Bitcoin Forum

How it worked: Theymos adds some selected members as DT1 and the DT1 members add users in their network who they trust, they become DT2.

For the record DT level can be extended up to DT4 (please correct me if I am wrong) but anything over DT2 is always ignored because it includes almost everyone which does not create any value for the network.

The current DT network: In January 2019 Theymos decided to change the old algorithm. Without giving all responsibility to one member (theymos) he decided to have a voting system for DT1 members and the voting system allow to select 100 members in the DT1 network to make the entire network decentralized.


TL;DR;

The current system created an open area for anyone to be in the DT network. We add, remove a user in our trust setting depending on their judgement of feedback leaving to others based on how less is their retaliatory mindset. Obviously none of us are perfect, none of us are above our personal likes and dislikes. But when a user's feedback leaving is (1) clearly out of retaliatory, (2) clearly to hostage others to silent against him, (3) clearly based on inappropriate arguments, (4) clearly using it to scam others would you still add him in your trust network or you will tilde (~) him?

Warning: Be BOLD and brave, who do not care for a negative feedback and a tilde (~) before leaving an opinion. Here are your examples:

100% retaliatory negative feedback:
https://i.postimg.cc/02N8m4WM/Screenshot-2.png

In response to:
https://i.postimg.cc/JhBk9HDm/Screenshot-1.png
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408864.msg60704946#msg60704946

100% retaliatory tilde (~)
https://i.postimg.cc/C5qs67Jj/Screenshot-1.png
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60709658#msg60709658

We all like to be told positive things about ourselves and we don't like to be told negative things.

Even if you think you are ugly, you don't like it when someone comes and says you are ugly to your face. And in fact, you are likely to react quite badly if someone does.

In that sense, the trust system of the forum is no different from what happens to us in everyday life.

There are certain instructions and guidelines to follow for trust settings. If you do not follow the basic then it will become a worthless system and is not gonna serve the purpose. The trust system is not your personal asset, you are liable to act accordingly that was given to you by others. Or others are free to withdraw their support from you.

I already find DT system partially worthless. Nowadays i check feedback manually (if needed) rather than blindly trust quantity of trust feedback (+A/=B/-C).

Well sir, I guess that being in DT1 is a responsibility for everyone that is into it. It means that you're reputed influential from the other members, and in my opinion this one should be used (in negative) only if there are

some serious risk of scam (or confirmed) from the users that is tagged, or if the user has an improper conduct. In case of positive one, you can leave a positive feedback to a user that does something of cool for the forum,

or if he has always respected his business (this is the case of a user that is owner of a casino, or an activity here), or if he has a long story of scam fighting ecc.

Any other type of use, like tagging someone just because is unpleasant, isn't a professional use, and in this case, you wouldn't be able to be in DT list.

Keep in mind that here there are users that has additional earnings from signature campaign, bounty ecc, and tagging them means that you're going to damage his/her financial situation. So, in my opinion, you should be

really sure of what you're doing before leavin a neg trust.

I didn't really follow what kind of conflict happened between you and Jollygood, it seems that something is important because this is your second topic where the discussion will be based on Jolly's giving feedback.

Also, I see that you and Jollygood exchanged negative feedback with each other. Everything confuses me a little now if you complain about something that you yourself do.
For both tags, your and his (Jollygood), I would say that they are inappropriate and revenge-minded.

This is not the first time we have had this kind of drama in the section. The previous ones that I remember ended up with the negative feedback changed to neutral.

I think the best thing to do if you are bothered by someone is to ignore them.

If someone is misusing the trust system, they will end up out of DT.

Being on DT is no longer a prestigious thing. It's like waking up, everyone can do it. I and others have already said there needs to be a change. We can keep what we have for reputation based feedback( which is what should matter as far as the forum goes), and we need a different system for trades as they are 2 totally different things.

Sorry if you are confused and thinking I did the same as he did. It must be my failure. But any way let me try again.

His feedback has no reference (he does not have one in fact) to response my negative feedback to him.
He says I was posting lie
He says my accusations are baseless
He thinks its a revenge
The repeating part is not clear to me.

More reasons,
I did not leave red or neutral to bitlucy scam.

From above which one warns a red tag or even a negative inspired neutral feedback?


My feedback has a clear reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408864.msg60704946#msg60704946
First of all he did not pay user starmyc but silent him with his negative feedback. He did not reply to my PM and even still have not replied to me for a clear explanation which leads me to believe that he does not have one but scammed.

More supporting cause

More and more


Let's be on topic.
I have pointed out 4 inspirations for leaving a negative feedback in the starting topic.
(1). Which ones apply to his feedback left for me, starmyc, nemgun and Royse777?
(2). Which ones apply to my feedback?

Update: Please read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714131#msg60714131
You will understand why the first topic was created, when the PM was sent and why this topic was created.

I agree. Nothing really important to see here. This is just a continuation of the drama that started with Royse777 and BitLucy casino.

@BitcoinGirl.Club, I really don't see the point of creating another topic and creating more drama between individual members. Both of your tags are equally ridiculous and absurd, and you started it.

EDIT:
I just noticed that JollyGood changed his tag to neutral, so I'm changing my stance. In my opinion, your neg. tag is an inappropriate use of the trust system.

I am confused the topic is losing it's merit because you are thinking it's between me and JollyGood.
It does not matter if JollyGood change the feedback to neutral or remove everything. It's a matter of who we should keep or tilde in our trust setting. To help I even pointed out 4 inspirations that obviously goes well with the examples. In my OP do you see I talked about JollyGood?

If you want to discuss about JollyGood then this is the post : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714605#msg60714605

Correct, but your Trust settings (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust) will likely timeout. Take a look at the large recursive implications (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124527.0) of Trusting users before increating your Trust depth. Chances are you're already trusting more people than you even know about.

Agreed. Since it looks like that's what this topic is really about, I wrote my view here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60713686#msg60713686).

This is all reminiscent of the story of the boy who walks and shows everyone a finger with a splinter. He does not want to pull out a splinter because people feel sorry for him and the kid gets more attention.

What is remarkable is that Royse777 limited himself to a neutral tag. I don't know if he called for the help of lawyers.

I have Royse777 and JollyGood on my trust list, and I know they are both normal people. There have been several cases where JollyGood has changed or removed its reviews altogether. It's time to get used to his behavior. Furthermore, two reviews from one are equivalent to one.Royse777 got into history, and I think he will also successfully get out of it over time.

But your presence here seems completely superfluous to me. I haven't followed deeply, but I still believe in both of them.

Did something happen to the ignore button?

Let me quote the post I merited because I have same approach. I change it a little bit to generalize the idea that is applied for every user.
Exchange negative trust feedback is unnecessary in most cases. I rarely put anyone into my distrust list but if I do, I will not likely to remove it. It stay forever but I don't see reasons why I have to leave any negative trust feedback on the user I distrust. Take it simple and reduce non sense drama.

You can start here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714131#msg60714131
Then continue from the first post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.0)
I hope it helps 😉

It does not help always.

It's still not reduce the drama

AFAICS JollyGood will distrust an user when that's user distrust him, same like this one where an user gave him a negative tag, then he will gave negative tag too or it can be said as revenge minded. The same happen when someone merited your post, you will merited his post too since you think he's a good and kind person. It's a human psychology, but in this forum such behavior isn't appropriate and it would make an abuse.

What I'm thinking is how possible if theymos implemented a new system where we can't see the user who trust, distrust, give positive/neutral/negative feedback and merited us except both administrator and moderators.

My opinion is that this thread should not have been made and is just complicating the path to the facts of the situation you have made the OP about..

You OP are accusing JG of scamming a coder for dust..
If you are wrong then his feedback on you is correct..

Do we think JG scammed a coder for dust?
That is the question..

This topic is a very strange way to present the situation that's for sure and doesn't really make much sense (especially now the feedback has been updated).

The coder also claims he gave over the source code, JG claims he didn't get it. Someone's not telling the truth. If the coder could prove the source code was sent it could help answer that question I think.

As for the "retaliatory tidle" of distrusting of dkbit98, it's because JG understandably doesn't trust the neutral feedback that was left for him. It's not really retaliatory, just reactionary.

although you both changed your feedback, I'm still convinced that both of you were forced and that this is some kind of discussion between you. which again, is not the correct use of the trust rating system here.


the only thing that is clear here is your attitude towards Jollygood. The way you see him and his journey through the forum. I still don't see any evidence enough for the red tag.
After the last update, you added a new reference link to your feedback, I read that topic several times and have not seen any misunderstanding, nor any complaint that someone was cheated or not paid. Just usually discussion, certainly not enough for any trust tag even positive. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160752)

everything we have in the case starmyc vs Jollygood is an exchange of feedback between the two of them and a message to you via PM. unfortunately, this is not enough for anything, and without presenting clear evidence by any of them.

therefore, you gave a negative rating based on possible unfair behavior in some deals. You have no clear evidence, even if you don't know what was the subject of the agreement, did they agree that the code itself would be part of the delivered work?

it is evident that your negative feedback was given to him (Jollygood), provoked by your attitude and feelings toward him. I believe you know, such cases are more like a neutral tag, not negative or even positive.


it is interesting that he changed the tag to neutral, no matter how harsh and merciless he seemed when giving negative tags, however, he is ready to admit his mistake.


Only 8 users (including me) leave the neutral or red tag on Royse's account. Here are 100 DT1 members, I didn't follow if he tagged the other 90+. isn't this too much drama?


you didn't mention him, but all your screenshots were taken via his profile. from the discussion on this topic, I would say that everyone saw it that way.


I understood differently, that the coder did not want to send the code but was asking for more money.
however, we do not know what the initial agreement looked like, so we cannot know which side did not comply with the agreement.

Are you JollyBad lawyer or you consider him a saint maybe?
I see you gave him positive feedback back in 2019 and that is fine, but you never said anything to criticize his questionable behavior?
I don't support any side in this case but his recent jumping on people heads reminds me on middle ages burning and torture of witches, that is best way to describe his recent behavior.
There are not so many scams to report and talk in forum now, so he switched to gambling and turning regular members into terrorists and scammers... doesn't look normal to me.

@BitcoinGirl.Club you should really stop creating more topics about him.
If someone was damaged in any way dealing with JollyBad, than this member should come out in public and explain more about that case, we don't need more lawyers in forum.

I think we should all mass drop out from DT membership, that would force theymos to make some needed changes and reduction of DT1 members.

He accuses others of Having Anger and mental issues. I didn't look at their posts. Either JollyGood has some mental problems, or he properly doesn't understand the system. I never had interactions with him. Just because I made This (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500779#msg60500779) and This (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60593947#msg60593947) posts, JollyGood Added me on his distrust list.


I saw he added 2468 People on his distrust list, and it seems he was doing it for every word people write that he doesn't like or disagrees with. Luckily he cannot distrust someone more than one time. If he can, He would do that. He uses the Trust Feedback system as like daily routine thing. We wake up and Brush our teeth first. But he woke up and figure out if anyone said anything against him and put them in his personal jail. LOL.


How dare you? Aren't you afraid of getting distrusted by JollyGood?

obviously, you accept the setting that the OP put in the first post. in short, only the brave dare to put tildes in front of the Jollygood name, and that's what I'm trying to point out here.


A few months later, I gave similar positive feedback to you. you were both young members of the forum then and I wanted to support you because you made a quality contribution to the development of the forum. I still think that these are good feedbacks.
you probably weren't paying enough attention to it, but I advised him several times to think about changing the negative tag when I thought he was wrong. I have no problem being critical of him, the last time I criticized his attitude, even though you were in that discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406536.msg60597970#msg60597970)

now we go off-topic and talk about JG, which was not the intention when opening this topic. I won't express my opinion about him again, I guess I have to open a new topic for that.

Can we get an amen.
I have been saying that for years

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154576

I don't think it's ever going to happen, but we can keep hoping that it will and complaining when it does not.
I think there are a bunch of things a lot of us would like to see happen on the forum, in terms of trust / feedback / etc but if it has not happened yet, I don't think it ever will.

-Dave

Obviously you missed the main conversation. Does it look like I was forced (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714131#msg60714131) or I considered breaking it because it was more accurate (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714605#msg60714605)?

Did JollyGood provide any clear evidence or a convincing response about it yet? (1) I offered him to have a one to one conversation in PM. (2) Then he was given chance to support his reasoning on this topic. There are nothing yet. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.0) When someone does not have anything to say in their defense silence is the best response which is what JollyGood is using.

But starmyc explained the situation and as an ex Software Engineer I am well aware that how a freelance job conducts. Read and it will help (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714300#msg60714300). Starmyc recommends,


JollyGood is lucky that still there are no type three flag against him because starmyc lost his interest.

Point his, how many starmyc you need to see before you realize JollyGood is using his feedback to hostage others and benefit his own satisfactions?

You are asking the wrong person. You need to ask JollyGood when to leave a neutral or when not to leave a neutral also when to leave a negative.

How many corrections of mistakes do you think is enough to cool off JollyGood drama in reputation thread?
You will find many only in this single topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260202.0
There were many more cases I read in the last few days against him.
Retaliatory feedback then feel pressure from the community, change it to neutral.
Retaliatory tilde
Even tilde when he does not like a post that does not support his arguments.
That's what he is continuing from the past few years.

I consider you as a sensible forum user but I am sorry to say that you are embarrassing yourself not to see the changed JollyGood which is resulting you are promoting an overzealous, mentally unfit mad man.

Please give me few more perfect examples from other members, I will add those too to avoid confusion. I have not found anyone else yet to use unfortunately.

Let's continue JollyGood related conversations here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60722729#new

---

I was expecting a response of the questions I asked you in my last post. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409094.msg60713764#msg60713764)

The whole feedback, trust and merit system should be overhauled... it should be overhauled a long time ago. It is understandable you say you think it will not happen. I know you said it years ago but in my opinion it is probably only going to happen if there is a concerted effort by members to push for it.

As mentioned in the above post in a different thread on a slightly topic, the key words "theymos", "flexibility" and "fluidity" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407727.msg60719200#msg60719200) are essential. I am not giving up hope with regards to how the forum functions because it just might change.

No I wouldn't, and that's why I ~'ed JollyGood and a number of other members.

The trust system (including both the DT aspect and feedback giving in general) is just straight-up broken and is way too complicated and full of holes to work as anything people can rely on.  That's not a new opinion from me; I've been saying the same thing for years, but people always defend it.  Who knows, maybe I'm the one who's wrong.

But what's the point of this thread, exactly?

If everyone mass drop out from the DT, would not it be a heaven for the scammers who have negative feedback???

The way that the DT system is right now, it serves nobody but a select few. Its not even a trust system at this point. Its a "you scratch my back and I scratch yours" kind of system. It has almost absolutely nothing to do with how trustworthy a person is but rather who he is liked/disliked by. Its a system of favoritism.

We absolutely need an complete overhaul of the trust system or we will keep seeing people abuse it for their own purposes. I imagine there is even some trust selling going on in the background.

Maybe we should have a community voting system for who gets DT instead? Obviously the "DT club" alone cannot be trusted with responsibility. Anyone who does not deserve to be in the system gets voted out by the entire Bitcointalk community. We can have votes once a year or something.

Well, that would be one side-effect of members deciding to delete their trust list. It is not just the scammers that it would become a haven for it would also become a haven for those that are already manipulating the feedback, trust and merit system for their own agenda.

I don't know if this makes sense or is too complicated, but I could also imagine a type of lottery based on user IDs that over a certain period of time have fulfilled certain requirements, such that no inactive or really, objectively bad users can be chosen. It could involve a certain number of users for each rank from Full Member to Legendary, with Legendary having sort of a majority maybe? Once you have been chosen in the lottery, your term ends after x months and you are not part of the next lottery anymore UNLESS, and this would then involve a community vote, for a predefined small number of spots it is possible for someone to be voted by the community to keep the status for another term (potentially indefinitely).

A major problem I see is that as soon as someone has something to offer financially (e.g. bounty managers), the voting is almost automatically skewed (or maybe not as those who can't get in have reason to not vote for a manager always picking the same people).

This is of course still prone to manipulation as the predefined requirements in order for someone to 1) participate in the lottery and 2) receive a voting right can still be heavily influenced by, for instance, the merit sources.

Just a thought experiment. Having some probabilistic element involved could make things much fairer I believe?

Community vote won't make sense!

First, the current trust system is decentralized and community-based but still have drawbacks

Second, if you see past community votes that can be manipulated by local communities. If you have a big local community and big fans behind, you will get more votes. Unfortunately, it does not mean you are better than others or have higher quality than others.

Even if you count the voting power (voting weight) by earned merits, it still does not work well! Earned merits are not the same in a ways you earned it globally or locally (international threads or local threads) or just inside your local communities. In addition, you will get more votes if you are merit sources. I mean between two posters, a merit source poster and a non-merit source one, with a same post (same content, same quality), the merit source will more easily to receive merit :D

Your idea is not bad but it can not work too much well.

Something similar is already happening with the current DT rotation system. DT1 users adding others to their trust list thus giving them DT2 is something being manipulated by cliques therefore any new format should take that in to consideration. When it is done with genuine intent it is different but manipulation of the system takes many forms.

Any form of community vote would be open to manipulation by cliques. I would be against community votes to elect members otherwise it would be another way for egotistic cliques to a get a foothold to create more drama rather than to avoid it.

I do like the idea that once a user has carried out a particular role they cannot be selected again for 'x' length of time, that would severely hamper the drama queens and cliques if they ever in a position to create havoc.

This is always going to be problematic but goes beyond the finances involved and goes to the networks of members that collude. Thankfully most campaign/bounty managers seem more interested in their actual work rather than the politics and drama therefore would probably avoid putting their name forward.

Well I have been saying for some time the feedback system, trust system and merit system is broken. I think the merit system especially the merit source part is not fully functioning the way theymos would have wanted.

And as you said if voting for members comes in to play then those that already wield some influence in the forum could end up trying to use any means necessary to ensure they can get what they want (such as pre-defined requirements to participate in the lottery) when it comes to voting members in.

You put forward excellent ideas. Any suggestions which can help make the forum a better place is to be welcomed especially those can minimise or eliminate the efforts of the cliques that are not working for the wider benefits of the forum or the members.

I am having a latent understanding of leaving a retaliatory feedback.
I can say that if someone leaves you a feedback, then because you also have the freedom to retaliate, it's fine and I have seen it severally.
But it will be more damaging to anyone leaving an untrue feedback in order to retaliate. I believe that the more a user is leaving an untrue or frivolous feedback, the more his/her feedback value is reducing. It will get to an extent that your feedback will no longer carry weight, be you a DT1 or DT2.
Your feedback will certainly be meaningless if after reading your feedback, a user still do successful business with the person, managers still accept the user into campaigns and the user still offer services unaffected.

I believe that what should be 100% retaliatory is custom trust list. Like myself, I didn't know I was in someone's distrust list, but I was lucky to view from LoyceV thread. I simply excluded the person from my trust list aswell. For someone to distrust you without a genuine reason means that the person's judgment shouldn't be trusted aswell.