Nominate (insert name here) to the default trust list

[armedmilitia]

Woah, was gonna post about nominating master-p, but just noticed something about all my feedback.

Everyone assumes everyone else on this forum is a guy. Hell, even my feedback to other people assumes they are other guys. Interesting how we do that... Imagine if I started leaving feedback using 'her' all the time--it just feels weird.

[1714822392]

1714822392

[1714822392]

1714822392

[1714822392]

1714822392

[1714822392]

1714822392

[1714822392]

1714822392

[theymos]

Everyone assumes everyone else on this forum is a guy. Hell, even my feedback to other people assumes they are other guys. Interesting how we do that... Imagine if I started leaving feedback using 'her' all the time--it just feels weird.

In English, "masculine" pronouns are actually gender-neutral. It is appropriate to use "he" when you don't know the person's gender.

[tspacepilot]

Everyone assumes everyone else on this forum is a guy. Hell, even my feedback to other people assumes they are other guys. Interesting how we do that... Imagine if I started leaving feedback using 'her' all the time--it just feels weird.

In English, "masculine" pronouns are actually gender-neutral. It is appropriate to use "he" when you don't know the person's gender.

Actually it depends on the style of writing and the venue.  Using "he" for gender-neutral is no longer appropriate in my field.  It's actually more typical to use "she" or "the person" or to vary the pronoun each time so that you're not emphasizing masculinity.  Note as well that "they" is the gender-neutral pronoun in spoken English.  Many language mavens love to hate on this, but they'll be dead soon and people will still be saying "they" when they don't know the gender.  Gender-neutral "they" goes back to middle English:

    "And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,

    They wol come up . . ."
    —Chaucer, The Pardoner's Prologue (c. 1395)

And Shakespeare

    " ‍ '​Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech."

   — Shakespeare, Hamlet (1599);

Just sayin', in my observations, using "he" as gender-neutral is going the way of the Dodo, it's basically old white people that do it now, and they'll be dead soon.

Cheers!

--TSP

[armedmilitia]

Everyone assumes everyone else on this forum is a guy. Hell, even my feedback to other people assumes they are other guys. Interesting how we do that... Imagine if I started leaving feedback using 'her' all the time--it just feels weird.

In English, "masculine" pronouns are actually gender-neutral. It is appropriate to use "he" when you don't know the person's gender.

Except when people find it inappropriate, haha. I guess they aren't wrong, either, since the rules of English aren't exactly set in stone... I find it interesting how the way we communicate changes significantly over generations. /tangent

But... enough philosophy. My nomination for master-p still stands! I've had many excellent trades with this dude (for both physical and digital goods), and great communication. I think he'd be a good addition to top-level default trust. Just my two cents.

[dogie]

Except when you disclose you're a dog.

[JerryCurlzzz]

My opinion is basically this.

The obvious requirements of stellar trading/lending/contract history, sound security protocols, and significant time spent in the community (how users who have been here less than a year are on Default Trust is completely beyond me) should be obvious.

Beyond that, what is clear to me is that if the default web of trust seen by the entire community is going to basically conform to this group's opinions, that their reputations should be staked on it. What I mean by that is, anonymous users should not be on default trust; they have nothing to lose by gaming it, and we as a community have everything to lose by trusting them.

If you cannot risk associating your real identity with your forum account, then you have absolutely no business governing the default web of trust that the community sees. And you have no business being trusted with large sums of money. Because at the end of the day, one can do a hell of a lot more damage than his/her anonymous forum account is worth, no matter how green the trust rating.

[RaginglikeaBoss]

My opinion is basically this.

The obvious requirements of stellar trading/lending/contract history, sound security protocols, and significant time spent in the community (how users who have been here less than a year are on Default Trust is completely beyond me) should be obvious.

Beyond that, what is clear to me is that if the default web of trust seen by the entire community is going to basically conform to this group's opinions, that their reputations should be staked on it. What I mean by that is, anonymous users should not be on default trust; they have nothing to lose by gaming it, and we as a community have everything to lose by trusting them.

If you cannot risk associating your real identity with your forum account, then you have absolutely no business governing the default web of trust that the community sees. And you have no business being trusted with large sums of money. Because at the end of the day, one can do a hell of a lot more damage than his/her anonymous forum account is worth, no matter how green the trust rating.

Jerry, I do believe this is the third post I have ever seen that is well put and parsimonious - while using a signature campaign.

As a ghost user on these sub-forums, I can happily say you are part of the 1%.  So, I thank you.  This is one of the few times I'm not being facetious outside of business.

[Muhammed Zakir]

My opinion is basically this.

The obvious requirements of stellar trading/lending/contract history, sound security protocols, and significant time spent in the community (how users who have been here less than a year are on Default Trust is completely beyond me) should be obvious.

Beyond that, what is clear to me is that if the default web of trust seen by the entire community is going to basically conform to this group's opinions, that their reputations should be staked on it. What I mean by that is, anonymous users should not be on default trust; they have nothing to lose by gaming it, and we as a community have everything to lose by trusting them.

If you cannot risk associating your real identity with your forum account, then you have absolutely no business governing the default web of trust that the community sees. And you have no business being trusted with large sums of money. Because at the end of the day, one can do a hell of a lot more damage than his/her anonymous forum account is worth, no matter how green the trust rating.

People who are in default trust list are the people whose judgements can be trusted. You shouldn't trust your money with them just because they are in default trust list or they have green trust score or anybody else who you don't feel confident with.

And asking for their IRL identity if they want to be in default trust list is absolutely not a good idea.

[JerryCurlzzz]

My opinion is basically this.

The obvious requirements of stellar trading/lending/contract history, sound security protocols, and significant time spent in the community (how users who have been here less than a year are on Default Trust is completely beyond me) should be obvious.

Beyond that, what is clear to me is that if the default web of trust seen by the entire community is going to basically conform to this group's opinions, that their reputations should be staked on it. What I mean by that is, anonymous users should not be on default trust; they have nothing to lose by gaming it, and we as a community have everything to lose by trusting them.

If you cannot risk associating your real identity with your forum account, then you have absolutely no business governing the default web of trust that the community sees. And you have no business being trusted with large sums of money. Because at the end of the day, one can do a hell of a lot more damage than his/her anonymous forum account is worth, no matter how green the trust rating.

People who are in default trust list are the people whose judgements can be trusted. You shouldn't trust your money with them just because they are in default trust list or they have green trust score or anybody else who you don't feel confident with.

And asking for their IRL identity if they want to be in default trust list is absolutely not a good idea.

Nobody is asking for anyone's IRL identity; nobody should be asking to be on the Default Trust list in the first place. This shouldn't be treated like an "in" list and anyone that "wants" to be on it should be viewed with suspicion.

I think that a Default Trust user extending trust to someone because they "trust their judgment" rather than on the basis of trustworthiness is a misuse of the system. Same as those that leave negative trust over petty flame wars rather than trading experience. Opinions, often backed by nothing, should not determine what is essentially your trading reputation. I want to trade with people whose reputations are built on trust as it relates to money/value.

What you're saying isn't really in line with how things work in practice. People do, in fact, trust others with money because they are on Default Trust or have green trust. And that's absolutely going to continue. Who do you think people are going to trust to escrow trades, IPOs, group buys, signature campaigns? People looking for an escrow service aren't necessarily regulars, nor do they necessarily have a firm grasp on how to avoid getting scammed. Enter: the green trust score. (Or in other cases of trust abuse, the red trust score).

I'm not sure that your response shows a good understanding of how confidence scamming works. I'm saying that people that maintain anonymity while trying to build a strong rating via the Default Trust system should be viewed with a healthy skepticism. For example, ask yourself why someone might go from escrow to escrow (all of whom are at Depth 1-2) from one trade to the next. Really just think about it. And yes, it's happening. If you don't see why this poses a problem, then I can't help you.

My (admittedly limited) dealings with noobs on this forum lead me to believe they don't research reputation deeply at all. But they love dat green trust. I'm fully in favor of abolishing the Default Trust system and letting users build their own webs of trust, without artificial weighting that is often plagued with personal vendettas and double standards.

If that were to happen, it would still be quite obvious who the limited number of truly trustworthy people on this forum are.

[Muhammed Zakir]

@JerryCurlzzz: Do you know what default trust list is? It is a list of people whose judgments can be trusted. Trusting your money with them is a different thing. Someone who does not have any trade history most probably will not be in default trust list.

-snip-
My (admittedly limited) dealings with noobs on this forum lead me to believe they don't research reputation deeply at all. But they love dat green trust. I'm fully in favor of abolishing the Default Trust system and letting users build their own webs of trust, without artificial weighting that is often plagued with personal vendettas and double standards.
 -snip-

New users don't know whom to trust and whom not to. Such users need a temporary list and that is what default trust list is. Once you know more about it, you can start adding or removing users from your trust list but we should not be forcing them to change trust list.

P.S. JerryCurlzzz, please see this post by Shorena --
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1100872.msg11725703#msg11725703.

[JerryCurlzzz]

@JerryCurlzzz: Do you know what default trust list is? It is a list of people whose judgments can be trusted. Trusting your money with them is a different thing. Someone who does not have any trade history most probably will not be in default trust list.

-snip-
My (admittedly limited) dealings with noobs on this forum lead me to believe they don't research reputation deeply at all. But they love dat green trust. I'm fully in favor of abolishing the Default Trust system and letting users build their own webs of trust, without artificial weighting that is often plagued with personal vendettas and double standards.
 -snip-

New users don't know whom to trust and whom not to. Such users need a temporary list and that is what default trust list is. Once you know more about it, you can start adding or removing users from your trust list but we should not be forcing them to change trust list.

P.S. JerryCurlzzz, please see this post by Shorena --
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1100872.msg11725703#msg11725703.

"Do you know what default trust list is?"

That's just patronizing. I am well aware of how the system works and was not asking for a tutorial. I was commenting on how it is flawed, how and why people are gaming it, why people get scammed because of it, and how it's going to lead to some epic confidence scams.

New users need a temporary list? This forum existed for a long damn time before the trust system did.

I'm not sure that you read what I wrote very closely. Actually, I'm sure that you didn't. I explained that this is about how the system works in practice, not how you think it should work. 99% of users will never bother to understand how it works, how to alter the list or why they should. In that context, whether they can change their trust lists is irrelevant.

[tspacepilot]

I just want to add a big second to JerryCurlzzz's opinions here.  Having done absolutely no trading here I still ended up on the receiving end of just one of the personal vendettas he's talking about.  And it just happened to be perpetrated by a person who was struggling to get onto the default trust list (and who was on it for a time when he pulled the vendetta), and the person happens to be one who maintains anonymity.  I basically have lived the experiences he warns against.  I also think there's a growing concensus that the trust sytem as it stands (with default trust lists) causes more problems than it prevents.  What's more, expressing that opinion in public got me even more negative trust from an alt account of that special someone who was going after me for a while.

Default trust is a broken way to:

1) provide newbies with a false sense of security
2) allow vendettas and personal issues to cloud the reputations of people who actually just want trade information
3) under/overvaluation of bitcointalk accounts and account trading based on market manipulation of the trust ratings by those who are both on default trust and who buy/sell/escrow account trades.

Many good ideas have been put forward for improving the system from where it stands currently, but none have been implemented.   One, tiny, incremental improvement which would help a lot would be to change the warning text from the inflammatory "TRADE WITH EXTREME CAUTION" to the more descriptive "this person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list". Making this simple change would encourage people to say, "huh, my trust list?  I have a trust list?"  and to start figuring out who they want to be on that list and who they don't.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
Many good ideas have been put forward for improving the system from where it stands currently, but none have been implemented.

Can you sum those good ideas here or give me links to those posts?

One, tiny, incremental improvement which would help a lot would be to change the warning text from the inflammatory "TRADE WITH EXTREME CAUTION" to the more descriptive "this person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list". Making this simple change would encourage people to say, "huh, my trust list?  I have a trust list?"  and to start figuring out who they want to be on that list and who they don't.

Yes, the current warning text should be changed.

[tspacepilot]

-snip-
Many good ideas have been put forward for improving the system from where it stands currently, but none have been implemented.

Can you sum those good ideas here or give me links to those posts?

All of them related to decentralizing and de-reifying the default trust list and encouraging people to build their own lists.  One of them is the one you quote just below.  Saltyspitoon has said he'd be for it.  I haven't heard anyone say they'd be against it, but it hasn't been implemented or even commented on by Theymos.

One, tiny, incremental improvement which would help a lot would be to change the warning text from the inflammatory "TRADE WITH EXTREME CAUTION" to the more descriptive "this person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list". Making this simple change would encourage people to say, "huh, my trust list?  I have a trust list?"  and to start figuring out who they want to be on that list and who they don't.

Yes, the current warning text should be changed.

I'm glad you agree.

One think I'm going to do is remove default trust from my trust list altogether.  I think I will start a thread in meta to see if I can popularize the idea and bring more attention to it.

EDIT: here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103508.msg11746372#msg11746372

[Timelord2067]

Dude all these whiny posts about vod or quickseller are just from butthurt scammers, i dont even know how anyone would take them seriously, most of them have negative ratings from other important people aswell such as badbear or tomatocage, you name it. They then often try to say that qs is an alt of badbear or that kind of stupid shit, 99.9% of quickseller or vod ratings are accurate, maybe theres a case where they failed, everyone can fail but that doesnt mean they should be gone from the default trust list.

You would have been in with a chance of the $900M Power Ball http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35272548 if you'd had @Master-P in that lottery list...

[armedmilitia]

But... enough philosophy. My nomination for master-p still stands! I've had many excellent trades with this dude (for both physical and digital goods), and great communication. I think he'd be a good addition to top-level default trust. Just my two cents.

Good thing nobody listens to me!