I think it is time to change the people who are in DT....

A small group of people have decided to give negative trust for reasons that have nothing to do with the person being a scammer.

I don’t think the current implication is working. This is for many reasons.

My proposal should completely eliminate any trust disputes for controversial reasons. If someone starts leaving inaccurate ratings with inaccurate comments, they can be blacklisted.

It is only possible to exclude someone from your own trust network. This will do nothing to address how others will view trust left by this person. As mentioned, the majority of businesses use the default settings so any rating left by anyone in DT, and if considering doing something such as giving an unsecured loan, looking at these ratings is logical.

Further, it is not possible to exclude an individual rating because all ratings are calculated in trust scores.

The calculation for if a warning is displayed doesn’t need to be done by users and I don’t see any major drawbacks if individuals don’t understand this.

I believe it has been established the current implementation of the trust system is not working. This in large part can be attributed to the Default Trust changes implemented this past January, but the underlying root cause of the problem is a very small number of people leaving a very large number of controversial ratings.

I believe a lot of these people have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and should be labeled as such. The most appropriate solution, IMO is to blacklist most of these people from being able to ever be in anyone's trust network, unless they are explicitly added to a user's trust list, but I do not believe this will happen.

If memory serves me correctly, the trust score algorithm was changed not long after AMHash stopped honoring their obligations. The algorithm was changed so that negative ratings had much greater weight, and positive ratings had much less weight. The instance of a single negative rating would further lower the weight of positive ratings. I believe this goes too far, and is not appropriate if the administration is unwilling to mediate trust disputes, as appears to be the case for many years now.

To resolve the problems with the trust system, I would propose the following:

Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network:
This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.

As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.

Ability to include someone in your trust list as "Ratings Only":
If someone has left many good ratings, but is not good at maintaining a trust list, it should be possible to only trust the person's ratings, but ignore their trust list. In the above example, if SaltySpitoon refused to remove BAC from his trust list, but has left many good ratings over the years, someone may decide to include him in their trust list as "Ratings only" so that his trust network would see his trust ratings but would completely ignore his trust list. This will mitigate some of the problems and controversy caused by the above.

Removal of Trust Scores:
This is the most drastic, and probably the most controversial change. Forum members will be free to leave comments with their various types of ratings, but this will remove the harm associated with the controversial ratings. If someone leaves a negative rating you do not believe makes the person a scammer, you are free to ignore it. Ratings will be able to be filtered by if they are left by those in your trust network, and further by if the rating is positive, negative or neutral. This will force users to draw their own conclusions as to how trustworthy someone is. Further, this will also mitigate the "this person has good judgment" and "this person helps out" type positive ratings that some people have who lack any real trading history, but show Dark Green trust currently inappropriately.

Modification of when the "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning will be displayed:
Even if trust scores are not displayed, it is still appropriate to give a warning displayed in marketplace posts and in PMs by/from people who are reasonably scammers. The Algorithm to determined if this warning is displayed should be changed. Additional warnings should also be introduced.

No ratings:
If a person does not have any ratings, positive or negative (ignoring neutral), a warning should be displayed saying the person does not have any reported trust ratings within your trust network. 

Ratings, but no "Trade with Extreme Caution" Warning:
If a person will not have a "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning, a message should be displayed encouraging people to review trust ratings, and attempt to evaluate the person's trustworthiness prior to trusting the person.

"Trade with Extreme Caution" warning:
This determination if this warning is displayed should depend on if they have any previous positive ratings, and if they receive any positive ratings after their first negative rating.

If the person does not have any previous negative ratings, nor do they receive any positive ratings subsequent to receiving their first negative rating, they will display the "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning. This is simple and should not be controversial, if a single person believes a person to be a scammer, and no one contests this, the person should display this warning.

If the person has between 1 and 3 positive positive ratings, and no positive ratings after they receive their first negative rating, they need at least 2 negative ratings from unique people to display this warning.

If the person has more than 4 positive ratings, and no positive ratings after they receive their first negative rating, they need at least 3 negative ratings from unique people to display this warning.

If someone leaves a negative rating, subsequently removes the rating, and adds a negative rating back on within a month, the date the original rating was left shall be used to calculate when a person received their first negative rating.

If someone receives at least one positive rating after the first negative rating, their status as a scammer is disputed.

If a person's status as a scammer is disputed, the number of negative ratings (in addition to the numbers listed above) need to be left for a member in order for the warning to be displayed:
y = [(n^2)/3], round up
n = number of unique ratings received after the first negative rating received, unless the member has received at least 4 positive ratings subsequent to their first negative rating, and if this is the case, it will be: the number of positive ratings received subsequent to their first negative rating, plus 20% of positive ratings received after their first negative rating

The above formula will make it difficult to label someone as a scammer if many people disagree with this conclusion. The specifics can be tinkered with around the edges if necessary/deemed appropriate.

---

The selection process for how DT is determined should also be reformed, but that is another topic of discussion.

---

What do you think? Should the above be implemented? Vote above, select "yes" or "no" for each proposal.

The market seems to disagree with you. There appear to be willing buyers and sellers who are willing to exchange valuable property for forum accounts. This is in light of the risk of accounts getting banned for arbitrary reasons (or legitimate reasons for actions done by prior owners).
I don't think it is appropriate to intentionally have unfair policies in place, nor to encourage people to act unfairly, nor to facilitate unfair behavior

Every negative rating affects a person's score the same way, regardless of the comment attached to the rating, to the extent the person is in your trust network. Many businesses that operate on the forum will use the DT network as a basis for evaluating someone's trustworthiness, including as a basis for hiring someone. If you do not agree with a particular rating, it is not possible to ignore the rating when calculating a person's trust score. Also, once a person has a strong foot in the door of being on DT1, it is nearly impossible to exclude them, regardless of how controversial they are.

I am against this and regulating the marketplace. However, the current situation is sufficiently harmful to the economy and the community that I believe some regulation is appropriate.

The difference between your example, and leaving negative trust for trading forum accounts is that a loan default is the breaking of a promise, and not honoring the terms of a contract. The trading of a forum account, or the discussion of doing the same is neither.

I'm sorry, when you are handling others' money, you do not get the benefit of the doubt.
Everything about this statement is ridiculous. There is absolutely no basis for stealing BestMixers money after a year, Hhampuz has no right to any of the money in any circumstance other than the payment of previously agreed upon fees for holding their money. Further it is absolutely crazy to suggest it is not only okay to commingle customer assets, but to spend customer assets for his own personal use. Keeping assets separate from your own personal assets is a basic principal of acting as an agent for a third party, be it as a lawyer, as a bank, as a securities broker, be it any other agency relationship.

Is there any chance we will upgrade the NasyFans donation and mining addresses to 3Nasty... to use SegWit to save on TX fees?

This is a lie. You know very well the trust system if not moderated.

The algorithm for trust ratings previously would take the extra 50BTC risked amount into consideration, and it now no longer does.

When theymos made the statement, it was true, however he later changed how trust ratings are calculated, and his statement is no longer true. The current algorithm can be found here, and is posted below:

I wonder if there will be the same fake outrage we saw when Bill Gator released his PM.

Even if OgN did say he would give merit for Vod's thread, this does not change the fact that Vod said "I'll expect...merit"

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the post jackass. Your history of sticking up for scammers and acting in bad faith has not gone unnoticed.

As stated, the problem is people are not held accountable for having someone in their trust list that has no business being on a reputable persons trust list.

Weird.

The ability to exclude a person from your trust list harmed the trust system. Instead of holding a person accountable for including someone who should not be in their trust list, users now have the option of excluding the person who should not be in the trust network.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are trusting both their ratings, and their trust list. If user "x" leaves a lot of good ratings, but has one bad person in their trust list, they should either remove the person from their trust list, or not be in your trust list.

I think EcuaMobi should be acknowledged for sticking up for OgNasty when it is clear to anyone paying attention that he does not like him.

I think Vod should take the loss, and remove the counter rating for OgN -- it is not appropriate. I am not aware of anyone paying back a $400k loan, or paying out $400k in real money (not counting tokens whose value can trivially be revoked) out of escrow without there being any kind of dispute. OgNasty paid out an amount 10x this without any dispute that all money has been returned (arrangements have been made to return the various forks with sufficient value that will be returned in the near future).

If Vod is aware of OgNasty scamming, embezzling money, or doing something else that would reasonably make him a scammer, he should leave OgNasty a negative rating, and open a scam accusation. If Vod can present credible evidence that is not refuted that OgNasty is a scammer, I would gladly take Vods side. Based on my observations of OgNasty, including how he conducts business, I don't think he is a scammer, and would be surprised to see unrefuted evidence that he is a scammer.

---

I do think the trust system needs to be changed/upgraded (again). The current implementation is causing a lot of friction among many long standing forum members, and is harming the community. Perhaps something along the lines of what LBC uses could be implemented -- that is there are no trust scores, only comments, and comments can be filtered by positive, negative, neutral, and can be further filtered by those in your trust network. As an "early warning system" to warn against scammers, the "trade with extreme caution" warning could be displayed under certain circumstances that varies depending on if the person has existing, prior positive ratings. It should also be limited as to when someone should be able to leave a negative rating.

You are wrong. If you are aware of someone taking advantage of someone (especially when the person being taken advantage of is in a position of weakness), or that someone is misappropriating someone else's money (especially when the person is not in a position to speak out), you have a moral obligation to call out the person.

There are many situations in which a victim is not in a position to complain because the thief owes him additional money, is holding something else over the victims head, or the victim is otherwise vulnerable. 
This is off topic here, but I will address this.

1 - this has nothing to do with getting fired by Hhampuz. I have no problem criticizing anyone, regardless of any business relationship, and if I had still been in the campaign, I would have been willing to get fired for calling out Hhampuz two weeks later for calling him out on this embezzlement. If I was in one of your campaigns, and I was aware of similar activity by you, I would not hesitate to open a similar scam accusation, although before doing so, I would first ask you what happened, and give you the opportunity to address what happened before putting you on blast. 

2 - You are absolutely wrong. This is regardless of any "terms" any campaign manager puts in their campaign thread. A campaign manager has an obligation to his client to maximize the long term value of the advertising dollars of his client. If a campaign manager does anything other than any action that (he in good faith believes, and has good reason to believe) maximizes the long term value of the advertising money he is spending on behalf, he is either corrupt, engaging in nepotism, or both.

If you disagree, or if you want to discuss 1 or 2 further, we can move this to PM or to a new thread, as this is off topic in this thread.   

Hhampuz was not contacted through an intermediary to return the excess funds. He would have no way of verifying the validity of this type of request, and the timing would not make sense.

If BestMixer has not yet requested the money be returned, Hhampuz should hold the money where it was. When you are dealing with other people's money, you do not get the benefit of the doubt, and you must remain transparent.

The operators of BestMixer being in jail or otherwise unavailable to request the money be returned is not a reason for Hhampuz to keep the money for his own personal use.

If Hhampuz had lost access to the bitcoin due to his own incompetence, such as loosing access to the keys, having the bitcoin stolen via malware, having the bitcoin otherwise stolen from him, I would agree that Hhampuz could return the money out of his own personal funds, but only as long as he is transparent with what happened, and that he is publicly promising to repay what he lost.

Hhampuz moved the bitcoin to what I believe to be ChipMixer, which is what I believe to be prima face evidence that he is trying to hide the money so he can use it for his own benefit. Further, it is not known that Hhampuz still has access to the bitcoin, and he has not stated he will return the money if BestMixer returns and asks for their money back.

As stated above, when dealing with someone else's money, you should not get the benefit of the doubt, and you should maintain transparency.

If Hhampuz cannot send the money back to BestMixer, he should not move them, and use them for his personal benefit. He can hold the coins in the address where he was paying out campaign participants.

1, 4 and 8 either have 1 or no merit. The rest have a decent amount of merit already. The purpose of a merit source application is to show you can find good posts that have very little merit....in other words, to show that if you are made a merit source, additional good posts will receive merit.

Also, you do not have to limit your submission to OPs of threads, you can also list responses in threads you think deserve additional merit.

I have never tagged anyone for being critical and there were a lot of sock puppet scammers doing exactly that. I also never responded to criticism with trolling, but instead responded to concerns. I also never prevented any scammer from being labeled as such.

Thank you very much.

I don’t know the OP, but I appreciate the support.

How would he possibly establish such channels? Their domain is seized along with their wallets...there would be no way for him to verify their identity.

Perhaps instead of trolling, defending scammers and being a bitch on the internet, you should learn how to read:

No. he has not commented in any way. He is also ignoring criticism by others in his reputation thread, that one person compared to him putting his fingers in his ears.

Also BestMixer has not logged in and Hhampuz has confirmed he has no out of forum communication channels with them.