuked user's all post deleting that's why there is no any valid reason to keep remain their feedback's in my opinion. All nuked user is a pure spammer and their feedback's also should consider spam. I believe they just left retailonary feedback's which is not trustworthy to me. I would like request to admin for consider this suggestion.

Why not?  People who get banned tend to be worthless members of the community whose feedback won't make one bit of difference to the community's safety (with very few exceptions that I know of, anyway).  I think it would do more good than harm if all of their feedbacks were deleted, not just in this case but probably in many others.

Banned users are usually paralizist or spammers and there feedbacks would not make any sense once they are nuked. If a user is banned he/she is banned from using the forum totally even creating an alt would get to a ban evasion.

That means forum does not want that person to come here again, so why should there feedbacks be here even after they are out of the whole community?

Most of the times there feedbacks are irrelevant and nothing contributive to the community. Its a great suggestion to vanish the the unwanted feedback of all the nuked users and could reduce trust spam as listed in the OP.

I think the standard to remove sent trust from 'Nuked' users should be much lower than for most other users. I don't think this should be automatic though.

My concern is there may be a situation in which a newbie is scammed, and the scammer is able to trick a mod into nuking the newbie. If sent trust is automatically removed, then the scammer will have been able to remove all public evidence of the scam, and will probably not be held accountable unless the victim creates a new account complaining. If someone has a bunch of untrusted feedback from people alleging a scam from people who were nuked shortly after sending the trust, this should be a red flag.   

If it's not automatic, only Admins can do it, and I don't think they want to spend time on it.

I don't worry about this too much, and I don't think accidental nuking is very likely. Unless the Newbie broke the rules, in which case it's deserved.
If the Newbie was really scammed, a scam accusation followed by DT-trust is the path to go.

My gut feeling tells me it's more likely that someone holds a grudge, and created Newbie accounts to leave fake feedback. If it's real, DT-red is much more effective.

It looks like you are advocating for sent feedback to be automatically removed when a user is Nuked.
Perhaps a good solution would be to allow global moderators review Nuked accounts for sent trust and can remove any clearly frivolous sent trust, similar to what is referenced in the OP. I speculate the majority of users Nuked have not sent any trust.
  
The Nuking may or may not be deserved be deserved, I am not sure how much effort mods put into reviewing newbie accounts before Nuking them currently. The Nuking being deserved does not change the fact they were scammed.
I agree, but if a newbie gets Nuked, any thread they create will get removed, including any scam accusation they make.

If the untrusted ratings are just from a bunch of Newbie accounts, I would generally consider this to be frivolous, perhaps from someone with a grudge. I agree that DT feedback will be more effective, but for someone to get DT red trust, someone on DT needs to be aware of the incident, and if you are Nuked, any complaint about the person will be removed, and it will stay that way unless the person Nuked creates a new account.

I would not automatically call this person a scammer, but I would at least ask questions in most cases. If they are going to say the feedback is from a grudge, I would want to understand what caused the grudge, and depending on the circumstances, I might accept that. Or depending on their reputation, I might understand some people might have a grudge and questioning them might not be necessary.

Not only that but the whole system must be even more restrictive to prevent situations like this.

I know that theymos put some new limits in place for trust, but the 600 characters Is a bit too much, it allows a spammer to leave pages over pages of garbage reviews on anyone's profile. I know that Lauda argued for more than 600 I cases where he wants to tag multiple accounts but we could enforce a limit of 100 for low-level ranks.
 
For example, the phrase above has ~330 characters, you don't need to post a novel there and if you do a link to an archive would suffice.

I know that untrusted feedback doesn't count, that probably less than 1% click the untrusted button to see what's there but it's not right that somebody with a grudge can leave such crap on someone profile and in that quantity.
Anyone can create a hundred accounts, gather 1 activity with a genuine post so no reason to ban him and start painting stuff as Loycev showed till we all end up with crashed browsers on loading.



I don't see how a scammer could trick a mod to nuke an account if the scammed person not only hasn't broken the rules but also has shown proof that he got scammed?
If this can happen we might have a bigger problem that trust spamming.

It is better to clear the history of trust feedback from someone when they got permanently banned or nuked.Because lot of people left positive as well negative feedback but when they are not needed here anymore why we need their feedback?

I think it's safe to assume this varies from case to case. I tried to have DdmrDdmr (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1582324) nuked last year, his username was part of a long list of accounts that got nuked, but he survived. Mods did good on that one (details here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099167.msg49301770#msg49301770)).

I've run into this restriction a few times already. I don't have a problem with the 600 characters, but a newline costs 120 characters. That makes decent formatting very difficult. See my neutral feedback on KWH (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=70535) for instance: I couldn't add another line to show a link to Vod's post about this.
You can of course add it all in one reference link, but I think it's more likely to be read this way.
I'd be totally in favour of a lower limit for Newbies :)

It should be nuked along with the posts. I find it too annoying when I notice these type of nonsense feedback, which are usually given by spammers or scammers while viewing trust summary of anyone.



Exactly , much needed now to clean the forum from trust abusers.

Can I also get POSITIVE FEEDBACK from SCAMMERS removed from my untrusted feedback like the 2 below.  :D  :D  

https://i.ibb.co/sWjB7kD/2019-04-15-17-51-23.jpg

Every red I have gotten, (if you simply look at the user's trust) I have no issue with as it is quite self-explanatory but the last 2 positives from the above 2 scammers gave me a chuckle.  There is a move at play here, just waiting for it to start.

It's sandy-is-fine  (You need the dashes and no "s" at the end).

http://archive.fo/3K2jB
http://archive.fo/cowOJ

Sorry that the previous clown is spamming this thread.  The 2 archives are all I need to say. Hopefully this alt will be gone like the other 5 or 6 and no doubt a new one will suddenly appear tomorrow and more crap from he/she will follow.

This guy is clearly quite a douchenozzel, but I can see there being unintended negative consequences as a result of nuking trust ratings from banned users. I would support this being done say before they become a senior member or something such as that, but if nuking is the new S.O.P. I can see people finding ways to use this as a tool to get people banned in various ways in order to clear unwanted ratings.

I don't like seeing history deleted. Deleting trust ratings removes some of the story if looking back at a situation from a later time..
I thought you guys were proud of all of your retaliatory untrusted feedback? I think you should be and it usually just helps you prove your point.

What if nuked users will be allowed to post in a section to which the user is not restricted like in meta section. The nuked user should be allowed to start a thread in meta for more clarification on how user gets ban and this is also to prove that the user itself is the one that doing the appeal not using another newly created account to which it will create confusion.

So, if a nuke user can post in the meta section then they can request for a dt trust system or any admin that could remove the feedbacks, or if it can be done automatically then that would be ideal.

However, the feedback system is like block chain probably that one should not be deleted for future references if any abuses thay will going to happen that could be used as a proof when appealing in the forum.

       I'm not comfortable with automatically deleting trust comments if an account gets nuked. Although the probability is probably high that a nuked account's feedback is mostly horse shit, there is still a chance that some may be valid.
      Perhaps it would be better if each account was restricted to leaving only 1 trust comment per other account per 24 hours. Along with this, a feature allowing people to edit a trust comment rather than just deleting should be added. Is there a reason why trust comments cannot be edited, only deleted?

I think a "response" column for a URL to be placed could be a good solution for a lot of issues. Like the reference column it would leave a spot for the recipient to link a reply thread.

This topic isn't about all banned (Autobanned) users, only Newbies can be nuked (meaning all their posts are deleted when they get banned). Anyone from Jr. Member and up can't be nuked, unless a Mod manually removes enough of their posts to derank them back to Newbie.

Without an edit history, it would be unclear what you wrote at which date.

There isn't if you just delete a trust comment and re-enter it corrected/edited either which you can do, so why not just allow an edit?  Either way there is no "paper trail."

I have personally experienced issues with this where users had left me a negative rating, then after making a topic and leaving my own negative rating for them they deleted it and reposed it to muddy the waters and make it look as if I was the first to do so over nothing. If people had not previously seen it there was no other way to verify short of staff checking logs and they aren't going to do so for that kind of petty nonsense.

At least the new date shows when the new feedback was posted. I agree it's not ideal, but I didn't make it :P

I've been thinking of creating an Archive website for Bitcointalk that archives profiles and Trust, but don't have the skills :(
Update: see [project] LoyceV's Profile and Trust Archive site (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134444.0)

Excellent idea!  I have received my fair-share of these Trust Wall posts...

Is there any way to turn this thread into a Poll to survey users opinions?

Your untrusted is hilarious, obviously I’ve never seen it till now but it just made me giggle