Title: An option to fix default trust Post by: Vod on April 07, 2021, 02:54:46 AM DT1 members are usually scrutinized and the abusers are removed quickly. However, their choices for DT2 are tied to their own personal experience, even if the person in DT2 is a known scammer.
What if we stopped including DT2 members in default trust? All of the BS trust issues that are floating around would go away. But DT2 members, who are trusted by DT1 members, should have benefit as well. Let DT1/2 members have a full signature and everyone else have restrictions. I know this is user experience vs $$, so I'm going to hold my breath. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: bitmover on April 07, 2021, 03:57:13 AM What if we stopped including DT2 members in default trust? All of the BS trust issues that are floating around would go away. Removing DT2 feedbacks from default trust would have a terrible impact in local boards, which lack DT1 members to tag scammers. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: YOSHIE on April 07, 2021, 05:44:55 AM If, not for the sacrifice and persistence of @LoyceV, @suchmoon, @marlboroza and some other members, in maintaining (default trust), I will swear, will make a topic about Erasing DT1 / 2. By changing to another system means tagging scammers and criminals on this forum, that's the problem, the sacrifice is full of tears.
If the DT1 / 2 is a lot of trouble, of course, the new system must be set up and run for the sake of all the community and the safety of this forum, of course. I prefer mods, staff, whether local or global who handle and flag any scams or those that harm the community/forum. Whoever is invited to reveal fraudulent acts is no exception provided that sufficient evidence, after all proven decisions: those I mentioned above who gave the red label to the suspect. No DT1 / 2/3, done. That is precisely what is a challenge for the community here with the pros and cons of removing dt from this forum, with a struggle that cannot be valued with $$$ for each member of the DT in doing work without merit / death is not appreciated /failed reviled /success is not recognized. Once again, the sacrifices will not stop in eradicating crime related to the running of the existing regulations. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: o_e_l_e_o on April 07, 2021, 08:26:32 AM I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. This removes all the "soft" inclusions as well as removing the issue of people artificially inflating their own trust scores.
Linking default trust to signatures is a bad idea. It would encourage people only to aim for a default trust inclusion so they can monetize their account, and I have no doubt there would be some DT1 users who would include their friends/alt accounts/countrymen for the sole reason of joining signature campaigns, or even sell inclusions. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: LoyceV on April 07, 2021, 09:17:20 AM I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. I made a post showing the effect a while ago, but I can't find it back. Here's a more recent list:DT2-members with 0 net inclusions: Code: Gavin Andresen DT2-members with 1 net inclusion: Code: Meni Rosenfeld DT2-members with 2 net inclusions: Code: Raize Quote This removes all the "soft" inclusions as well as removing the issue of people artificially inflating their own trust scores. I'm still in favor of this!DT1 requires this: - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days. For DT2, something like being online in the last 90 days might be good too.Let DT1/2 members have a full signature and everyone else have restrictions. I think that's a bad idea.I'd be in favor of removing signatures for users with a certain number of negative feedbacks on boards that don't show Trust ratings. That would stop scammers like this guy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303026) from advertising a scam in their signature on for instance the Beginners board. Slightly related: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116287.0) Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: ABCbits on April 07, 2021, 09:27:25 AM Let DT1/2 members have a full signature and everyone else have restrictions. This will make trust system abused more than ever, such as 1. Pay $XX to include you to DT2 for X months 2. Pay $XX to exclude competitor from DT2 for X months 3. etc. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: bitmover on April 07, 2021, 12:14:37 PM Linking default trust to signatures is a bad idea. It would encourage people only to aim for a default trust inclusion so they can monetize their account, and I have no doubt there would be some DT1 users who would include their friends/alt accounts/countrymen for the sole reason of joining signature campaigns, or even sell inclusions. Good point. people would be selling DT2 inclusions for a percentage of signature campaigns gains. lol Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on April 07, 2021, 12:34:42 PM I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. I must have missed reading those times when you wrote that idea, but nevertheless it's a good one.Some of the best scam busters are/were on DT2 and not DT1, so I wouldn't want DT2 feedback to be lessened in its weight. But part of me thinks that the trust system is so broken at this point, where we've got good members with bad feedback and vice versa, that the whole thing should be overhauled. I get Vod's point, though I doubt Theymos is likely to share his feelings (but I've been wrong about that before). Good point. people would be selling DT2 inclusions for a percentage of signature campaigns gains. lol You put a "lol" at the end of that, but I wouldn't put it past some members to do exactly that.Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: sujonali1819 on April 07, 2021, 01:39:22 PM I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. I am agreed with this point. Yes, DT2 members should be included atleast 2 different DT1. The more DT1 will include, the DT2 position will be more stronger but there should be a minimum more than only 1.It's need because sometime some evil people manually input own id or friend id in trust list to make them a DT2 member. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: AB de Royse777 on April 07, 2021, 02:08:19 PM I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. This removes all the "soft" inclusions as well as removing the issue of people artificially inflating their own trust scores. I must miss it all the time even if it was said by anyone else too. This seems a very good idea to improve the DT2 network. The current rule is too vulnerable, and it needs one guy in DT1 to make a mistake to include a scammer. Give it to the hands of x guys. X must be greater than 1.Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: DdmrDdmr on April 07, 2021, 02:45:07 PM Trimming DT2 by the number of net inclusions seems adequate, although that would mean that, perhaps, DT2s on local boards may have a harder time getting on DT, unless they are known on the more general boards (or have a couple of DT1s on the local board itself).
Besides that, I’m pretty sure many DT2 members aren’t even away they are actually on DT, nor that being on it gives more weight technically to the feedback they may leave. Displaying their DT status somewhere easy to spot when one sees his own (or open to all) profile information (i.e. Trust(DT1): or Trust(DT2): ) would be useful to this end, without the need to become aware by other means (i.e. lists). Probably even a text on the Feedback page, with a reminder, would be useful, in a similar fashion to when Merit Sources see that they are a Merit Source and are shown a brief explanation on it. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: o_e_l_e_o on April 07, 2021, 03:19:52 PM -snip- So, if we also look at the data from your latest trust dump here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139250.msg56701583#msg56701583You have 465 users on DT2. Between the two boxes above of 0 net inclusions and 1 net inclusion, there are 286 users. Requiring a minimum of 2 net inclusions to be included on DT2 would bring the total from 465 down to 179. I think that is a much more reasonable number than 465. 100 DT1s, and ~200 DT2s. Some of the best scam busters are/were on DT2 and not DT1, so I wouldn't want DT2 feedback to be lessened in its weight. Sure, but these users generally have way more than 2 net inclusions anyway. In the rare case that someone with a lot of good feedback was excluded from DT2 under my proposal, there is nothing stopping the single DT1 member who includes them (or any other user for that matter) to start a thread in reputation drawing attention to the matter. If they truly deserve a DT2 spot, then it would only take 1 of the other 99 DT1 members to agree, which is not exactly a high bar to pass.You need at least 10 people to trust you to become DT1, whereas you can become DT2 with only 1 person trusting you. Seems a bit of a disconnect there to me. Title: Re: An option to fix default trust Post by: The Cryptovator on April 07, 2021, 04:50:02 PM To be honest, if the trust system exists then abuse and manipulation will exist as well. I don't think we could prevent it anyway, otherwise, only the admin will have to control the full trust system who will be on DT1 or DT2. Users always will complain regarding the trust system, when the new system was implemented many users were against new systems. If enable full signature only for DT members then you have to wait for more manipulation and abuse of the trust system. But I only agree to increase support for selecting DT2 members and maintain active users. It would only reduce the abuse partially but not fully.
|