Bitcoin Forum

As I once said, I am opening this thread to comment on this borderline case of the trust system.

In the forum we can see several cases of neutral tag in terms of color, but that are negative in terms of written feeback.

The thing is that many times we see these neutral tags that are not written in red because if it is done this way, it could be considered by the community as an abuse of the trust system, and writing it in neutral prevents this.

IHowever,  think in some cases it should also be considered abuse of the trust system. I will give an exaggerated example: I write a neutral color feedback saying this: "this person has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, I wouldn't trust him with a penny". I believe that such a feedback, although neutral in color, should be considered as if it were red for the purpose of analyzing whether it is an abuse of the trust system.

Also if a person tends to write a lot of these feedbacks, I think we would be in a borderline case to analyze.

What do you think about this? Experiences? Thoughts?

You just said that negative tags can look like abuse unless they are backed by solid evidence. But if a person expresses this in a neutral review, then I believe that this only speaks of a warning at the discretion of the rest of the users. In other words, it is a personal relationship.

Therefore, in my opinion, there is a neutral review, It speaks of a not entirely firm conviction in which one could condemn the user.

But on the other hand, what can a neutral review say if you consider some reviews to be more negative than positive? In the same way, a positive review will say that you seem to trust the user, but not so much that the review is green.

I don't agree, sorry. But I'm open to getting convinced (with good arguments) if I'm wrong.

I will give another (maybe unlikely, I don't know) example: user1 is DT (I emphasize this because most don't care at all about non-DT feedback). For some reasons he decides he doesn't trust user2, but he doesn't have good enough proof for his decision. A neutral, but bad review, can make careful enough users double check everything, without triggering drama and the need of explaining his feedback.

How about this? Is it an abuse, or will the red feedback be an abuse? Imho it's greatly debatable, hence I would not consider such a case an abuse.
I will add though that in my case the wording would not so hard like "has repeatedly demonstrated that"; your case could ask for proof, hence actual negative; my example would be a tad "softer".

Such cases can of course be analyzed. And that can only be done; on a case by case basis.

I can't give a general opinion on whether or not an action would fall under abuse of the trust system without considering the words used in the feedback as well as the evidence provided, if any. Such an action would throw lots of feedback ratings into a gray area and some users would not know if they are properly using the neutral tag option.

I would say the most important difference between neutral and red feedback is reference and proof.
To accuse someone of being distrustful, based only on conjecture, is not enough for a red tag. it is a kind of condemnation based on personal feelings, and it can often be deceiving. I believe that is one of the reasons why we have a neutral evaluation. otherwise it would be quite sufficient to have the possibility only negative or positive feedback.

It is important to remember that everyone has the right to their own opinion, even when giving feedback. This is an open platform.
I agree that negative feedback requires references and solid evidence, though.

Red trust implies "high risk". Perhaps the person who posted neutral feedback thought there is a risk, but it's not high, maybe "medium" or "slightly elevated".

Neutral is neutral. Of course you can form your opinion about someone based on trust ratings (including neutrals) they leave for others. But for a neutral rating to be considered "abuse", I think it would need to be something exceptional, not merely "I don't trust this person". Perhaps if someone spams death threats via neutral ratings, that sort of thing, but usually such idiots just use red trust anyway.

Look at it this way.

If I am on DT and I left you a neutral showering you with positive praises of how much of a wonderful person you are. How I trust you 100%?
Would it be considered abuse of trust?  ;)

Exactly, if the neutral comment had some negative words in it. It doesn't weigh that much like a direct negative feedback. It's more like a note to self or a simple reminder to other users about a certain character.

It's also why a ref link should be included. So that different members can make judgement for themselves.

Since nobody seems to read anyway does it matter?
Bit of snark, but it seems to me more and more people are looking at the + number and the - number and making a decision. Not at all reading why they are there or who they are from.

We see the same scams over and over and people sending BTC top red tagged people over and over. So does it really matter what the neutral trust says.

-Dave

Some idiot who has been trolling me for years recently left me some bullshit neutral feedback. It’s how the trust system is designed. Enough con artists got together to get control of DT and now they cast out anyone that doesn’t turn a blind eye to their abuse. It’s sad because this forum was once upheld with Libertarian beliefs, but laziness has given way to an attitude of telling people to call the cops on other forum users in order to avoid handling responsibilities of running a community. It’s sad, because some of us have been here in time now measured in decades doing work on behalf of Bitcoin but are stuck being extorted and harassed anytime someone covets something we’ve built, whether that be reputation, businesses, or just a positive working environment. Nothing will be done until the money laundering signature campaigns are removed and the scammers no longer have a financial incentive to be here and continue exploiting the system.

Hey OG, come on! The trust system is more decentralized than ever. There are 92 members in DT1 and 606 in DT2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139250.860), it is laughable that you say that.


In this I agree that this is one thing that catches my attention. You have been in this much longer than me, I understand that, at least in its origins, the people who were in it were of libertarian tendency, so I am very struck by the number of socialists I see in the forum (call them left-wingers, or otherwise if you prefer) and I opened a thread about it back in the day.

If there's a Reference link that proves "this person has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not trustworthy", it's not Trust abuse. The rest is a personal opinion, and when posting feedback the forum literally shows your opinion is a good reason to leave negative feedback:
If others disagree with your opinion, it's up to them to exclude you from their Trust list.

I disagree. You can't accuse someone of something they didn't do. Making it neutral means it doesn't have the impact of negative on the profile. Many users use neutral instead of positive too, even though the description is positive, when they don't want to increase someone's Trust score with it.

It depends case by case, when someone commited scam then DT members can likely tag them with negative tag but when DT member suspect a user can possibly scam for some reasons they can tag them with neutral and also its their own decision to tag them as neutral or red or green, if someone don't agree with their feedback then they are free to remove them from their trust list. Abusing the trust system is different its more likely leaving a tag for personal vengeance without proof or leaving green for their own benefits, etc.

Most of the neutral negative feedbacks I have seen are based on two things:

1. The person who left the feedback is not sure, maybe based on the body language of the accused. For instance, a newbie may open a thread to sell goods and refuse to use escrow. Since the newbie is not an established member and has not been trusted before, a DT member can decide to leave a neutral negative tag since he is not sure if the accused will scam or not.
2. Tagging someone for sure what you are convinced deserves a negative tag but the rest of the community may not agree with you. For instance, a user committed plagiarism and was smart to have deleted the Res before the moderators could know, thereby escaping ban. I have seen a DT member going on to leave a neutral tag for this kind of scenario.

To me, I feel that neutral tag as the name implies is a safe haven to a DT who fears to abuse the trust system. This can be seen when a negative tag is given someone at the heat of argument or anger, but after sometime, when the DT member has undergone a critical rethink he/she may decide to turn it to a neutral tag.

I'll assume you aren't being sarcastic (if you are I apologize for being dense). 

If I cared more, I'd get 20 alts in the DT network just to show how easily this shit is being manipulated.  Honestly though, I have better things to do with my time and as mentioned, I don't care enough anymore as that's the attitude that has trickled down from the top.  Maybe someone with more free time and an axe to grind will go get 20 usernames into DT and expose the plot to show just how ridiculous the system has become.  I imagine it might cost a few hundred dollars and take a couple months, but I've been watching it happen for years by people who I'm amazed can figure out how to turn on a computer or feed themselves so it isn't like it's some hard thing to accomplish. 

When I was involved with another site and had access to private data, I was amazed at how many usernames used here are controlled by the same few individuals.  That's why when a well known troll here disappears, you can find half a dozen or so members who all had the same opinions suddenly stop posting as well.  Don't underestimate the crazy here.  Trust me.  If you think this place is decentralized or that anyone even gives a shit about the end result of the trust network being accurate, don't look behind the curtain.

Not every neutral tag is a case of uncertainty; there are cases where neutral is appropriate, and going beyond neutral may be considered an abuse; for example, neutral is best used to indicate an alt accounts belonging to one person; it is best used for selfcnote too.

No one with good reputation would decline to use escrow when dealing with a random user for the first time; if this is the case, that person is likely to scam, and red tag is best used in this case because neutral would have no positive impact on his reputation.

Being on DT means standing up for what you believe is right, even if the rest of the world is against you; this is why it is decentralized. In the past, we've seen several negative tag appeals supported by local communities in an attempt to overwrite it..

My opinion is that you need to be bold when leaving feedback.  There's even a sticky in Reputation if I'm not mistaken that says as much, i.e., if you're leaving negative feedback, make sure to make it negative (red).  Because even if you write a scathing feedback with enough details such that anyone reading it would be left with no confusion about the member's trustworthiness, but you make it a neutral instead of a negative, it's never going to carry any weight.  It probably won't even be seen....ever, unless the member happens to look at his trust page and notices it.

You might get a retaliatory negative, but that's the price most DT members have paid who've busted scammers and other undesirables.  And a retaliatory feedback means diddly squat in the grand scheme of things, because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that they're without merit, and IMO they should be worn as a badge of honor.

No doubt there's a place for neutral trust, but everything I just wrote applies to feedback that really ought to be negative and doesn't fit into one of the scenarios you mentioned.

Actually your most recent neutral rating is a good example of a well-deserved neutral rating. You tend to shitpost in random threads about your victimhood but you're too chickenshit to raise those disputes properly. You got called out on it. The person didn't think it was a "high risk" (lying is typically not a sufficient reason for red trust) but something worth noting/rebuking. Factual rating with a correct archived reference. Good use of the trust system.

Disagree.  Sounds too much like "thought police" to me.  Leave your own feedback to express your own views about a user if you disagree with anyone else's.  Don't go preaching to other people about how they should write theirs.

Another advantage of "free speech" I'm not sure if the words behind the neutral tag really matter; I have a neutral tag with positive feedback behind it, but it makes no difference. If you're going to have positive feedback behind a neutral tag, it's pointless; if positive feedback doesn't come with the green tag, then hold your breath.

Well, I think:
The account receiving the neutral Trust should be lucky, that it's not a negative Trust.  :D :D

Why?

At first we should get an understanding about Trust:

A positive (green) Trust is adding a +1 to your trust score.
A neutral (black) Trust is adding a =1 to your trust score.
A negative (red) Trust is adding a -1 to your trust score.

It's mostly about the score to be considered a Trust abuse but neutral Trust is = (no change).

If someone adds a positive feedback, which is not enough to be a positive feedback, it might be considered Trust abuse.
If someone adds a negative feedback, which is not enough to be a negative feedback, it might be considered Trust abuse.
A neutral feedback can hardly be a Trust abuse, because neutral Trust is mainly considered as other people's opinions about the account in question.
The only possibility, where a neutral Trust is a Trust abuse is if the provided comment is an outright lie and the accused account can prove that it's an outright lie.
=> you can write everything as a neutral feedback as long as it's not an outright lie (reference link could be useful).

Neutral Trust was also described as a very undervalued tool for de-escalation:



So, if your feedback might be not enough to be negative, maybe a neutral trust is better. You should consider it.
Neutral trust should cover a very wide range from "very nice guy" feedbacks to "extremely disgusting troll". At least most cases, where no real money is involved.
Yes, in some cases, trolls can also receive a negative Trust and nice guys can also receive a postitve Trust but you need a very good reason for it. Trust is mainly about being trustworthy proven by risked amount of money.
Once, there has been a separate entry of how much BTC was at risk. It got removed and that's a little bit sad.
Especially, I've seen way too many "nice guy" feedbacks recently. Being a nice guy is clearly a neutral trust because no money is involved and "nice guy" feedbacks are inflating Trust scores and if everyone starts giving out "nice guy" feedbacks, we are at a high risk, that at least some of these "nice guys" turn out to be scammers.


tl;dr
The comment of the neutral Trust doesn't make it a negative Trust, it's still a neutral Trust, no mater what's written in the comment.
You can call someone a disgusting liar, a troll or whatever, it's still a neutral Trust.
A neutral Trust, no matter what's written in it, is much, much less offensive than a negative Trust. Neutral Trust is a very good approach of de-escalation.

Let's examine your own


Definitely passive aggression in your *neutral* posts...

---

---

People in glass houses and all that...

Abject nonsense. There is nothing wrong with those ratings, good use of the trust system and good choice to make them neutral.

Basically I think the same as you expressed in the first part of your post, you have detailed it quite well.


Regarding this, if we simply talk about being a nice guy I agree, but I think there are cases where you can trust a person for his performance in the forum without having traded with him for the moment, but you would trust him to do it.

For example, someone who consistently exposes scammers and cheaters, who constantly works to keep the forum clean. Even if you have not traded with him, his performance suggests that he is an honest person with whom you could make trades, at least of low amount. This is reflected in LoyceV's guide on the trust system:



I have nothing personal against Timelord2067 but I put him on ignore some time ago and with time I see that it was a good decision, just like with franky1. I don't want to waste time dismantling obvious conspiracies about alts or obviously erroneous posts although argued with walls of text.

Thank you for proving you are without substance by offering no proof to back up your empty claims.