Trim or eliminate "default trust"

[tspacepilot]

Dear forum mods,

The trust system, designed to help each person build out a network of trust (similar, I think, in some sense, to a PGP web of trust) has got a fatal flaw.  I'd like to propose some solutions.

The flaw is in the conjunction of the default trust list AND giant red keep-away warnings that appear if someone has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list.  New accounts inherit a default web-of-trust and only a small percentage of them ever learn what this means.  The trust ratings of people on the default-trust (depth <=2) are therefore given an inordinate amount of power.  I've seen situation after situation in which there is no scam, there is nothing illegal, there is no real wrongdoing except that two people decided not to get along and because one of them is in this enshrined class of people (default-trust depth <= 2) the other one walks away with a red "KEEP AWAY" tag tattooed on their account.  When debate begins on meta (as it inevitably does), the person who got tagged cries "ABUSE" and the person who did the tagging says "trust is unmoderated, of course i'm allowed to untrust you if I wish".  And certainly if default-trust <= 2 weren't such a powerful class, this would be all there was to the story.

So, to summarize:

1) people on default-trust <=2 aren't able to use their trust in a normal way
  a) everyone who doesn't dig into the "meta" of this forum reads their ratings as ground truth
  b) they have to defend the righteousnes of what should be simply their opinion
2) people who have a negative experience with someone on a default trust list have no real recourse
  a) mutual negative trust is asymmetric (one person ends up with a GIANT RED WARNING, the other with a gripe buried somewhere in the "untrusted feedback section)
  b) other option is to simply plead and beg, which sometimes works sometimes doesn't
3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))

Several fixes seem to jump out, none would be difficult to implement, some of these suggestions are not mutually exclusive:

1) Remove the "default trust" list altogether.  Or set it up as an "opt in" rather than an "opt out". This would restore the trust system to what it probably is intended to do, allow people to build their own trust networks based on experience.
2) Trim default trust significantly:
  a) set to depth<=1 or
  b) set level 1 default trust to only 1 or two people
3) Replace large red "Warning trade with extreme caution!" warning with softer, yellow "This person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list."  Even just this latter fix would help calm the hype, imo.

Ok, that's the end of my story.  I've just seen far too many unsubstantial gripes between forum members, one of which is on default trust, and the other not, and it leads to pages and pages of unecessary pleading/begging/apologizing/accusing etc when all that really needed to happen was the two people just decide not to trade together.  And I think these changes would help mitigate this issue.

[1714182707]

1714182707

[1714182707]

1714182707

[1714182707]

1714182707

[Blazed]

I think they have trimmed down the list a lot since CITM was removed. The trust system is working pretty good now with disputes in meta. I know that I always carefully decide when handing out a negative since it does carry some extra weight. There really is no perfect solution to this no matter how it is done, but the current list is pretty good.

[arallmuus]

3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))

Trust isnt moderate and everyone has the ability to give negative trust to someone based on his judgement, but only those of default trust will be visible to the other
In this case, vod and quickseller got their own point of view regarding the matter and also the red trust is merely a guide for people to do some extra caution while dealing with user with red trust

allow people to build their own trust networks based on experience.

You can already do this with the current system, you can exclude vod or quickseller as well if you wish

3) Replace large red "Warning trade with extreme caution!" warning with softer, yellow "This person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list."  Even just this latter fix would help calm the hype, imo.

This is unnecesary if you build your own trust list

But I will propose to make a specific colour for neutral trust, because a neutral trust from default trust list member isnt visible unless you click on the trust score to check. This could be one of the reason why people like to put on negative trust rather than neutral trust even if the issue is already solved

[tspacepilot]

3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))

Trust isnt moderate and everyone has the ability to give negative trust to someone based on his judgement, but only those of default trust will be visible to the other

This is exactly the echo that we hear each time from those on default trust who are having their ratings disputed "I have the right to a rate as I please".  
  However, as I point out in the OP, and as blazedout (above) acknowleges, there is a division between those whos ratings are just for themselves (most of us) and the gods whos ratings are for everyone (the default-trust <=2 group).

In this case, vod and quickseller got their own point of view regarding the matter and also the red trust is merely a guide for people to do some extra caution while dealing with user with red trust

allow people to build their own trust networks based on experience.

You can already do this with the current system, you can exclude vod or quickseller as well if you wish

Yes, I acknowledge this in my OP.  It seems you didn't catch some of the subtlety?  I'm not asking how the trust system works.  I won't rehash my OP, just please look more carefully.

I think they have trimmed down the list a lot since CITM was removed. The trust system is working pretty good now with disputes in meta. I know that I always carefully decide when handing out a negative since it does carry some extra weight. There really is no perfect solution to this no matter how it is done, but the current list is pretty good.

You may be right that things are better than before, but I still read a lot of drama in Meta which seems completely like bluster from two parties with an assymetrical power relation.  Ie, no one was scammed, no one was harmed except the reputation of one of the parties.

What about the solutions I propose?  You say there's no perfect solution but you didn't address how my solutions wouldn't work or be an improvement.

[Blazed]

1) Well I think that by default the list should be enabled for new users who join here. As a brand new user you have no idea who to trust and will most likely get scammed by someone not on the default list compared to those who are on it, or trusted by someone on it. After you have been here for a while then remove the default and create your own if you want.

2) This was done already after CITM and depth 2 seems alright to me

3) I really do not have an opinion on the color so red or yellow whatever.

I do agree that the trust system is confusing for a lot of people...we need a clickable link under trust settings explaining it better.

[erikalui]

I was going to make a similar post few days back but I dropped the idea thinking of what the REPUTED members would argue.

I agree that these DEFAULT TRUST MEMBERS have been able to stop scams with the help of their power to be in the depth 2 but what about the ratings they give only based on an assumption? Would they compensate for the loss the user has to bear as he/she has received a negative trust rating for no reason? Others would just go by their trust or some may give an argument that since you are blaming a default trust member, you are a scammer. They have basically stopped the legit users from selling their products or exchanging in this forum because of their trust rating which was just an assumption.


When I was a newbie, I did not even know about untrusted feedback and for me, I just went by the trust I could see given by the default trust member. Now one person scammed me on this forum and I gave him a negative trust but well, since I ain't in the default trust, nobody will even see my trust rating. Does that mean that my rating isn't valued or I was never scammed because my trust isn't visible or valid?


So many times I see ratings like "This user is most likely a scammer" and feel like laughing. What does it mean by MOST LIKELY? Is the person who is giving such a trust rating an astrologer who can predict the future? Many times their rating might be right but I don't like the ASSUMPTION part which is given in our trust system that "You strongly believe the user is a scammer." Either a person is a scammer or he isn't. I can't just get the feeling of a scam when I haven't been scammed or haven't seen anyone getting scammed. It's just like I see a person in real life and assume he is a cheat and then tell others I doubt him that he might rob you.


Also, I have noticed that they also ask for feedback and give feedback in exchange. May be they haven't forced any user but yeah, they have asked for it. So if that person has added them in their default trust list and the user in turn gets added in the default trust list by a default trust list member, these members automatically get added in that default trust list. I hence don't trust these REPUTED members.


All users should be treated equally and there is no excuse that the trust system isn't moderated and then giving the reputed members an upper hand. Now it is as if they call a person a scammer or trusted, their rating is counted. I would chose to either Remove the Default Trust Members or Moderate the Trust System.


I don't know if I'm right or not but is it true that the users who give Loans and/or work as escrow are mainly in the default trust list?

[Lauda]

This issue has been raised up many times. At least you've proposed a few possible fixes; usually there are none.
The third option seems nice, but rather than changing both options should be available. Although I'm not sure how the system is going to judge that. Maybe after a few negative ratings it becomes red?
The system can get very confusing, especially if you add some people manually. Just today I saw myself @Depth 2 LaudaM, it did surprise me.

[TECSHARE]

The #1 problem with this forum is THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL RULES OR GUIDELINES POSTED ANYWHERE ON IT!!!!!!!!

When I was on the default trust, no one even told me I was added. No rules were explained to me, and none were posted anywhere to be read on my own initiative. This left me to look to what other users do to extrapolate the acceptable standards of acceptable use for the default trust list. Looking at how people such as Vod use their trust ratings, one could easily get the impression his behavior is acceptable, as nothing is ever done when certain users use the trust to air their grievances, therefore it appears to be acceptable use of the system.

I used my position on the default trust ONCE to point out a user harassing me in my sales threads and I was removed within a week. The disparity in enforcement is glaring.  The rules are kept unwritten, unspoken, and ambiguous so that those in control don't have any rules for themselves, they can simply pick and choose who they want to selectively enforce against. If you are one of their bros, well then hey, abuse away, no one will do shit about it.

The complete lack of rules, directions, and guidelines for the trust system is the LEADING FACTOR causing all of these disputes, complaints, and abuses. Why would Theymos post rules though when he already can do whatever he wants. If he made rules, then people might expect HIM to follow them too.

[tspacepilot]

I think that erikalui is really doing a good job emphasizing the asymmetry of trust ratings in the current system.  Default trusters (for the most part) are putting out ratings for everyone.  Everyone else's ratings are for your own consumption only.  Erikalui   says that the trust system should be moderated.  I don't know if I agree about that.  I think the reason that it's unmoderated is that in principle, everyone is supposed to manage their own trust list.  However, in principle, this is not the case, and that's why I think that default trust should be removed or significantly trimmed down.

Blazedout says that without enabling default trust for new members, people will be scammed.  I have to admit, my main reply to this is along the lines of "isn't this the internet?"  Ie, it's the wild west and buyer beware obviously.  Right?  If someone is going to give their money away without looking into the situation then don't they simply deserve to learn that lesson the hard way so that they won't do it again?

LaudaM appreciates the suggestion to change the color and the warning text.  I think this would be valuable because it would more accurately reflect the situation of having been dinged by a default-truster.  If you got dinged by vod for selling microsoft products, certainly "Warning: trade with extreme caution" is an overblown characterization of the event.  IMO, "This user has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list" would more appropriately characterize (a) the fact that it was a negative feedback from someone, nothing more/nothing less and (b) that it is in your own power to decide who is in your trust list and fix that as you see fit.

[ACCTseller]

I think it is pretty clear this is a bad idea.

The trust system is designed to be a way to determine the appropriateness it is to trust someone else with your money/property. By limiting the default depth to 1, you put the burden of this determination focused into a very small group of people. Additionally, since the majority of trust ratings are in reference to a completed trade, very few people would be affirmatively show as being trustworthy enough to send funds first to. 

As mentioned by blazedout419, the default trust system is most import to be enabled by default for new users. It allows new users to conduct due diligence on their potential trading partners.

Granted, maybe users should be "forced" to create their own trust list after a certain amount of time, however many people choose to not use a custom list because well, they agree for the most part that people in default trust should have their ratings counted. If people were forced to create a custom trust list, say once they become a full member, then I would say that most people would make one that mirrors that of default trust, however they would likely not keep it updated for when people scam, start to send crazy trust reports, ect. which would probably not be a good thing. Additionally the people who do currently use custom trust lists generally add people who are in the default trust network, which should say something about how well the default trust system is working.

If you have enough negative trust from people in your trust network so that they show up as having a "trade with caution" tag, then you should well trade with caution because enough people whose opinions you trust enough for you to view them by default thinks they are a scammer. By making the warning toned down as you request means that more people are going to get scammed after they have received warnings that a scam attempt is highly likely by the person in question.

I consider this request to be an attempt to make it easier for people to scam in the future and as a result I consider you to likely be someone who will try to scam in the future. 

[tspacepilot]

I think it is pretty clear this is a bad idea.

The trust system is designed to be a way to determine the appropriateness it is to trust someone else with your money/property. By limiting the default depth to 1, you put the burden of this determination focused into a very small group of people. Additionally, since the majority of trust ratings are in reference to a completed trade, very few people would be affirmatively show as being trustworthy enough to send funds first to. 

As mentioned by blazedout419, the default trust system is most import to be enabled by default for new users. It allows new users to conduct due diligence on their potential trading partners.

Granted, maybe users should be "forced" to create their own trust list after a certain amount of time, however many people choose to not use a custom list because well, they agree for the most part that people in default trust should have their ratings counted. If people were forced to create a custom trust list, say once they become a full member, then I would say that most people would make one that mirrors that of default trust, however they would likely not keep it updated for when people scam, start to send crazy trust reports, ect. which would probably not be a good thing. Additionally the people who do currently use custom trust lists generally add people who are in the default trust network, which should say something about how well the default trust system is working.

If you have enough negative trust from people in your trust network so that they show up as having a "trade with caution" tag, then you should well trade with caution because enough people whose opinions you trust enough for you to view them by default thinks they are a scammer. By making the warning toned down as you request means that more people are going to get scammed after they have received warnings that a scam attempt is highly likely by the person in question.

I consider this request to be an attempt to make it easier for people to scam in the future and as a result I consider you to likely be someone who will try to scam in the future. 

I was almost tempted to reply to your thoughts here, but given the fact that you're currently on a troll tspacepilot kick (see his last posts, everyone), I think I'm just gonna leave this as is.  But hey, ACCTSeller, sounds like you ought to give me negative trust for this, right?  What's holding you back?

[ACCTseller]

I think it is pretty clear this is a bad idea.

The trust system is designed to be a way to determine the appropriateness it is to trust someone else with your money/property. By limiting the default depth to 1, you put the burden of this determination focused into a very small group of people. Additionally, since the majority of trust ratings are in reference to a completed trade, very few people would be affirmatively show as being trustworthy enough to send funds first to. 

As mentioned by blazedout419, the default trust system is most import to be enabled by default for new users. It allows new users to conduct due diligence on their potential trading partners.

Granted, maybe users should be "forced" to create their own trust list after a certain amount of time, however many people choose to not use a custom list because well, they agree for the most part that people in default trust should have their ratings counted. If people were forced to create a custom trust list, say once they become a full member, then I would say that most people would make one that mirrors that of default trust, however they would likely not keep it updated for when people scam, start to send crazy trust reports, ect. which would probably not be a good thing. Additionally the people who do currently use custom trust lists generally add people who are in the default trust network, which should say something about how well the default trust system is working.

If you have enough negative trust from people in your trust network so that they show up as having a "trade with caution" tag, then you should well trade with caution because enough people whose opinions you trust enough for you to view them by default thinks they are a scammer. By making the warning toned down as you request means that more people are going to get scammed after they have received warnings that a scam attempt is highly likely by the person in question.

I consider this request to be an attempt to make it easier for people to scam in the future and as a result I consider you to likely be someone who will try to scam in the future. 

I was almost tempted to reply to your thoughts here, but given the fact that you're currently on a troll tspacepilot kick (see his last posts, everyone), I think I'm just gonna leave this as is.  But hey, ACCTSeller, sounds like you ought to give me negative trust for this, right?  What's holding you back?

I did give you negative trust for this, right after I wrote that post.

If you are unable/unwilling to counter my arguments then I think you should admit they are valid and admit the suggestions in the OP are nothing more then to make it easier for people to scam.

P.S. I thought I was on your ignore list

[tspacepilot]

I did give you negative trust for this, right after I wrote that post.

If you are unable/unwilling to counter my arguments then I think you should admit they are valid and admit the suggestions in the OP are nothing more then to make it easier for people to scam.

P.S. I thought I was on your ignore list

Oh great!  I gave you one back.  So in some sense, this is how the trust system should work: you are an alt of quickseller who want to troll me mercilessly without making quickseller account look bad and I wouldn't want to do business with an asshole who has nothing better to do than troll me on a bitcoin forum.  So, we neg-rep each other and that's that.  People who put me on their trust network will get my negative feedback for you and vice versa.

This is clearly an ideal usage of the trust system.  If you were ballsy enough to pull this move as quickseller then this situation would be exemplifying the problems with the default trust system which I highlight in my OP: people on default-trust can decide to neg-rep asymmetically those who aren't on it based on any whim they choose.

Have a nice-life *seller, I hope you get a new hobby (from trolling me) soon.  It's kinda annoying.

[Vod]

3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))

It's not that I simply "disagree" with what they are doing; it's that what they are doing is illegal AND immoral.  They don't care about society or it's values.

Theft is theft - it does not matter if it boosts the bitcoin economy.  

[Muhammed Zakir]

IMHO

1) New users or even old users may not know who to trust and may not moderate their trust list. It shouldn't be mandatory.

2) It will make trust list worse. Obviously, a few people can't look after many, so more people will be added to level 1 which gives them more power.

3) Current text is sometimes does not fit in all cases but in major cases, it does. If you or anyone can suggest a better text, theymos might consider it.

-snip-
3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))

Trust feedback can be left even if they didn't trade. Doing a business with them to leave a feedback is worst idea IMHO.

You should read more about your "versus claims".

-snip-

It's not "pure" assumption. It is based on activity of the likely-scammer + assumption. These has saved many people.

All users should be treated equally and there is no excuse that the trust system isn't moderated and then giving the reputed members an upper hand. Now it is as if they call a person a scammer or trusted, their rating is counted. I would chose to either Remove the Default Trust Members or Moderate the Trust System.

I don't know if I'm right or not but is it true that the users who give Loans and/or work as escrow are mainly in the default trust list?

You mean "all" should be equal? It will make trust system a spamming system. First of all, people in default trust list are people whose judgements can be trusted in most cases. They, like all humans, do make mistakes. You are asking that police, common people and scammers to have equal power. Does that make sense? Trust sytem must not be removed or moderated. Obviously, admins can't get into these things everytime and moderate this sytem. They need to appoint moderators for trust system which gives trust system valueless because what if negative feedback was against these mods?

No. People who can be trusted won't be added to default trust list unless their judgements can be trusted. These people tend to work as escrow as they are trustworthy or give loans as they hav me enough BTC.

[twister]

3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))

I don't think they're giving negative trust to people simply because they enjoy doing so which is exactly what a hobby is.

They give negative trust because they feel that a person has bad motives and in future he might scam others, they're doing this to protect other users, not because it's their hobby. And do remember that they're not moderators, they're simply doing a public service trying to keep naive users safe from scammers.

[onemorexmr]

Oh great!  I gave you one back.  So in some sense, this is how the trust system should work: you are an alt of quickseller who want to troll me mercilessly without making quickseller account look bad and I wouldn't want to do business with an asshole who has nothing better to do than troll me on a bitcoin forum.  So, we neg-rep each other and that's that.  People who put me on their trust network will get my negative feedback for you and vice versa.

This is clearly an ideal usage of the trust system.  If you were ballsy enough to pull this move as quickseller then this situation would be exemplifying the problems with the default trust system which I highlight in my OP: people on default-trust can decide to neg-rep asymmetically those who aren't on it based on any whim they choose.

Have a nice-life *seller, I hope you get a new hobby (from trolling me) soon.  It's kinda annoying.

FYI you are now on my trust list.
Quickseller is not and will never be

but i keep Vod; although i dont share his opinion about ms keys (eg. EULAS are worth nothing in my country)

my trust list in case someone is interested in it (suggestions welcome); i use trust depth 1:
jgarzik
Pieter Wuille
Luke-Jr
gmaxwell
smooth
TECSHARE
-ck
~smoothie
Vod
John (John K.)
Tomatocage
DeathAndTaxes
BadBear
Blazr
DannyHamilton
rpietila
~nubbins
fluffypony
DefaultTrust
tspacepilot
~Quickseller

edit: forgot quote tag

[erikalui]

-snip-

It's not "pure" assumption. It is based on activity of the likely-scammer + assumption. These has saved many people.

All users should be treated equally and there is no excuse that the trust system isn't moderated and then giving the reputed members an upper hand. Now it is as if they call a person a scammer or trusted, their rating is counted. I would chose to either Remove the Default Trust Members or Moderate the Trust System.

I don't know if I'm right or not but is it true that the users who give Loans and/or work as escrow are mainly in the default trust list?

You mean "all" should be equal? It will make trust system a spamming system. First of all, people in default trust list are people whose judgements can be trusted in most cases. They, like all humans, do make mistakes. You are asking that police, common people and scammers to have equal power. Does that make sense? Trust sytem must not be removed or moderated. Obviously, admins can't get into these things everytime and moderate this sytem. They need to appoint moderators for trust system which gives trust system valueless because what if negative feedback was against these mods?



No. People who can be trusted won't be added to default trust list unless their judgements can be trusted. These people tend to work as escrow as they are trustworthy or give loans as they hav me enough BTC.

@bold: You mean to say that those default trust members are police? I have never heard a better joke than this. this is an open insult to the real police and to my mom as well who was appointed as a judge.

They are common/ordinary people who are behaving as judges/police here.

Why should all users NOT be treated equally (except the admins)? Just because newbies are spamming trust ratings? Then in that case, trust system should be moderated or stop account farming or bring back the newbie jail. And if nobody wants to moderate it, be happy with the newbies spam but other genuine people who give negative trust shouldn't be ignored. I have given a negative trust rating but it wont be counted so that means that person who I called a scammer is a Honest Person? Just because he hasn't received negative trust from this so called Police?


There are so many complaints about these Default Trust Members, but everyone considers the complainer a scammer. Who cares if he/she is telling the truth? He is not even given a chance to prove he is genuine here.


@red: They are mainly given negative trust if they don't use Escrow. My question is who gives me guarantee that if I use Escrow, it will be 100% trusted transaction? Haven't many trades which have used escrow turn out to be fraudulent? So many complaints and scams have been reported despite using an escrow. I have seen so many complaints where a member asked to use his own escrow. I know few Reliable escrows, but their behavior is (I better don't talk about them). Why should I trust a person who I have never met in real life? I don't even know the name of that Escrow or have any ID proof? I don't even trust my own relatives as they cheat me so who will compensate for my loss if the escrow cheats me? Nobody as scams aren't moderated. But here everyone is FORCED to use an escrow. You say these Escrows are police/judges? LOL!

I find it better to trade with users of another forum where scams are moderated. Not here where I am not trusted, not valued and am forced to give my money to an Escrow (whom I don't know at all). I will trade if I want to and cannot be FORCED. Nobody is feeding me and hence cannot dominate me.

[ABitNut]

TL;D(id)R

So you feel that all users should be treated equal. I'm not convinced that I should treat Supa the same as Badbear.  I would not trade with the former, but would with the latter. And on that same train of thought why should I not value the (trust) opinion of certain members over that of others?

What you're suggesting sounds silly to me. I do not trust those who have proven to be fraudulent and I don't value their trust feedback either. I trust those who have good track records on here more (though I will still do my due diligence) and I value their trust more. Now I pick those members myself, but I did base some decisions of the Default Trust list. It seems like a reasonable default to me.

...
I agree that these DEFAULT TRUST MEMBERS have been able to stop scams with the help of their power to be in the depth 2 but what about the ratings they give only based on an assumption? Would they compensate for the loss the user has to bear as he/she has received a negative trust rating for no reason? Others would just go by their trust or some may give an argument that since you are blaming a default trust member, you are a scammer. They have basically stopped the legit users from selling their products or exchanging in this forum because of their trust rating which was just an assumption.
...

As said before ratings are given based on the behavior of the user who's suspected of scamming and the experience of the user giving the feedback. Those on the receiving end can defend themselves. Can you provide an example where
  1) someone was suspected of scamming
  2) they provided information to show they were legit
  3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
  4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?

[erikalui]

So you feel that all users should be treated equal. I'm not convinced that I should treat Supa the same as Badbear.  I would not trade with the former, but would with the latter. And on that same train of thought why should I not value the (trust) opinion of certain members over that of others?

What you're suggesting sounds silly to me. I do not trust those who have proven to be fraudulent and I don't value their trust feedback either. I trust those who have good track records on here more (though I will still do my due diligence) and I value their trust more. Now I pick those members myself, but I did base some decisions of the Default Trust list. It seems like a reasonable default to me.


As said before ratings are given based on the behavior of the user who's suspected of scamming and the experience of the user giving the feedback. Those on the receiving end can defend themselves. Can you provide an example where
  1) someone was suspected of scamming
  2) they provided information to show they were legit
  3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
  4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?

I guess I have argued enough on this topic and have had my say. I may sound silly and so I think about these Virtual Police Inspectors. For me, I'm educated and I don't care if anyone thinks anything about me.

@bold: That's what I as well do but I even chose not to deal with them if I find their behavior suspicious or find them rude. That should be chosen by me instead of making others forcing me to deal with these trusted members and use them as escrow. There are only 1-2 members whom I trust here and if I want to deal with them, I will. Badbear is the admin so I said that except admins, there shouldn't be any default trust members that I should trust by default but that's me.

I don't know if this user is on the default trust list but he is a legendary member who has left negative trust "Luke-Jr 0: -0 / +0(0)   2014-08-31   0.00000000   Reference   "Too good to be true", or at least teaches people to be scammer victims (see link)" on Bipolar's profile. I noticed that Bipolar isn't a fraud but still many people thought he is suspicious and left negative trust feedback which they removed later but not all who removed it. Now someone will argue that one negative trust doesn't matter. I would only say "Continue your argument."