Shame on this community. Failed to bring guidelines to protect the trust system.

[Have_good_times]

I asked a DT to neg an obvious abuser who is also into DT. But he refused with the reason of "he will neg back".
The ultimate consequence is, the abuser is enjoying with his non-senses and this community is simply watching !

I start this topic because,
a. This community is slowly moving to a point where it may fail to distinguish scammers and spammers.
b. Personal preferences are being taken for consideration for feedback.

I still have faith on hilariousandco and requesting him to bring an initiative to protect the trust system with possible guidelines.

PS :
Do not target my rank but focus on the points. Any replies which are talking about my rank or asking my alt, will be reported.

[SFR10]

I asked a DT to neg an obvious abuser who is also into DT. But he refused with the reason of "he will neg back".

Instead of that, you should open a thread and show proofs/facts in regards to that DT1/2 member so in case everything is valid (in regards to the abuse), he/she might/will be kicked out of the DT.

I start this topic because,
a. This community is slowly moving to a point where it may fail to distinguish scammers and spammers.
b. Personal preferences are being taken for consideration for feedback.

a. Both deserve to receive negative ratings (IMO).
b. That might be the case for some, but if they do something wrong, they won't last as well...
The whole trust system is broken (to an extent), as everyone knows but until something better can be made, it will remain as it is now...

[athanz88]

Wow, there are many topics like this going around on the forum right now. I guess it is a "trending topic" for now.

I start this topic because,
a. This community is slowly moving to a point where it may fail to distinguish scammers and spammers.
b. Personal preferences are being taken for consideration for feedback.

a. Both deserve to receive negative ratings (IMO).
b. That might be the case for some, but if they do something wrong, they won't last as well...
The whole trust system is broken (to an extent), as everyone knows but until something better can be made, it will remain as it is now...

a. I agree with you. Scammers need negative trust, and spammers too. But maybe it would be good if we have a specific criteria for spammers, maybe like non-understandable post, one-line post,etc
b. Yeah it wont last long. If DT members don't agree with the abuser, I guess the abuser can be removed from DT members.

What I find interesting from this topic is the word guidelines. It is a good opinion from you (topic starter) and would love to see if it can be made, and do you have suggestion about some points to be listed on the guidelines?

This is a great forum, has great people behind it, and has a lot of new users recently. So for now, I guess the best thing to do is to obey the rules and keep improving ourself (all users especially new users) so we can make high quality posts.

[Have_good_times]

I start this topic because,
a. This community is slowly moving to a point where it may fail to distinguish scammers and spammers.
b. Personal preferences are being taken for consideration for feedback.

a. Both deserve to receive negative ratings (IMO).

You are wrong.
When there is no concrete definition for what is spam, you cannot treat a spammer with the way which are meant for scammers.

This forum is not meant ONLY for native English speakers and technical geeks. Hence you cannot expect all forum members to write up to some marks.

If this forum is existing here for the purpose of spreading bitcoins to rest of world[1] then when it might attract those rest of people, we cannot expect those people to write excellent all the times.

Already a fine system is on force to treat OBVIOUS spammers with multiple warning which will lead to perma-ban too. Then what is the need to treat spammers similar to scammers.

[1] rest of world = non-bitcoiners = Those who have not adopted bitcoins yet.

[hilariousetc]

I start this topic because,
a. This community is slowly moving to a point where it may fail to distinguish scammers and spammers.
b. Personal preferences are being taken for consideration for feedback.

I still have faith on hilariousandco and requesting him to bring an initiative to protect the trust system with possible guidelines.

What do you wan't me to do? Feedback system isn't moderated by staff or admins and I don't have any powers to enforce any guidelines there. There's already a guideline for leaving trust which is on the feedback page anyway. Leaving negative trust for spammers isn't ideal but what else can be done by regular users? Until theymos actually decides to do something about the huge spam issue here then people are going to take things into their own hands and that's why people are fighting back by using the trust system because it's the only weapon they have right now. Hopefully the threat of getting negative feedback will make the majority of users up their game especially if it becomes common knowledge that poor quality posters are going to have their accounts ruined.  

[Maum]

There are already guidelines, but not all seem to be aware about them. If it is neccessary to red tag low quality posts, you should discuss with Theymos to modify those guidelines.

I added a trust system to the marketplace sections. When you're logged in, you'll now see something like this next to Marketplace posts:

Trust: 1: -0 / +12(3)

The first number is the user's trust score calculated based on how consistently they've received positive feedback. Probably no one will get a score above 0 until the system has been around for at least a month. The second number is the number of reported scams. The third number increases with the number of positive reports, as does the fourth number in parenthesis, though the fourth number is more resistant to abuse. This text changes color depending on the score. Users with a negative score (attainable through scamming) get a red warning attached to their posts.

These scores are taken from your trust network. They are not global scores. You can edit your trust network here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
If your trust depth is set to 2 (the default), you will trust feedback by people you trust, people they trust, and people they trust. I might change the default in the future; we'll see how this works. Your trust list is public.

On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

If your trust list is totally empty, you trust "DefaultTrust", which includes some trustworthy people that I'll select. But if you add anyone to your trust list, even if they don't trust anyone, DefaultTrust will no longer be considered part of your trust list.

In the near future I'll add these same ratings to PMs.

Tell me if you see any bugs. I didn't test this much yet.

"Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts."
Or are these guidelines already modified?
Although there are many spammers around (posts can be deleted by moderators) it would protect against ruining accounts by subjective heavyweight feedbacks, if all DT members would pay attention to those guidelines.
Maybe it would be helpful to implement a rating system for post quality, that is led by members, who are not participants of signature campaigns and are qualified for judging posts.

[Have_good_times]

One supporting comment from DT-depth1 member :

I have seen a few wrongly given negatives.

http://archive.is/kEoFh#selection-5129.0-5129.42

[Lauda]

Until theymos actually decides to do something about the huge spam issue here then people are going to take things into their own hands and that's why people are fighting back by using the trust system because it's the only weapon they have right now.

The other remaining *weapon* is leaving. It's no wonder that there are almost no Core developers around anymore (other than achow and Greg, I rarely see anyone), or other valuable people from various corners of the ecosystem. It's as if theymos is detached from reality or is doing this on purpose.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Do not target my rank but focus on the points. Any replies which are talking about my rank or asking my alt, will be reported.

Reported to who ? lol If you want us to take you seriously,at-least stop saying stupid shit.

Like one of the members stated above,until no proofs are shown,you are invalid regardless of the alt,rank or 100 other things that don't matter.

The other remaining *weapon* is leaving. It's no wonder that there are almost no Core developers around anymore (other than achow and Greg, I rarely see anyone), or other valuable people from various corners of the ecosystem. It's as if theymos is detached from reality or is doing this on purpose.

Achow got added to the core team ? Been a long time haven't seen the list.Not a core dev but I miss Danny's detailed informative posts.