Bitcoin Forum

I strongly believe that what I wrote in LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0) can contribute to improving this forum, if enough people follow these guidelines. However, that's not happening, and I see more and more well-known users get tagged for petty things.

The current solution is to exclude them from your Trust list, but that "removes" all their feedback, and many users (including myself) seem unwilling to exclude a user based on the 1% or less feedback that they disagree with.
Some users have been posting "counter ratings": a positive feedback to point out they disagree with a negative feedback, but this still doesn't remove the orange negative number from their profile.

I've tried Just a thought: make orange and green feedback black if it's a small percentage. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157278.0), but that topic seems to have been forgotten.

So here's a new suggestion: would it be possible to give DT1 the power to "downvote" certain (negative) feedbacks so they are no longer shown by default? That could potentially solve many of the current disputes that have been fought through negative feedback for many months.
I'm not sure if this "voting" should be anonymous or public, unlimited or very strictly reserved for very rare occations, and needs just one or a majority vote, but all that can be figured out later if Admin thinks my idea has any merit.

While I like the intent here, I get the distinct impression that this kind of feature would be used to not only cement in controlling groups within the trust system, it would also relieve pressure from users to act on abusers of the trust system while still leaving them the ability to abuse their authority. I can easily see this ending up being a clusterfuck of selective application and driving even more clique like group think as the popular/suck ups get taken care of while the ones that do their own thing get neglected.

I might indeed be terribly naive here :(

Perhaps requiring maybe 5 DT members to agree with a down vote before confirming it would be a good idea.

5 DT’s agree & click down vote ensures potentially harsh or unfair neg is not shown by default.

I like the effort and intent here for sure, but you know what they say about the road to hell. This one I don't think is a winner. Keep trying ;)

The idea of downvoting a default trust looks good to me. Instead of asking to remove someone's personal opinion it's better to move it to untrusted feedback with some voting.

-What if someone does a thing in future and the same person marks him again. Will it go as untrusted or trusted feedback?


Even better I guess.

I might be wrong, but I think that it would create even more drama than we have right now or under old version of trust system. Probably it's impossible to make perfect trust system here which would be good for everyone...
Though, @LFC_Bitcoin idea looks good for me.

I don't see censoring feedback is a good thing. If a DT member leaves bad feedback he can/should be voted off DT.

This was my first thought too. What's to stop someone deleting a "downvoted" rating and just reposting it? It would be an endless game of cat and mouse, unless you were to completely remove said user's ability to leave feedback for certain accounts, but doing so would make said accounts potentially easier to scam with if certain DT users can't leave trust ratings on them. There's a big can of worms here.

I'm also not sure I want to be able to have the power, either individually or as part of a small group, to effectively approve or disprove every single trust rating.

I like your idea because of the following reason:

Bitcointalk will get another "problem" in a few years: inactive users on DT (1 or 2) whose feedback was (and is) still very valuable for the community but sometimes for single cases not accurate anymore because issues are solved or accounts are getting hacked etc.. If an account on DT is inactive and some feedbacks are getting inaccurate we have to decide: leave them on DT including all inaccurate feedbacks or remove all of his feedbacks by removing them from DT completely. Both variants aren't a good solution in my opinion.
An example: Zepher's negative rating left on sportsbet.io's account:

Multiple scam accusations against this casino in the scam section. The reference linked shows them withholding 21.5 BTC, of which 15 BTC was a deposit with 6.5 BTC winnings. Sportsbet have not paid out the 21.5 BTC, nor even returned the original deposit of 15 BTC. I would advise against playing at this casino until all allegations are fully resolved.

AFAIK the scam accusations are resolved:

Sportsbet.io has been resolved the accusation about 15 BTC which was mentioned by @Zepher & @Lutpin negative feedback's. So ignore both negative feedback's about that accusation and read reference link for better understand. Zepher is no more ( Hope he is in Haven) and Lutpin is very inactive, so feedback's couldn't delete or edit right now. I am bothering to leave this feedback since people's raising questions about resolved issue.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=832366

I think the outcome is a litte bit confusing for all readers and sportsbet.io has (to be accurate two) outdated ratings which are not relevant anymore. To keep such valuable users on DT while ensuring the inaccurate ones can be removed, OP's suggestion is a good idea.

That's only one case where a feedback isn't accurate anymore and I'm 100% sure that will happen much more often when Bitcointalk gets older. So at least for such cases I like OP's suggestion.

---

+1
Limits for downvoted vs. upvoted feedbacks should be high to prevent abuse.

The idea of making orange feedbacks black if it's negligible is better than this IMHO. Making positive and negative feedbacks compensate is to be considered too like for example user X have Y positive feedbacks,if he is given a negative one, it becomes Y-1 and of course make it in a way that only 1 feedback from 1 same user gets taken in account.

if you blacklisted lauda and friends this would work,but if not they will use this to hide their abuses.

Every feedback could be voted on like a flag but with a lower standard
where it would be active as long as the support/oppose is any positive # (or 0?) like DT1..

OK idea but it might even further devalue feedback..


Still I am for higher standards for DT than simply "good outweighs the bad" like..
and

I think I know why this suggestion came about, and on its face it seems like a decent idea as long as the requirement to have a certain number of "downvotes" is in place before the feedback isn't shown by default.  But the thing is, this generally isn't a problem that DT trust is so incredibly wrong that other DT members need to act on it.  There have been instances of that, for sure, but it isn't a chronic problem.  And if there's a DT member who's consistently leaving obviously wrong feedback, that member is going to get removed eventually.

That said, I don't like having to counter feedback.  It's annoying and it would be nice if there was some mechanism that would make it unnecessary.  We've now got the flag system, and those flags can be supported or opposed.  Why not be able to support or oppose trust feedbacks?

I also believe I know why this came up, and it's a noble suggestion.  I'm not sure if complicating the system any more is a good idea.

The trust system seems complicated enough, imagine being a fresh newbie trying to navigate through it.  Adding complexities isn't always the best strategy.
 The flag system already works that way, and it seems like it's too complex to reach it's potential.  The majority of petty scammers target newbies, who don't know how to use the flag system, if they even know it exists.

If up-voting/down-voting of feedback ends up working anything like inclusions/exclusions, which many people think is to be used like their Facebook Friends list the system will be corrupted in short order.

As for the reasons for this suggestion, I think people should be held accountable for their actions.  If someone is abusing their position of power by using it to punish those with whom he has petty squabbles, he shouldn't be in that position of power.  Even if that person has done good in the past, and may continue to do so, there's an obligation to prevent the abuse of power.

I have a simpler solution; build your trust list the way you feel is right, and also enable viewing of "untrusted" feedback and give each of those reviews the weight they deserve.  

LOL

The flag system already has voting and we should promote that as the more reliable indicator of who's a scammer whereas the trust feedback should remain as is, personal feedback.

What we really need is DT1 members growing some backbone and drawing a few more lines in the sand. It's not even that everyone needs to exclude every perceived abuser, it's enough that a handful of them take action but lately it's been almost impossible to achieve even that. So begrudgingly I'd have to kinda sorta agree with my arch-nemesis above - I think giving more power to DT1 members would just mean less backbone and more abuse.

At first glance I liked the idea, but more and more often I noticed that the list of DT-1 members includes people who don't even understand how the feedback should work. Nowadays, many users can get into the list of DT-1 members and with the increasing number of distributed merits of such users will be more and more. Can we be sure that such changes in the trust system will not cause new abuse?

The idea itself is good, but I also think that some will misuse it.
Maybe something like a report button on extremly harsh stupid feedbacks , but as long feedback isnt moderated this is no option.

I like the idea very much and also appricate LoyceV's effort here _{from bottom of my heart !}

But yaa, at the end this also looks abusive by looking at the current situation around, this would make it more centralized in a way or other. But keep going LoyceV, no one can say when your suggestion would be selected as an winner by theymos.

In August, I raised a question for this issue: If someone pass away, will their Trust feedback still exist permanently ? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5174984.0)

From the answers I got in that topic, the forum tends to leave it as decentralized as possible, with the participations of as many DT members as possible, by excluding pass-away DT members from their trust lists. Sometimes, DT members don't want to do this, especially if the DT members who pass-away are highly trusted and loved by the community.

I personally think that this idea of yours is good, but it can not solve the main problem: the conflict between the DTs together. Here means the conflict of thought between the DT, when DT tags someone, they think it is worth it, but another DT doesn't think so, DT eliminating other DT's responses will lead to a bigger conflict between DTs. It is not good for a forum, although this is to help other members. So I find it not feasible, but I like your idea.

With how the current Trust system is and how Default Trust members are selected, I don't think that this is a good option.


Its unfortunately way too open to abuse. Unless the default trust system changes, I don't expect good results per se. On that topic, the monthly random selection thing needs to go away...

@LoyceV, your idea has a very human purpose.
If like @LoyceV, give and say good, but no one cares about it, the destruction is certain to be.

I have also started it in the past two days, with different titles for the same purpose: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213565.0
But I'm not sure if I can make their hearts soft, or it will be harder than it is...

I think this is the time, where people have to go into the vineyard and pick grapes without having to climb the fence that has been provided, the entrance lane has been opened openly and feelingfully, so it is not easily damaged and durable.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement. The only problem would be a downvoter being removed from DT1, but that is probably a minor consideration.

Thanks, glad to see a few people agree with it. I just thought it’d be good to require multiple DT’s agreement before a neg was negated (lol).

It’d have to be anonymous down voting to ensure no fellow DT butt kissing is present. I mean you might get one or two DT’s PM’ing each other to try & organise a down vote agreement but I can’t see 5 being involved in something like that.

I think this is all a good idea because (not mentioning any names) I’ve seen a couple of DT’s delete an old neg & retype it as a new feedback to totally screw some peoples trust feedback which isn’t fair at all.

It seems fair enough idea to be implemented for negative ratings from DT1 and DT2. It would take care that only the legimate feedbacks from a DT would be with power and appearing to default trust list users, and the abusive once could just be depowred by other DTs. Just changing the trust colour did nothing. >:(

We just don't know when this type of suggestions would be considered by theymos.

It sounds like something users are generally supportive of, but with some reservations about the potential consequences.  It is a tricky one, since it effectively boils down to freedom of expression versus societal boundaries, which is always a huge can of worms.  Where does the right end for one person to say what they want?  It's not a line easily drawn, sometimes.

All I can really suggest is, if enough people are supportive of the idea, perhaps a short trial-period to see how it actually plays out in the wild?

OP I don't like your current idea, I even think that idea of making orange and green feedback black was better. Your thread in beginner's & help section isn't even pinned, I think it has to be in order to really gain attention (number of views are very low too - 1573 view as for now).
What about to add feature of Report Trust (feedback) and after certain reports, then move this trust on review for DT1 members to decide whether it has to be left the way it is or it has to be removed.
Btw I don't think that some unnecessary and personal revenge feedbacks don't have huge influence on users and when you see details of it, it's pretty easy to decide whether this makes user untrustworthy or not.

I definitely can, and I think it will only get worse as more and more people become eligible for DT1. I mean, we already have scam promoters and trust abusers on DT1. It's only a matter of time before we have enough to collude with each other in this way. Anonymous voting would also be difficult as fellow DT1s wouldn't know who to exclude that was downoting ratings inappropriately.

All in all, it's just another level of complexity which pushes the problem up a level rather than solving it. If someone is leaving ratings you disagree with, then remove or exclude that person rather than including/excluding people who are voting the correct/incorrect way on these ratings. We already have to build trust lists based on individual's ratings AND their trust lists AND their flag support/opposition. Do we really want to add their votes on other ratings to this as well?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.  :o



Agreed.  It seems like many are afraid to exclude those who've demonstrated poor judgement, because they fear a retaliatory exclusion.  Which happens, of course, but who cares?

I like to think of myself as one who sticks to his convictions, I've said it before and I'll say it again:  If you're afraid to lose your position on DT1 you probably don't belong there.

I've come to the conclusion that the DT system is just there to try to block some sig spammers, and bad bounty programmes. For those of us who don't have these as a part of out lives, I'm not sure how we can use the system.

There are many feedback regarding scams.
DT members warn users to not trade with scammers, not participate in scam ICOs, do not use a scam gambling website, etc. 

I like your idea as well but at the same time can argue for both sides...
^{- IMO, it should be anonymous, unlimited and require for the majority of the votes to alter a feedback.}

---

I agree with your suggestion as well but would like to polish it a bit further...

Step 1: A DT1 member reports feedback for review.
Step 2: For each feedback, 5 DT1 members ^{[or more]} are chosen "at random" to vote.
Step 3: Chosen DT1 members can pass the opportunity to other DT1 members ^{[at random]} by clicking "pass" on certain feedbacks ^{[with a limited amount of pass]}.
Step 4: After 5 votes:

• 3 or more votes for removal = Removal of feedback from DT

---

Based on my experience, the so-called drama never leaves this forum ^{[regardless of the trust system in place]}.

This is far too complex, in my opinion. There are already users on DT1 (let alone regular users) who don't even understand the difference between leaving positive/negative ratings and including/excluding from your own trust list, and in what situations each is appropriate. Asking them to start voting on other ratings is bad enough, but giving options to pass the vote to someone else is far too much. Many will use it incorrectly, and many will ignore it because they don't understand it.

Further, this essentially turns ratings in to a lottery, where the rating might stay or might go depending on which other DT1 members are randomly selected to vote on it. Trust ratings from DT1 members should be reliable, and not based on chance. If they aren't reliable, then the user responsible should simply be excluded from DT1.

The problem I see here is that the trust system will somehow have a inbalance when it comes to the DT's point of view. We all know that every DT member here has a personal opinion on each matter they are giving feedbacks with and if a DT1 member has the power to remove/downvoite their feedback it seems like their opinion is somehow less valuable compared to the DT1 who is disagreeing with him. So maybe I think the current system where DT members are countering it with a positive feedback is still a good option since it is like giving a second opinion on the same matter at least in this way we still see the transparency on all sides.

Thanks for all the comments, the "5 DT1 downvote" thing sounds like a good compromise.

I'm just fed up with what I consider Trust abuse, and I noticed another thing: the moment veteran members receive their first negative feedback (on something controversial), they often quickly collect a few more negatives. It's as if people are waiting for someone else to make the first move.

I will just throw my 2 satoshis in... I do like the idea but there are issues with this "5 vote downvote" idea as well... What virtually could happen is 2 camps will keep fighting out each other's downvote and we will be back to ground zero. I will through in something I thought of long ago but never pitched in. We already have a section called "Untrusted Feedback" why not create another section called "Personal(Opinion) Feedback" ^{(I'm not good with names)} which won't be accounted for just like "Untrusted Feedback". This way DT members can neg the sh@t out of each other without causing any Drama, it's not a Fix to the problem but it can definitely reduce the Drama which surrounds the Trust system. If an "Opinion Neg" is thrown as a regular neg then mods could virtually remove it/move it as it won't belong in the "appropriate section". At the end of the day, People will always find a loophole, Anything which offers "Power" will be abused in some manner/time by humans. Fixing the Trust system is like fixing the Human nature but then again it can be definitely worked on...

This could definitely be used to reduce trust manipulation if implemented correctly, but I think it could be augmented such that it works like a net.

With that in mind, trust groups would be identified based on the percentage of people that have eachother added to their trust list. This would identify several trust factions as you could call them.

A trust would need to be downvoted by individuals from multiple trust factions in order to successfully take away the red (or green) colour and revert it to neutral.

The thing is, it may lead to the creation of consistent colluding (and conflicting) groups of 5, that down-vote other’s trust ratings for whatever common purpose. To avoid that, perhaps the down-voting power could be given at random to x DT1s (9 for example) during each month. That may avoid what I suspect would happen to a great degree.

As drama I saw with my time here, there are DT members who know each other, are 'friends' (something like that), then what you mentioned is right. When one get first neg trust, it usually leads to more be trusts in a row.

It is a bit off topic but from your list of DT members update, it has become longer and longer with new DT2 members. How many of them are truly trusted and deserve to be called as DT2 members. It is a big question and hard to say.

It is more like a witch hunt some times and the accused in analyzed until the inside of his pants to find out anyways to put him to multiple trust ratings, and curbe the abuse by blaming him as risky without any real victims complaining of such. Just like show me the man, I will show you the crime attitude.


Or what if just an upvote feature is added?  ( if upvotes of DT1 are more the rating would appear under the trusted feedback, else if downvotes are more it would appear under untrusted feedback )

All of the votings could be made anonymous so that no drama would arise and DT1s could up or down vote on ratings without being afraid of other judgment.

I actually think the trust system is pretty darn good just the way it is..
Sure it isn't absolutely perfect in every aspect but nothing is..

My biggest gripe with the trust system is the way it is tied to merits and voting.. Just because a user can earn a lot of merits doesn't mean, to me, that they are necessarily a good choice to have a huge amount of voting power..

Merit is supposed to be for "good posts", and to rank up..  
When I give some merits it's hard for me not to think "How is this user going to use these merits to vote? Am I sure I want to give this user more voting power? Do I like the way this user votes?"
Their might also should be a cap on the amount of voting power any account has like 2000-3000 merits voting weight cap..

I also don't much like the way your inclusions list is one and the same as your voting list..
Maybe I would like to include someone but not vote for them to be on DT1, or the opposite..

And, votes not being anonymous is pretty silly to me..
Their would be less voter intimidation if votes were anonymous as in Secret Ballot Voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot) which is basically the standard of voting practices across the free-ish world for good reason IMO..


In any case, overall this new DT system is doing pretty good..
It has gotten and will continue to get better with time..


A lot of the time when someone recieves a negative tag, that is quite agreeable, many users will dogpile in replicating the same rating..
Maybe because they want the same reason for a neg-rating to have more weight, or possibly in many cases just to make it look like they are doing something important but really they are just copy-pasting to build their own perceived reputation..

A user could get like -5 this way for something as simple as asking for a no-collateral loan..


Also often times when a user gets their first negative rating they completely freak out and do a lot of stupid stuff because of it, fly off the handle, and wind up making their situations even worse and getting more tags for their resulting tantrum such as personal attacks or name calling any responders who don't agree with them right off the bat, or resort to less than respectable actions in their fury in multiple possible ways..

They way I approach it is to forget about DT1 altogether. After all, my personal trust list is, well, personal. If there is someone whose judgement I think is good (in terms of both feedback left and their own trust list) I'll include them. Poor judgement, I'll exclude them. If my inclusion or exclusion makes the difference to whether they are DT1 or not, then so be it, but I don't let it guide my decision.

I can see where you are coming from, but how can I judge whether someone is displaying good or poor judgement (so I can decide whether to include or exclude them as above) with secret ballots? It would be like allowing secret voting in Congress/Parliament/Government. How can I vote for a representative without knowing what they stand for?

Agreed. But a Merit requirement is a good way to keep account farmers out. What else could be used to easily distinguish between a dedicated user and a spammer with many accounts before handing out voting power?

I have (almost) enough Merit Supervotes for all users on my Trust list, but many others vote for the same users, so effectively I'm probably not even using half of my voting power already.
Long-term, many users should have a lot of Supervotes at their disposal, which further reduces the individual voting power.

You can include your own (Newbie) alt-account (on Depth 0), and include someone from that account to put them on your Depth 1. That way you're not voting, but you do see their feedback by default.
The opposite doesn't make sense: if you don't want to include someone, why would you want him to be on DT1?

My Trust list viewer is often used to fuel drama, but as long as it's public information, I believe in making it easily accessible.

Again, I want to encourage LoyceV here to keep working on ideas to improve the system around here as they do in fact have a very unique perspective on the systems in place, but this solution reeks to me as a strategy that has failed miserably in the past. That strategy is one of band-aid like patches on the system which just add another layer of complication, another layer of opacity, and an even more complicated system with more parts to break. This was the direction Theymos was going in for a while but I think he finally came to the realization that these kinds of patches are counterproductive. The more elements you add to a system, the more ways it has to break. As it stands right now as some one who has been around for all iterations of the trust system, I think the one we have now is the best so far (short of no trust system at all). I think we need to give it some more time to let the dust settle and let the disputes work their way through the system. The last changes to the system were pretty big and it took some adjustment from everyone. I think really we should be focusing less on the system itself and more on the mentality and culture we use to approach it. At the end of the day that is the real problem, not the system itself.

Actually.. It's kinda public..

You could judge them based on their philosophies, weather their ideas/positions align with yours or not, and their inclusions list, if the vote list was separate from their inclusions list, vote list being secret and inclusions list remaining public..

If I run for mayor of my town, should I have to publish all of my voting choices in all the past elections including propositions, judges, representatives, primaries, and presidential?

What if I don't want everyone in my town to know that I voted against the recreational marijuana proposition?
They would all hate me at its face value, but maybe I voted against it because the proposition basically hands the market to corporations making sure to squeeze the little guy out by requiring ridiculously high licencing fees and startup costs to comply with the stupid law, and it being a government tax collecting scheme even if they don't care that China is coming in to buy it all up..

Right.. The system is pretty good.. Nothing is perfect..

I don't know.. If I lived in sanfran and worked at Google maybe I wouldn't want everyone to know I voted for Trump..

What if I wanted to exclude a campaign manager because of their poor political philosophies but not want them to hate me and deny my signature application because of it?

Absolutely..
It is very useful and I like to think of all of these data collection projects by users here as a good reminder of, if this is what these relative amateurs are capable of, what do you think the professionals (3 letter agencies) are capable of?

Agreed...
This is 98% where I'm at right now too, but it is fun/interesting to hypothesize..

I'm not suggesting my hypotheticals to be included into the system, just thinking/rambling about what I perceive to be possible weaknesses..


------------
Good thing the power is in your hands and not who knows who else..
But do you think this amount of power in a single users hands should exist at all?

For example.. You might like the idea of your president using an executive action to do something that you like, but you must remember, what precedent does this set that the opposition may be able to use some day to do something you don't like if they get their hands on this same power..

I meant personal as in "relating to me" as opposed to "private".

Sure, but that's not to stop someone saying/doing one thing in publicly viewable trust ratings/feedback and another thing in secret trust ratings. I really don't agree with giving DT1 users the ability to secretly alter the trust system, especially when it involves overriding public ratings from other DT1 users.

Then I would argue you are misusing the trust system for personal gain and don't belong on DT1.

It's not really the power in a single users' hands - you still need two supervotes (250 merit each) and 10 normal votes (10 merit each). I have previously argued to increase the number of votes required which would further dilute the power of any single user, and I think this argument is becoming more relevant over time as the list of potential DT1 users will continue to grow to unmanageable levels.

The exact solution: keep your team, all merits are yours, trusts are yours, DT1-DT2-DT3-DT843943240 get it all to you.
Let your profiles be emerald green and your rank "KING of The LEGENDARY".

lock everyone's account and turn the forum to whatsapp group :D :-* :-*

I vote no to this idea - this persons' gang will vote down the negative of that gang and then that gang's affiliates will step in an bolster the votes causing the first gang's affiliates to also step in and counter vote.

The same would happen with positives - imagine how many gang members will vote up positive feedbacks for the sale of a $1 trinket, or "being a great guy" or having been the escrow in a transaction (for a $1 trinket) or some other flimsy reason.

We all know who the gang members are who've outed themselves in recent threads, so you only need to play the numbers and game the system.

At first when I read this I thought of it ass a not so great idea. I would turn it down.

But come to think of it, maybe the voting could work, if the voting is unanimous(as in all the DT1 members agree that the rating is bad), or if majority of them disagree. Also, the voting could be limited, as in you can vote only thrice a month, so people would have to be wise on who to vote for.

And if there's colluding of any sort, the admins can obviously undo this.

I don't think this would be a good idea, not because of the idea, but of the current state of DT.

It would just increase the drama.  Right now for a few weeks each month after the DT reorg there is a lot of political play, trading of trust and negatives.  Now instead of lobbying to get someone off DT, you would be lobbying to remove a trust rating that next month prob will be irrelevant. 

Bump reference: To all DT1 members | Interesting negative feedback from JollyGood! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.0)


The more threads I read like this, the more I'm convinced that a type of down-voting would be beneficial.


A number like 5 adds up. 3 users can easily group together to "hide" negative feedback to untrusted, but not 5 so easily.
Would it be prone to trust abuse? For sure. Is the current trust system prone to trust abuse? Absolutely.
Would it reduce the amount of trust abuse compared to the current system? Probably.

Situation resolved, by the way.

The whole point of trust feedback is to have it so that people will look at them and write their own feedback, isn't it? I have always been hesitant to add any sort of regulatory micromanaging when it comes to DefaultTrust and I think adding an option for any arbitrary number of DT members (who cycle every month) based on another arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback is prone to abuse.

Even countered feedback in the past was just to stop someone from seeing the negative number on their profile sheet but given the breadth of the DefaultTrust network, with 100 DT1 members that include at least ten other users, you have a huge number of users in DT. This means that individual feedback is worth less and that users should be paying much more attention to the feedback comments rather than just the raw numbers (something that should have been done anyway).

Indeed, this is good to see  :)


In my mind the suggestion would be for acting DT1 to be able to downvote, not "voting-only" DT1 (those with negative strength). This would at least remove the arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback, instead requiring the variable of positive DT1 strength as well as inclusions from those with enough merit. I do get your point about micromanagement of DT feedback could be bad, as it wouldn't be a solution to the fundamental problems, but from another perspective the introduction of flags that are voted on do appear to be an improvement. Notably it could lead to less exclusions, if users had the ability to "hide" negative feedback, then there would be less of a need to exclude a user to achieve the same goal.

The main downside I see is that DT1 members could down-vote legitimate DT2 feedback (legitimate to DT2 members at least), which ultimately puts more power into the hands of DT1, which is unnecessary imo. Arguably I think it'd be better if a downvote required 5 DT1 members or 10 DT2 members, or a combination there of, so each DT2 vote counts as half a DT1 vote for example. But I also think this would be a very complex mechanism to introduce, even if the abuse of down-voting could be limited and restricted. Either way, there is current abuse, any positive changes would still be open to abuse (such as trust flags) - just possibly a little less.

Either way, I think any "fair" decentralized system will always be prone to abuse, the question isn't how to avoid this, but how to counter this in a decentralized manner (instead of further centralizing). Systems that aren't prone to abuse are usually very centralized and restrictive, but this is because they are usually fundamentally abusive as a construct.

Those on DT1 that have given me negative / distrust are mostly the ones who have peddled in account sales or trades, lending using UID's as collateral etc so I can only imagine it would be more of the childish, retaliatory, wild west bile that fills my trust feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=131361;dt) wall.

Tbf your DT-based trust "wall" is negatives "filled" mainly from the cat, rather than any broad spectrum of DT users giving you negative trust. Your negatives as a sum are barely plural to put it simply. Maybe a down voting option would disable a couple of these don't you think?

As for your distrusts, nobody has "given" you distrust. It's not something that is given. There are just certain members that distrust you (but notably haven't given you negative feedback). No doubt due to the feedback you leave others, as this is what trust lists are based upon. It also feels like I'm beating a dead horse with this opinion.

With no new ideas?   

Nope, I was reminded about this thread when I received a PM about this topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.0).

Bump again since the idea was mentioned (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5465942.msg62812213#msg62812213) again.

I like the idea too, agreeing with many people who commented at the time on this thread. What I see is that theymos did not deign to say anything, as is usual with him, but as far as I can see he is not one to say much on these issues and, if anything, after a long time and a lot of insistence, he implements the change.


I don't see the problem. As of today we don't have a problem, or at least a serious problem of people colluding with the trust system. And even less of colluding with the votes of the flags, which would be the closest thing.

If we don't have such a problem as of today, it doesn't mean we won't get it in case of implementation of this system.

First, we already know that there are different people in DT system who don't like each other, and some tags are probably a little personally motivated. So we have a latent groups which can show up in case of implementation of this idea.

Second, if someone left a tag, doesn't want to delete it and then his tag is being deleted by others, why do you think that he will decide that his tag became not actual? I guess he will probably be very disappointed and will try to put together a group of like-minded to strengthen his tag. So implementation of this idea could motivate such groups to appear.

As for flags, they were already made in a different kind, it is a group decision to support or not, and there are rather strict rules on what is an appropriate reason for a flag and what is not.

I think that some tags of course look not so appropriate, but I think that voting for deleting these tags can bring more problems than we have now.

Wow, I do not remember this thread at all (though I distinctly recall that 2019 was pure fucking armageddon in my personal life).  Sometimes when threads like this get bumped, I get a soft and squishy feeling inside--and one of the causes for that is seeing posts like this:

and:


Hey!  That's me giving my sage wisdom there.  Was I smoking something with any of the members here?

But on a serious note: I still hold the above opinion, and I didn't realize there were still issues bothersome enough these days to bump this topic.  There was a ton of drama in 2019, but not so much four years later.

The OP needs to re-read their own first post to remind themselves how far removed from those sentiments they've become.

Nope, it's still accurate.
Is this about the neutral feedback and trust exclusion I gave you after giving you the benefit of the doubt for years?

Any thoughts how this could considerably change the makeup of users' trust lists, as this could mean not requiring such a high % of feedback accuracy, if some feedbacks end up being suppressed?

For example people would probably become more lenient, and include users with removed feedback, on the basis that it's been removed. Likewise there potentially wouldn't be so much reason to distrust as many users, if a lot of inaccurate feedback ends up being removed. At least with members with a few inaccurate ones, rather than serial abusers that no doubt would remain excluded. To me, this seems like it has the end result of increasing the number of DT members, whether that's a good or bad is another question. I can think of a few users that would otherwise have higher inclusion if a few feedback's were removed.

PS - Where is that thread where you proposed +1 inclusion instead of 0 for DT? Tried searching for it but can't find it.

Since the topic is bumped, I'll echo this issue that Vod raised a while back:


I definitely feel it would increase the amount of whining about feedback.  At the moment, you have to go direct to the source and have a conversation with the person who left the feedback in question.  But if such feedback can be downvoted by a given group of users, requests for this will become much more frequent, more public and likely more annoying.  Much like all the dumb threads we get about ban appeals.  People will just complain constantly because they think they'll get the feedback removed.

Rather than not displaying the feedback, it would work better (IMO) if each feedback simply displayed a kind of "legitimacy score" next to it based on the strength of DT upvotes versus downvotes.

I just had a similar thought that I shared in another thread. What if we had a voting system, similar to the one used for flags, where a certain number of DTs could collectively override the initial trust rating and move it from negative to neutral status? It seems that we're generally in agreement that neutral trust has been somewhat underutilized on the forum, and most of the issues tend to stem from the improper use of negative trust. This change could potentially mitigate the ongoing dramas that we've been witnessing in the Reputation Board for quite some time.

Try reading what I write from now on.

(I thought you pinky promised to ignore me? 🤔🤣

After seeming like a good idea to me at first, I think as nutildah says in another thread:


I suppose that as often happens with certain ideas, in an ideal world it would be perfect, but implemented in this real world it would add more complications and problems.

+1
I believe for the mentioned case, a decentralized DT decision could help to settle the issue. After all, that would be DT voting on that issue and we can't do much more from a decentralized perspective.

Regarding concerns of more drama caused by a possible implementation of OP's suggestion. Probably we get some drama during voting but that's not bad at all. Because in the long-term the cases will be settled by DT. Either feedbacks are voted out by a sufficient margin or they will stay. This will reduce controversial cases as going against DT's decision will most likely only result in more DT members chiming in and support DT's decision.
Case settled.

The case in Reputation is a good example: topics about similar issues are popping up, again and again. And this won't be the last time. I don't remember how often the topic has popped up...
By voting out certain feedbacks, we might avoid these cases to pop up again and again because we have an initial decentralized DT decision and everyone has to deal with it. Going against DT's decision is just not profitable for most cases.

And as I've brought up earlier (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213717.msg53483130#msg53483130): OP's suggestion can be helpful in many ways, like voting out feedbacks due to simply being outdated. 
However, I'm not the one to decide it, if it's getting implemented. There are more urgent forum issues (like our new forum design).  ::)
But it's a nice suggestion after all.  :)

Here is an idea. What if we completely remove the negative trust (making it neutral) and use only flags for trust issues and trade risk?


theymos could make some tweaks to how it is displayed so that the Type 1 flag isn't just for newbie warnings.

Flags don't apply to most of the users who I gave negative feedback. Take this guy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3443751) for example.

I want to comment on 1miau suggestion of 5 DT1s having the possibility to cancel out certain feedback by effectively moving it to the untrusted category.
I think 5 DT1s is a small number. I would support a majority vote in this case. I don't know how many DT1s we have, but I would want at least 80% if not 90% of DT1s voting in favor of removing a certain feedback.

Why? Because there shouldn't be a possibility that my 5 closest DT1 buddies can collude and remove feedback I don't want to see on my profile. But even if that happens for this DT1 cycle, what's going to happen with next month's change and reorganization of the DT1 list? Will there be new votes or is the decision made final?  

There are 100 DT1 members, and I don't think there's ever been a majority vote from them on anything.

Maybe the "downvoting" can work both ways: give other DT1-members the power to "upvote" the removed feedback.
And while typing this I realize this will just make everything way too complicated.

We would then enter an endless loop of upvoting and downvoting. Basically, a popularity contest of who gets more DT1s to agree with them in a given cycle. The decisions made this month could simply be cancelled out next month or the month after that if the right or wrong people (depending on how you look at it) make it into DT1. One way to mitigate that is a majority vote. But as you said yourself, the majority has never agreed on anything in the past.   

That sums up the entire DT1-system ;)

It still won't help for edge cases. See this example:
The 2 top lines (red and blue) are theymos and me "toggling" the DT1 majority vote. Depending on the composition of DT1, there may or may not be a majority.

Really?

I don't want to play devil's advocate here, because although it seemed like a good idea initially, and then seeing the arguments presented, I think it is better to leave things as they are, but when you said this I went to look at the first case that came to my mind, I guess because it was the most striking recently.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

There is not a single vote against the flag.

I don't really want to count, but how many of those votes are from DT1-members? I doubt it's 50% of them, let alone 80% or more. His negative DT-feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827;dt) is currently -44, and that's not only from DT1, it includes DT2, which has much more members.

But that's not my point. The point is that there is not a single one who disagrees with the flag. This would seem to disprove the statement that


This would also apply to the number of negative feedbacks after the event. There is not a single one, not even neutral, defending him, so I think there is a clear agreement from the community, including DT1, in this case.

The context was this:

That makes the argument not to require 50% or more support even stronger.

I think if a DT1 have this ability then I think it can be abused to remove a feedback that shouldn't be deleted or removed or maybe use it to earn money (payment in crypto) with it like a forum member will pay crypto like Bitcoin to the DT1 to remove a feedback. Maybe It will happen or maybe not in my opinion.

If DT1 have the ability to remove feedbacks and having other DT1 vote for it before the feedback is removed in my opinion is helpful and avoid a DT1 member abuse the system. I would definitely agree with this. I was thinking if all DT1 member should vote for it except in situations where a DT1 is the one that sent the feedback because I am sure that DT will oppose the removal of the feedback that he/she sent to that forum member.

Well, when we talk about DT we mean that every DT member understand the issue, makes own conclusion and then acts. In theory. So if we'll look at the situation with flags we'll see that there are usually just few votes from DT, because others don't want to waste their time on investigating each case and some are voting just because they believe some other reputable DT members understood the issue enough and made a correct choice.

Spreading of this practice on votes implies that DT members will find additional time on researching many other cases to make own conclusions in each of them. Or will put together a group of like-minded and vote for each others' tags and against tags which are not pleasant for one of them. And we'll see much more topics in Reputation to vote for and against.

Basing on experience with flags I can say that only minority of DT will vote for and against others' tags. So if someone will get a negative tags and will ask for help some known compassionate DT members in PM, he'll get an opportunity of cleaning the negative tag he got and probably no one will even see this. Especially if a DT member who left that tag is on a vacation or left the forum.

And next. When we count votes, how will we count: if someone is in DT this month but not in DT next month, will a tag become trusted and untrusted like now basing on who is in DT? Reviews becoming more and more flickering... it could destroy Trust system reputation. As for now everyone in DT has his own reputation, and if everyone would have a right of voting for each tag, then there will be a common reputation. Each one will have an opportunity to say: yes, I've made a mistake, but what others did at that moment? I'm not fond with idea to bear some part of responsibility for cases I didn't investigate enough to vote or leave my own tag. I don't have time on deep investigation for each tag of everyone, each flag, etc. And to vote, I think the one should make own investigation of a case.

As I already said, I see we have some problems, but I suppose we'll get even more problems if to change a system this way.

LoyceV understood what I was trying to say. I didn't mean an 80-90% majority from those that voted, but a majority from the whole list of DT1s. Meaning from the list of 100 DT1 members. And LoyceV is right when he says it would be borderline impossible to get such a majority vote here. Even in a clear case like yogg's rug pull.

Maybe the criteria should be that 2/3 or 3/4 of all DT1s must vote. And then if that criteria is met, there must be a majority vote of 80-90% in favor of removing the trust rating.

Trying to follow the alternating proposals here but failing to understand the logic of 2/3 or 3/4 of DT1 to vote. For starters, it's very unlikely to get 61 to 69 DT1 members to vote on anything imo.

I don't see the issue with having only 50%+ agreement as the threshold for having feedback removed, as long as there is the option to upvote in order to counter downvotes. I also don't understand why this is suggested for DT1 only instead of all DT. Many of the most trusted DT members aren't even DT1 anymore anyway, as have wiped trust list or opted for exclusion, but are their feedback is still highly trusted.

To me it makes more sense to keep it simplistic like with the trust flags, with the addition of requiring at least 5 DT votes prior to any removal of default feedback to take affect. After all DT/DT1 is determined by majority inclusion (even 50%) that determines whether feedback is trusted by default or not, so to me it makes sense that any feedback votes from DT/DT1 are treated in the same manner as inclusions/exclusions.

Either that or increase the voting requirement to 10 DT votes (as opposed to 5 DT1 votes) if you want to avoid too many feedbacks being countered which could well end up being the case with such a low threshold. This would require a minimum of 6 DT down votes (based on majority agreement) in order for feedback to no longer be trusted, or otherwise the full 10 DT downvotes if there is no opposition.

Also having only DT1 able to upvote/downvote means that some feedback will "flip flop" on and off a lot more than if the votes are based on DT, due to how the DT lottery works, which wouldn't be ideal imo.

They do not now, but they could if theymos makes it so. The guy from your example is a trade risk.

look at my trust

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=64507

I was given a negative trust by jvanname

not a good reflection of the trust system.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1043276

if you read about him and see his posts and his distrusts it is exactly why the trust system needs help.

Maybe a review committee of egregious posts and trusts.

BTW is he banned? he posted on sept 4 so I think he is active.

He's not on DT, so his feedback isn't shown by default. At least this part of the Trust system works fine.
I guess it's your first negative, I remember those days, the first one hurts the most. After that, you stop caring. Look at The Sceptical Chymist's untrusted feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418;page=untrusted;offset=0) for example. Just scroll down fast :D That spam is one of the reasons theymos made changes in the number of line breaks feedback can have.

I  have a few distrusts  buried deeply from when I used to try and scam bust bad sellers in the 2013-2015 timeline.

But that particular person jvanname is over the top abusive to everyone in every post.

If you look at his distrusts they are fairly ridiculous in every case.

More experienced members know that the distrust he gave is worthless but newer people do not.

So when you look at my trust feedback his is right on top 🔝 thus it is annoying.

Also any DT1 member can now include him at anytime and boom I have a fully visible distrust. Which would mean I would have to distrust the DT1 member that decided to trust him. And bla bla bla drama drama drama.

So when minor players do what he did it undermines the entire system.

Its a bit hidden because most Dt1 people are trustable.

please note most means 51% or more not 99%.

So to a large degree we need a mechanism to protect trusts from abuse.

Letting jvanname drop distrusts for poor reasons or no reasons weakens the system.

Two users already distrust him (https://loyce.club/trust/2023-09-09_Sat_05.07h/1043276.html), and if his feedback is inaccurate, you can exclude him for your Trust list already.
If DT1-members include the wrong users, they're supposed to be excluded. It's drama, but it comes with a decentralized system.

He's not the only one, and I wouldn't say it weakens the system. It's just the result of not moderating feedback.

5 DT1 members was just a rough number, could be 10 or 15 as well.
Because most likely, not many DT members will read everything about the case and many DT1 members won't join the vote.
Yes, 5 DT1 members seems to be a low number but it's also not easy in my opinion to convince 5 DT1 members to vote in favor of removing a feedback. And if you have 2 DT1 members against it, you need 7 in favor already.

---

That's why there was given a low number of 5 DT1 member votes. Many DT1 members won't bother to vote in it. But we can also increase it to 10 DT1 votes.


No need to require more DT1 members reading about it.
We can do it like flags, works pretty well currently.
Same procedure like flags and it's no issue at all.


Yes and it's working pretty well for flags currently.  ;)


There's no final decision on that but changes depending on who's DT1 currently are definitely a good idea because it's representing DT1.


Seriously, where should it "destroy" the trust system?
DT1 is currently determined that way, our own trust scores change by a small margin every week, depending on who's DT1 and DT2 and even DT2 is changing due to that already.
Nothing got destroyed from that.  :D :D


No need for you to investigate such a case if you don't like to investigate. It'll be similar to flag support and it's working well currently.

Flags have rather strict rules and feedback doesn't. Otherwise there was no need in flags, it could be done on a base of quantity of tags. Some tags are left on the very boundaries of a consensus of a Trust system; flags in the same cases would have been opposed, because of strict rules. If to make the same system as flags, then what will be the difference, why do we need two similar systems?


I said "destroy Trust system reputation", not the system itself. It doesn't matter if you are in DT1 or in DT2, your tags will stay visible by default the same way. If the number of votes for and against tags will change each DT1 reshuffle, there will be flickering in feedback: some tags will appear while some will disappear. Does it look reasonable and reputable when the same tag of a same person is correct when there's one DT1 composition and becomes totally incorrect with another DT1 composition in a month and the same way each month?


Right, no need for me, no need for someone else. So if someone will gather with several like-minded they can change a system as they will like, because majority won't get much additional time to do much additional work to monitor the correctness of Trust system work.

As for flag system: it is different. Tags are much less strict. I voted for 205 flags because it is easy in many cases, but I left just a 100 tags and big number of them is based on one big farm investigation.

But we already have different levels of flags, why not introduce just one more, for example, Flag Type 0 (which would replace neg. trust).


Again, we already have such a system with flags. Besides, I believe the number of such cases would be relatively low. Consider this scenario: if a flag receives the necessary support from DT1 members to become active, and one of those members later drops out of the DT pool, we have two options. We can either keep the flag active, or the flag becomes inactive until it secures the support of at least one more new DT1 member.


But that is actually a good thing. Flags need thorough investigation and supporting evidence. That is why it is usually pretty straightforward to check out the evidence and investigation someone else has done and decide whether to support or oppose the flag. Tags, on the other hand, often get slapped on without much reference or clear evidence. Those kinds of tags should not be part of the trust system.

Ah we both agree it is not ideal, but  the question is how to correct it.

Obviously my distrust of someone would carry more weight than his as I simply do not do a distrust or a flag with out very careful consideration of why it should be done.

I also feel most DT1 people are the same way. ( note most not all )

If a systematic method of checking poor distrust use is developed I would certainly want to study it. Maybe try it for 1-2-3 months see if it works. tweak it etc.

I can't see how strict rules / not strict rules is making a difference. For example DT1 voting has no strict rules as well and bitching about DT1 inclusions / exclusions isn't a big problem at all.

Because voting out certain trust feedbacks is a completely different thing compared to flags because it's serving a completely different purpose.  

---

It's neither destroying the trust system itself and not even "destroying Trust system reputation". I don't see, where anything is "destroyed". Flags aren't destroying anything as well.

---

Yes, it's completely reasonable because right now, we have also DT1 and DT2 changing frequently and therefore also trust feedbacks changing frequently. It's currently like that due to DT1 changes: some trust feedbacks are displayed this month and next month, they are not displayed, it's no issue at all.

---

Same issue goes for DT2 manipulation and there, it's a much bigger issue because a DT1 member can add a DT2 member very easily by just including the account. Manipulation, where abusers would need at least 5 DT1 accounts is much more difficult than to manipulate DT2 inclusion, where only 1 DT1 member is necessary.
You can be sure that if there's possible abuse, more DT1 members will look into it and overturn any abuser's votes.

---

It doesn't make any difference as we know from DT1 voting, where it's also less strict and it's not an issue if it's not strict.
It basically boils down to what LoyceV wrote here:

Why rely on votes from DT1 members only when there is a concern that all of them will not vote and many of them don't care? Can't we do a weight-based voting system? DT1 members will have 3 voting power and DT2 members will have 1. To pass a decision at least 50% of DT1 member's vote should be mandatory. This can reduce potential bias as well.

50% of all DT1 members? That will almost never happen.

I don't see any issue if there are not enough DT members for some cases. The feedback will just stay as it is, so even for these cases, nothing is changing from what it is right now.
And for most cases, I'm sure a sufficient number of DT members will be attracted to look into it.

I agree, that a weight-based voting system is an interesting idea but from an implementation viewpoint, it might be more complicated. Probably, keep it stupid, simple is a better approach here, also to explain it to more DT members easily. Sometimes, I'm still of the impression that the whole DT system is very complicated, for quite a few long-time forum members.
Still, your idea of an weight-based voting system is definitely a suggestion to be considered.  :)

That is pretty much still relying on votes from DT1 members and if you are positive to get 50% of them to chime into different discussions, how do you say that they do not care?

Your idea is one that can work and also help to reduce bias even though many believe that the default trust is already a broken system and encourages backscratching.

It will undoubtedly be difficult, yes. I just feel like it shouldn't be easy to have feedback removed and put in the untrusted category. You are protecting the trust system that way. It already has its difficulties. If it was an easy thing to do, it would stop being a valuable tool and slowly lose its purpose. Maybe I am exaggerating.

Hahaha. Sorry, had to laugh. If I had the power to make decisions here, such uses of the feedback system wouldn't be allowed. You are not the only that has that, and information that someone is stupid/crazy/gay/brain-damaged doesn't help anyone.

I see your point that it wouldn't be ideal making it easy for feedback to be removed/un-trusted and you're probably right overall. For example a DT member could leave feedback that the majority of DT1 members agree with, but get's down-voted by a handful of DT1 and then removed. This is why I said having down-voting won't work without up-voting as well to counter it. The frustrating reality would be the possibility of having hundreds of pieces of feedback down-voted by certain members, that would require up-voting by others in order to remain, which sounds like an exhausting task for DT1 members.

Either way I don't think the feature should be rolled out without some sort of test-run first, for example a handful of feedback (proposed by users) that become available to vote on by DT1/DT members. Regardless of whether it requires 5 DT1 downvotes or otherwise a majority, I can see it going wrong either way, or being unpopular. Then ideally DT1/DT members would be able to vote on implementing the system or not.

edit: Am starting to think that this feature would work better by requiring a minimum number of users to initially propose voting on pieces of feedback, such as 3 DT members, before having the feature becoming available for the feedback in question - ie regulate the feature better. The idea of having every single piece of negative feedback available for up-voting/down-voting is starting to sound a bit insane in hindsight.

I don't like the idea of removing negative trust and making it neutral.
As much as current DT system is broken at the moment we still need to have the option of giving any member positive, negative or neutral feedback.
If something needs to be removed I would than remove all feedback, but this opens another can of worms.

It seems that it is you that is thinking this in a vague way.
Take it that I feel that I am u justly tagged by a DT1, I'll raise a judgement flag for the case and link the thread that lead to my tag. If I should have the support of 5 DT members or 10 DT members as the admin will approve, the red tag would be removed and the DT score of the one who left the tag will drop. But if I don't have enough DT support, the tag remains.

Yeah it’s annoying and a bit sad that people run around trolling the way he does.

Bump this topic since we have a new drama. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5468454.0)

It not work like that, the tag will be removed, but the score is still same as long as there's no user exclude or distrust him. Surely he can leave a same feedback to that account, but it's somewhat like a troll where you still selfish and not want to accept if the feedback you left wasn't appropriate according to the community, which would make other users to exclude or distrust him.

How will it help? Of course many DT members can in such case vote against tags from both sides, but these tags are left on a base of emotions and those emotions are still strong, so we'll just get a new level of drama. There are several DT members in that topic who recommended to remove those tags, but there's no positive result. If we'll remove those tags basing on voting, what will prevent the drama participants of leaving new ones? If it was on rational base, it could be solved by arguments, but what is based on emotions... I don't think removing those tags through voting can solve the problem you mentioned. Unfortunately.

So you bump this because 2 DT members having troubles in paradise?

---

Next subject on agenda, requesting a new system to support minorities, on top of that we'd need another system for human rights, animal rights etc.  But this is not a government/ nation, I thought it was at some point, but none of you(with a few exceptions) here really deserve any thing good, I came back after years to receive more tags, but do you see anyone doing something about it? It's because I hold no power, an  ordinary person's reputation is worthless for this community, and as you know, sometimes you are on top, sometimes under, the time for me to be on top is around the corner God willing.😉

Well, even if it is bumped, I do not support this.

Adding downvote (and possibly upvote) functionality will turn Bitcointalk trust feedbacks into a toxic space like Reddit (people who use Reddit will relate to this). As if the drama in this forum is not already bad enough. So if I had the option between doing nothing and messing with some levers that might make the situation even worse, I'd rather do nothing.

You nailed it. With the current DT system step up. It won't help that much, in fact it will lead to more chaos. In the new drama that Plaguedeath refers to, the case can easily be solved by both members agreeing to remove the feedback from each other's profile and ignore each other afterward. Simple as that. Both members are trustworthy or are not likely to scam, but the problem is maybe with the egos surrounding the feedback they left each other.

On giving the DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT, maybe there would be an additional clause like if a DT member gets his feedback revoked after a specified number of times, all his future trust ratings would no longer show up under trusted feedback but rather under Untrusted feedback. This would preserve the past accurate feedback
But with all this, it would mean the DT system would need an overhaul, and I don't think we are all ready for the drama that ensures afterward.

What past valid feedbacks? In case you and any other member here have your heads in to the sands, let me shout out so you can hear, how many of scammers, cheaters get exposed/doxxed after getting caught? Have you wondered why they never stop popping up like mushrooms the more you catch them?  You can't fight them like this, instead you have to educate the community in a way that they become vigilant and informed enough, not to fall for the scam.

---

Instead, you are actively trying to stop something that can easily be gamed. There are many farming services/ shilling services providing you with enough "bounty cheaters" "scammers" with low fees so that you could continuously catch them and tag them, then you'd become a useful member to get on DT. Once you are there, we'd have this current situation, you can easily spend $10,000 to become a reputable member with hundreds of "good" feedbacks.

Note, the price is much much lower than $10k, I give them credit by saying $10k, you could get positive trust by trading $1000 back and forth with a few old gang members.

---

Anyways I wouldn't trust anonymous individuals with money, no matter what, unless they reveal their ID for the public.

Edit, separated paragraphs to make it clear I'm not directly talking with Bitcoin_Arena, rather saying things in general. Lol

How many scammers have you seen who are willing to spend $10k on their image? By the time they've done that, they have an actual reputation to lose.

An ID from someone in another country won't do you any good.

---

---

Let's face it: this idea I posted 4 years ago won't get implemented.

That would be great to implement but a step further should be added so it doesn't get abused because of the so much drama that goes on here. My argument is consistent with when there's a deceased user who left such a tag. What happens next, then? What happens after they've left the tag and things suddenly change that disprove the reason for the tag in the first, what happens next where the said member can't be reached to remove the tag? Is the tagged member going to bear the indelible mark forever? Honestly, I'm in for a way that this type of tag can be removed.

Wow... Surprised, proposals like this have been around since 2019. Does that mean the drama has been going on for a long time?

Maybe I'm still a beginner and don't know the history of what has happened on this forum. but let me give a little of my opinion here.

I don't agree if DT1 has the capabilities you mentioned because DT1 has quite a lot of members. Maybe some of DT1 who have a high level of trust have this ability, one of which is you. Don't have too many members who have that kind of ability, maybe 5 or 10 members are enough. And also provide punishment if it turns out that the member who has the ability has made a mistake and doesn't want to admit it. So justice can be created because there are special abilities but there are punishments too

---

But don't pay too much attention to my opinion, because I don't really understand the trust system and the long history of this system.

Then good. Go ahead and start educating members on how to leave feedback on other profiles, and we see how it goes. You think all people will think a like?

With past valid feedback, I am making a reference to a member who used to give good feedback in the past but then started leaving useless feedback. You preserve the past feedback since it's still helpful, but then make the new feedback untrusted.

There's difference between being on DT and received positive feedback due to deals between other members. I have seen members who are on DT and have never traded here before. It's not about the positive feedback a member has. But the past accurate feedback he left on different profiles

Looks like you are replying angrily and not understanding what I even suggested.

Read more, post less, so you can stand by your opinion when you share one.

Of course I've read quite a lot, but because I haven't experienced what happened here in the past, I'm not very confident. BTW, I've also read your thread about trust systems, I think it's almost close to what Thyemos meant, but unfortunately there are still DTs who don't care or implement it. In many ways, you are indeed a great person