Bitcoin Forum

It seems there is a growing disagreement/misunderstanding on the appropriate use of feedback, I know shocking. Hell I might even be the one who misunderstands how feedback should be left, though I feel it's fairly self explanatory. Some out there feel it is wildly open to interpretation, without some sort of statement made by you. All I'm asking for is a sticky at the top of the reputation board that can serve to replace people needing to piece together snipits you've posted in various locations. Lay out your intent behind the 3 levels of feedback, and maybe an example or 2 of what falls outside acceptable use in your opinion.

This would also be a nice update so people aren't relying on posts from several years ago when the trust system landscape was vastly different. Given that the system has been in place for some time now, you can see how it has been used or misused, and if you like the direction it's going. Paint with broad strokes if you like, but anything would help clarify things for newer members who are grappling between opposing views on what is an acceptable use. Think of it as adding to the net benefit the system brings the forum as a whole.

Below is the best quote I can think of by you for the intended use. The problem is it's in a topic floating in meta, and the title doesn't reference the feedback portion making it difficult for users to find. Title "Trust Flags"

Edit: Reply from theymos below
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221908.msg53741011#msg53741011

The quote of Theymos in the OP is pretty clear cut, but in reality any stated intention isn't going to stop people from using the trust system outside of what might be the intended scope.

The trust system is not policed by moderators and Theymos. In my opinion, rightly so. We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.

What would really help is a change in sentiment. High ranking members of this community find ways to accuse each other, and when so many man hours end up being spent trying to find faults in each other, it ends up just being disappointing. Most saddening part to me, is that members of this forum tend to take sides when a dispute arises, even if it's about the most minuscule things and it's obvious that the accuser tries really hard to build an accusation even though there might have been no harmed parties forming an accusation.

How about, next time there's a spat between two forum members, they get no attention unless evidence is presented? In my very humble opinion, biased reports formed out of spite should result to shunning, with the accuser getting out of trust lists. What's currently happening in my view, is that other members form bandwagons by picking a side, with huge arguments going on and bloated threads over minuscule points related to relatively subjective matters such as ethics, laws etc.

On the above note, I think that scrapping the 'red tag' and establishing flags was a step to the right direction. It's no longer possible for a single member that is included in default trust to ruin somebody's reputation in a snap. Flags require popular support and are focused on evidence rather than opinions. In my opinion, this solves the issue of 'game of throwns' styles spats. A single negative rating, no matter how influential a user might be, doesn't do much on its own. Now, for the troubles to stop, we need a change in mind.
Theymos stating the intention even more coherently wouldn't actively change anything.

I think we have enough guidance from the top, and it's common sense, like no tags or flags for opinions or trolling. The problem is that any word from theymos gets interpreted and misinterpreted in ways that completely skew the intent. If he says "this behavior may be a reason for negative trust but..." you can bet that some people will ignore the "but" part (and treat "may" as "must") and some will focus entirely on the "but" ignoring the first part.

Just use common sense and good hygiene in your trust lists. I've found that it's far more valuable to build my trust list not based on whom I agree with but based on honesty and ability to reason with. Your mileage may vary.

I think theymos has already stated how people should use it, and users really need to stop leaving feedback for 'trolling', especially after it's someone they've got beef with or just disagree with. There are some idiots on this board and ones I often strongly disagree with but that doesn't mean they're trolling or should have negative left. I might make exception if there are people who come here and have no business other than to try troll and harass people but I think people are stretching the definition of what theymos means here:



People seem to be leaving feedback based on well this guy is a troll so he obviously can't be trusted and I don't think that's right. You might not trust them because of their behaviour but neutral probably seems more appropriate here unless there's very strong evidence that they can't be trusted to trade with.

Techshare is a prized cuntsmouth of a troll but I wouldn't tag him for that as he has had many successful trades and can be trusted to do as he says he will, I wouldn't believe a word he posts but I would buy something from him and be secure in the trade. Then you have the likes of TOAA, imagine a shipment going missing from him? fuck that, the total fucknugget would make the whole process so painful, so newer members need to be warned about his general behavior on the forum

Quite an example here, but yeah this is what it really looks like when people try to leave their trust rating into someone. Though on the surface a user might seem to be a troll and just spouting nonsense and making others feel a little uncomfortable at times, IMO that per se isn't sufficient to red-tag that particular person especially if the same person has completed tons of confirmed trades, all of which went smooth and went well. Then again, you'll never know when would a good guy turn into a bad guy, so a neutral rating IMO is okay.

As for theymos having to weigh in his own thoughts into the trust system, it's best to leave it as it is. Even if the guidelines for trust-rating is stickied, I feel that some will ignore it and continue to paint someone's rating red anyway especially if they have some personal issues with the said uaer.

Well these are two perfect examples. I disagree with a lot of stuff tecshare says but I don't think he's a troll and I don't think he deserves the negative feedback he's received. I agree that he seems to be a trusted trader so his opinions and whether you disagree with them or not shouldn't effect his ability to trade here but people seem to be leaving him feedback because they've been rubbed the wrong way by him. TOAA is obviously an alt account made as a throwaway to antagonise people without fear of retribution and to spare his main account and obviously has no interest in trading here, but that also leads back to my first point: Did he create that account because he didn't want to dirty his other one any further with inevitable negative feedback? Would he have even created that account in the first place if his main one hadn't been left negative or he was worried about getting more?

Would you trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? I know I wouldn't, even with escrow and a reshipper I still wouldn't spend $1 with that punk, so no matter what account it should still be tagged, main or alt. Anyone dealing with a user who is that mentally retarded needs to be warned.

Techshare is just a wanker as I said and I don't actually agree with people tagging him. When we start talking about the likes of Thule and those loonatics then warnings are fair game IMO

Bit of a loaded question though. Would I personally trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? No, but there's lot's of reasons for that. I wouldn't trust him to not try get one over me in some capacity, but that doesn't mean he's a scammer or would attempt to scam me and I haven't seen anything to suggest he would do such a thing. I probably wouldn't envision any problems with him and another neutral third party though, but if others were concerned of that without any evidence of anything shady a neutral should suffice as a warning of his problematic behaviour. I probably wouldn't trade with timelord either and certainly don't trust his judgement, but I don't think that means he's deserving of negative and a neutral if anything would be appropriate in that case if I was to leave anything.

Since CH isn't even attempting to trade and the ratings are based entirely on stupid shit he says - neutral might be more appropriate. A neutral can say whatever you want without specifically claiming that trading with CH is high-risk. Who knows, maybe it's medium-rare risk. In hindsight the red ratings did more to inflame him than to provide any kind of useful warning.

Thule is a bit different, the moron actually threatened to sue me LOL but since he never did I'm considering a revision from negative to neutral. Being an idiot is different from an actual real threat and the threat doesn't seem to have been real, just keyboard warrior type of thing.

I'm endorsing this topic, even though theymos shouldn't have to "police" the forum for feedback, it really seems like it needs more guidance.
Just recently I've considered posting a topic in Reputation with the title: "Use neutral feedback whenever possible", but I haven't done it yet.

The Trust system can handle people with only wrong ratings: they quickly get excluded. People with only good ratings aren't a problem either. But there seem to be more and more veteran users with overall very good trust ratings, who recently created some bad ratings based on opinions or retaliation.  If only those ratings would be neutral, there'd be much less drama on Bitcointalk!

I'd appreciate seeing theymos' opinion on LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0), and if he largely agrees: I've seen suggestions to sticky that topic on the Beginners board.

Trading with TOAA is high risk, a very high risk of losing your sanity. Also newbies won’t look at neutral feedback, they probably don’t even read positive trust half the time

Right on, bro.  I'm not entirely sure the self-policing always works, but it's better than the alternative IMO, which is to have Theymos crack the whip or offer very specific guidance about how the trust system ought to be used--and he probably wouldn't enforce it anyway unless things got way out of hand.

I had to check to make sure TOAA didn't post in this thread, and he didn't.  I'm really wondering if he's going to keep to his word that he's done with this forum.  It's been a nice respite so far, but who knows.

And on the 1277^th day Theymos said Let There Be Trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664).  And it was so.
And behold there was trust.  And there was much rejoicing.  But soon the days of rejoicing faded into much kvetching and much moaning and much whining and much pissing on about the abuse and misuse of The Trust.  And woe be he who was so brave to speak out against those pillars of the system of DT, lest he be smitten with taggs of ruby colored leprosy.

And on the 3336^th day Theymos said Let There Be Changes to The Trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49140832#msg49140832).  And it was so.
And there was much rejoicing.  And many merits were bestowed upon the harbinger of change, and Theymos the Just was exalted for decentralizing the system of trust, and behold the glory of the new system.  But yet again, the days of rejoicing again faded into much kvetching and much moaning and much whining and much pissing on about the abuse and misuse of The Trust.  And woe be he who was so brave to speak out against The Kingdom of Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098579.msg49276971#msg49276971), lest he be smitten with taggs of ruby colored leprosy.

And on the 3489^th day Theymos said Let There Be Trust Flags (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51435911#msg51435911).  And it was so.
And many merits were bestowed upon the harbinger of change, and Theymos the Just was exalted for providing a system that warned the newbie among us, and behold the glory of the new system.  But in time the complexity and abuse of the flags came to be like a plague (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215763.msg53579165#msg53579165) across land.  And the righteous and the just were flagged without concern for honor or truth.  

So now we plead to you Oh Mighty Theymos the Just, that you may leave us the Ten Three Commandments Use-Cases of thy trust system that we may rely on your words, and not attempt to interpret the proper use ourselves.  For we are unworthy of that honor.  Oh Mighty Theymos the Just, please return from your perch upon the High Mountain of Honor that we may revel in your words and your words alone.  Oh Mighty Theymos the Just!

---

Wait a minute, what's this now?


Okay, never mind.

I wouldn't trade either with him anything.
And newbies just maybe look at the Feedback when the boards show the trust score.
Most times they read the Feedback after they have done something with Users i guess.
For sure not all but still a few doing that.

Happend to me when i was starting here on Bitcointalk.

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

This guide make it open to wide abusive action. Any more warning to another member of risky, member must be able to show a behavior of try to scam or did scam must show example financial misconduct . Think in your own opinion more risky than average is not sensible.
If not provide example then red is abuse.
I investigate each of TOAA post and even the last challenge proof he supply correct evidence. Not even one person can beat his challenge last one. I enjoy his post and find the real history intresting
 
So much red trust is a abusive and spoils system. His dirty turds I research I find nothing wrong for 5he ones I follow his link, these same one gives him red and they did it more high risk. only member claim TOAA scammer is on dirty turd with evidence he find on them.
Now he gone who can fight for fair embers treatment. His swearing and anger his most trouble only. Should be calm. Each member relax and focus real scammer not your personal enemies. Enemies break sensible opinion emotional anger can influence. I think he can return soon. I try to support if he tell the truth.

Damn you... just had to jinx it, didn't you...

This initially seems to be only applicable to P2P trading, but the Alice codicil and the later "sane" use proviso extend that to wider acceptable scenarios.
I'm interested because I don't P2P trade here, but I have -till now- left negative trust for members who promote or enable schemes which I actively consider to be scams (defined as such according to my own reasoning), because I believe that is a constructive way to help trust readers make an informed decision about whether to trade with/invest in the subject.

---

That's a crap text spinner he's using.

Glad this generated some discussion and a response. I try not posting a topic like this when I will be afk for the next few hours but figured it would get the ball rolling with or without me here discussing it. I think some missed the point of what I wanted out of this, and what I got from theymos was more than I had expected. I was not looking for policing or punishments or hard and fast rules, just clarification and opinion after seeing how the system has progressed and been used/misused.

There are many veteran members whom I've long given up on trying to discuss the system with, it was going no where. Some have been more receptive and even come around prior to this, with some seemingly regretting it soon after. My biggest concern was that as veteran or more noticeable members of the forum we set an example whether we want to or not to new/junior members on how this community should function. Similar to real life the loudest and most opinionated are the most visible and heard, which isn't always the best and many get sick of it or wore down in trying to defend the intent of an idea. I think this was a healthy addition to what was previously written in the [ANN] of the new system, and will be useful going forward.

People will abuse or deliberately try to use a system as they see fit. That isn't going to change and I would be foolish to believe that now everyone will just fall in line. I do feel strongly however that this will help shape the use of the majority towards appropriate feedback and flag usage in the future.

I am going to post this quote on the reputation board in a self moderated topic so that anyone can bump it at will, as I'm not always going to be able to keep it on page 1. I'm doing this as I want it to be visible continuously, which the quote in my OP was not. I'm open to opinions on if people think that is the place to discuss it or not, but am more inclined to let this thread be the discussion, and keep that one clean.

You missed my point a little here. I knew where to look for the quote and several others. The problem is they were scattered, hidden and buried. What benefit does that do for members who might try to educate themselves on the system. Like I said that quote in itself was the most recent I believe, and was buried as a paragraph that most members wouldn't find, without being led there by someone else. More people learn from what they see, and can be biased towards whether they like someone in deciding what they feel is right.
While my plan was similar to what LoyceV said about creating a topic myself, I wanted to publicly see if theymos felt like giving an update or would create the topic himself. It just means more as the architect behind the system, and as someone who people may be more inclined to listen to.

Edit: Reputation thread created Trust system - Feedback - Flags - intent - idealogy by theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5222059.0)

Dear theymos,

How they hanging?

Given you wrote this:


Can you confirm this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181603.0 is an appropriate use of the Flag system please?

I've highlighted in blue the portion of your quote that interests me.

Thanks.

Very good post, and confirms what I was talking about the whole time. A more lenient system has an equal or wider amount of available reasons for ratings. The readers of ratings should not project their their conclusion on why it was given before even actually reading it.

Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives?

The way I read it, theymos' comment is for mass-ratings. Instead of a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, I like to think of it as giving them a reason to change their actions.
For individual ratings, such as the ones on this scammer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303026), I see no reason to remove my tag if he ever decides to stop scamming.

So you're saying someone with a deceptive and dishonest personality does not constitute a potential trade risk??

I'd have to disagree.

If you take personality out of the sentence how would you proceed. If someone is a blatant liar or has shown a dishonest approach to life it seems reasonable they would be a potential trade risk. Adding personality to the end of those descriptors makes no sense apart from trying to bridge the gap and bring personalities into the fold of taggable offences.

It does open up what you consider to be a lie and dishonest but I think that's covered in this portion.

Including good or bad personalities to the list of what the trust system is "not for" seems to indicate that bad/dishonest personalities or ideas shouldn't be part of a rating at all. Am I not understanding the intent of this statement?..


My concern is being able to proactively identify someone as a trade risk. The retroactive actions are generally much easier to deal with or decide on, although IMO somewhat pointless after someone has scammed, because they'll likely just switch accounts until the community forgives their prior account for their behavior.. and if they don't, they just move on with their other accounts. (rinse & repeat)

theymos agrees proactive scam-hunting is good, but if you take personalities and ideas out of the equation, what is left which could be looked at in a proactive way to determine if someone is a potential trade risk and be able to warn others about it?

I just remove personality from it and you are left with Good or Bad, which you would have to derive from their actions/behavior. This is going to be subjective based on who is casting judgement. In going through this you would be pointing to whatever the person has done to trigger that decision in tipping the scales for you to be confident in assessing them as a risk. This would then become your reference for the feedback.

Then pointing to the quoted portion I used in my previous reply, if the majority then agrees with it the feedback would be valid. The reference should be accurate and strong enough to warrant the proactive tag you decide to place. Active scam hunting will bring this about and there will rarely be a unanimous agreement. That alone doesn't necessarily mean you are abusing or misusing the system. Some will ~ maybe, some will include you. Then when it comes around to DT-1 there will be a more active discussion possibly on the validity of your ratings.
Touched on this above. I believe it comes down to actions. Take my stance on tagging accounts that use locked and self moderated sales topics to prevent legitimate discussion on their thread and lure people off forum for dealings. These actions and behaviors put up flags for me, but not everyone.

I saw that the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice of thunder, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a white horse and its rider had a bow. A crown was given to him, and he came forth to conquer and intent on conquering.

When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. To its rider was given power to take peace from the earth, so that people should kill each other, and a great sword was given to him.

When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a black horse and its rider had a balance in his hand. I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wage and three quarts of barley for a day’s wage! Do not damage the oil and the wine!”

When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth living creature say, “Come and see!” And behold, a pale horse, and the name of its rider was Death,g and Hades followed him. He was given authority over one fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword, with famine, with death, and by the wild animals of the earth.

When the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been killed for the sake of the word of God and for the testimony they had kept. They cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, holy and true Master, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” A long white robe was given to each of them. They were told to rest for a while longer, until their fellow-servants and brethren (who would also be killed as they were) should complete their course.

---

The four stages of the trustocalypse. Thanks to DireWolfM14 for the inspiration with this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221908.msg53740582#msg53740582).

I'd have to disagree with your disagreement. If someone has a horrible personality but hasn't used those personality traits in detriment to their trading partners, you can't automatically assume it's a high risk. If someone is a liar but delivers the trinkets they sell - should they be labelled with red trust?

That's not to say there aren't gray areas, particularly considering users without trading history, as well as in the interpretation of "high" risk.

It was always like that, you tag someone because they are advertising scam, if they remove signature (or any other scam advertising material) - you remove your negative or change it to neutral.

At least that's how I was tagging and removing tags from scam promoters. I didn't remove negative from accounts who waited "too long" (if you know what I mean) to remove scam promotional material because I generally think they are high risk accounts, and if someone has been "neutralized" and they again choose to advertise another scam, that second tag I won't remove because user is just high risk. And, I removed few neutrals as well.

To answer the question, yes, I feel like there are enough people in the world that do not want to trade (or see it as more risky) to trade with someone who consistently exhibits lying and deceitful behaviors.

I'd say someone like that who is selling trinkets should not be on the same level of trust as an honest person selling the same trinkets. Whether you see them as "high" risk or not, I don't know, people can make up their own minds... but IMO, a person takes a higher risk trading with someone who exhibits certain personality traits and a higher chance of being ripped off, in one way or the other.

Providing a warning to other users (especially new/future members) via a red feedback, which doesn't carry anywhere near the weight it used to, I believe should be acceptable and a legitimate use of the trust system. It's not like it stops that person from selling their trinkets, but it identifies character traits that other people I believe would see as riskier to trade with.

Please, tell me how someone could be identified proactively as a high risk with your line of thinking. When can one assume a person is a high risk? .. Define "proactive scam-hunting".

The more we push the system into a retroactive-only approach, the more the Bitcointalk slogan should be "Free scam for every account! Unlimited accounts. We don't moderate scams, and we provide easy access from Tor. Let the games begin!" :)

Perhaps if they lie about the actual trinkets they can be considered high-risk in trinket trade. If they lie to their wife about her totally not looking fat in that dress then they're only at high-risk of having a fat wife.

And we can still use a neutral for "lying to his wife", which has pretty much the same weight and visibility as "orange is the new red" but without the "scammer" stigma.

I wouldn't risk trading with someone who is a known liar.  :-\

Actually, the power of proactive approach is also trying to be severely limited.

That's the way that "intellectual liberals" rescue the society. ::)

Check some of my sent negative feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=459836;page=sent;offset=0) for examples (such as 1 (https://archive.is/H6LAF), 2 (https://archive.is/urQxp), 3 (https://archive.is/IENOi), 4 (https://archive.is/qv83a), 5 (https://archive.is/PsRPW), 6 (https://archive.is/96kBF#selection-3079.0-3079.9), 7 (https://archive.is/kHPdx), 8 (https://archive.is/CB56R), 9 (https://archive.is/pROTr#selection-317.0-319.1)).
These are quite obvious, but apparently people still fall for them (otherwise the spammers would have given up by now). It's more tricky when someone offers something that's very likely a scam, but could also be a very innocent Newbie trying to sell something.

Egregious levels of lying could be tagworthy to me but probably not all "white lies"..
Any amount of lies would be in my consideration of them though on deciding wither or NOT to ever give them positive trust or add them to my trust list..

What constitutes "Egregious levels of lying" unfortunately will always remain subjective and therefore debatable..

I think one of the main issues we are suffering from here is not one of intent, but application. It seems reasonable that ratings should be for objective documented circumstance right? "scam hunting" quickly turns into a nanny state when people inevitably start tribing up. Since this is the predictable end result, shouldn't we be basing these ratings on objective things like violation of contractual agreement, theft, or violation of applicable laws?

The trust system is supposed to operate as a platform for trusted individuals to build reputations, not just filter out con artists. It doesn't have to be used as a hammer to work. Used less with more specific intent would reduce conflict exponentially. People are treating it as a wide net application systematically spamming ratings by the thousands. That is not productive and is just endless signal noise that makes valid negative ratings invisible. The trust system is like a donkey you just keep whipping over and over to make it work then finally you realize the donkey is dead and whipping it isn't actually accomplishing anything.

Also is "lying" really a valid metric? I have seen plenty of cases of people who live in far away frozen wastelands that like to make claims about lies, but they always some how rely on their own personal interpretation of what happened, not what is plainly observable. This is way too arbitrary of a metric.

That's what the flags are for, type 2 and 3 in particular. Type 1 and red trust is for lesser stuff.


It can be. If someone is trying to sell a 1 PH 1 kW miner that's an obvious lie and a scam, even if they haven't violated any contracts.

Problems start when people try to come up with absolute universal criteria based on their personal views, like any deceptive behavior needs a tag, or any lie is acceptable if there is no theft... The trust system (in theory) should combine subjective views of its participants into some sort of a communal view of what is trustworthy and what is not. I think the system works reasonably well given the circumstances. But I don't expect it to ever meet my expectations 100%.

Lets take your old tagging just for the sake of discussion:

https://i.imgur.com/daimOqs.png

So you have tagged 1 account because they are ponzi scammer. Someone else did the same thing as you did by tagging account bitconnectcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1681719.0. Another user has tagged another ponzi scammer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5196904.0. Someone else tags yet another ponzi scammer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155943.0, so that makes 4 of them.

You are basically suggesting that only one account should be tagged/flagged, even thought they are all scammers. Which one would you pick to tag/flag? How? What if there is hundred such accounts(and there is)?

If it is absolute criteria it is not really based on anyone's views now is it? The point is, unless it is something observable based on factual documented events, transaction IDs, etc it is so totally subjective making it totally open to interpretation and abuse. It creates drama and is not preventing anything. The forum police are not Tom Cruise in Minority Report. Leave the future crimes to him. This is why due process exists in legal systems, so that a minimum standard of evidence is required before impugning on their freedoms with what would otherwise be arbitrary or abusive reasons. We need to have a more narrow definition of what is an acceptable negative rating, not a wider one.

Think of it like electricity. You are jacking the voltage way up but it has no amperage because all the energy is being dispersed more widely and fractured. If you reduce the voltage, the amperage can increase making the energy exerted more targeted and useful to have a positive impact when it is really needed. The over use of negative trust and the trust system in general for every little thing is asinine. Everything doesn't need to be a codification, but a universal standard for a base accusation before using a system of penalties would seem pretty basic.

I'm saying it's not possible to implement it the way you want it unless you manage to force everyone to agree with you. Your suggested criteria is based on your view that only committed scams should be subject to negative trust, but your view is clearly in the minority in DT1. Many other users prefer an early warning system.

The trust system actually allows your criteria to be used (anyone who agrees with your criteria can add you to their trust list) along with any other point of view. Your argument for limiting the freedom of choice is quite perplexing.

You aren't arguing against my points. You are just saying "no one will ever agree so I guess we have to have no standards". I like how you frame arbitrary tagging of users without documented basis as "freedom of choice". Almost makes it sounds like you are enforcing people's rights to take other people's rights to exist here like anyone else without being harassed over constantly shifting totally arbitrary rules. You have the right to shut the fuck up and be subject to the random whims of internet mobs. Que libertad!

---

Same goes with Lauda: Archive [1a (https://archive.ph/h0FRu#selection-4289.61-4289.110)], [1b (https://web.archive.org/web/20200202235622/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg25960403%23msg25960403)]

---

These people have no regard for their frivolous application of negative trust feedback and freely gloat they aren't using the trust feedback for what it is intended.

Not on this forum... ::)

I've seen too many bun fights break out here in Meta and on Reputation, where someone will say something that is simply "incorrect" (for whatever reason)... and the response is inevitably "That's a LIE!!!!!11!!11!1!!!ONEELEVEN!!!!!" ::)

Then the "Tells lies, is untrustworthy" red tags start... and the next thing you know we have about 23983475893653456407498 threads titled something like "REEEEEEEEEEEEE <insert name> tells LIES and is ABUSING TRUST" :-\

Apparently nobody makes mistakes around here... instead they're all deliberately intending to deceive ::) ::)


Kudos to Theymos for attempting to clarify (again) what his thoughts are on Trust and Flags... The very muddy water is slightly less muddy :P

Kind of my point. This arbitrary standard causes plenty of conflict and solves nothing.

Do you have an actual quote of me saying that, one that you didn't make up?

Because what I actually said is this:


The good news is that if many or majority of users ever agree with you then the trust system is able to handle such a shift.

This topic deserves a bump :)

And theymos' post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221908.msg53741011#msg53741011) deserves more attention :)

Moved here to stop going off topic.
Telling me what our disagreement really clears things up for a fella  ::)

You can consider it leaning to a strawman all you want. I offered it up as a comparison as I find the idea of telling people they can't comment about a ruling after the fact with their opinions on either party, or risk being red-tagged; to be as ludicrous as my example. I see no difference in threatening to see people red tagged over commenting their opinions one way or another over an arbitration in a scam dispute. No point in my post did I say "Well this is what you say is okay and it's the same as this which is so stupid, can't believe you are for this."

What I quoted lends to the idea that this is a nuanced system and not as black and white as the "You think trading with this person is high risk". I was sharing what seems to be forgotten all to soon information and guidance. Telling people if they post in this thread after deserves a red tag, is well outside what I consider to be appropriate use.

I then left the caviat where the reasoning of tagging someone for their opinions/posts could warrant a tag. If it falls into unstable behavior which in itself is a wide net.

I would re-read your last sentence and apply it yourself in this case. I am not against pro-active use of the trust system, I am against the lines being blurred to the point where peoples opinions on a forum matter and comments about this afterwards are now negative tag worthy.

I straight up advocated to tag these users neutral if people feel a tag is necessary.

Since I kinda started it in the other thread, I have to say that I very clearly stated the possible reason for red trust:


I don't think that would be abuse and it's specific to that situation, not a generic "red trust for commenting on a dispute" scenario. Keep in mind that a big part of the reason why the parties agreed to mediation is because they want to resolve the trust flag and put an end to it. Continuing to escalate it after it's been resolved (e.g. continuing to support the [obviously invalid at that point] flag, or continuing to claim it's a scam) - that'd be abuse of the trust system and malicious behavior.

I know the concept of binding mediation is alien to this forum because we want to keep trolling the shit out of every dispute, and that will probably preclude any such mediation from taking place in the future, but it is really simple. When a dispute is brought up for public debate - fair game. When mediation is agreed upon by the involved parties - the case is no longer up for public debate. We can't really prevent people from being assholes about it, but continuing to make accusations would be equivalent to simply making shit up out of the blue.

So ultimately it's about how you treat false accusations. Most of the time I would agree that a neutral is enough. But mediation is such a clear-cut scenario that I can't think of a non-malicious reason to continue making accusations. If you do - please enlighten :)