What are negative trust ratings for?

[mexxer-2]

two from DT 1 can effectivly remove someone else from DT 1

Just fixing a small misconception, two users from DT 1 can only remove a user from DT 2 and below(taking into consideration that only one DT 1 user has the individual under their trust list)

DT 1 individuals can only be removed by theymos, i.e by deleting their "entry" from the trust list of DefaultTrust(which , is actually an account)

[1714843675]

1714843675

[1714843675]

1714843675

[1714843675]

1714843675

[1714843675]

1714843675

[shorena]

two from DT 1 can effectivly remove someone else from DT 1

Just fixing a small misconception, two users from DT 1 can only remove a user from DT 2 and below(taking into consideration that only one DT 1 user has the individual under their trust list)

DT 1 individuals can only be removed by theymos, i.e by deleting their "entry" from the trust list of DefaultTrust(which , is actually an account)

I hate[1] it when you make me look up things.

I made three improvements to the Trust system:

Firstly, there is now a neutral rating type. Neutral ratings don't affect a person's trust score at all. On a person's trust page, positive ratings are bold, neutral ratings are italic, and negative ratings are red bold-italic.

Secondly, it is now possible to exclude users in your trust list. Prefix a person's name with a tilde character (~) if you want to exclude them. If you exclude someone, then you will never see that person's ratings as trusted, even if the person is trusted by other people in your trust network.

Exclusions also travel through the trust network. If one person in your trust network trusts someone and another person excludes them, then whether or not they're seen as trusted for you is decided using these rules:
1. If someone at a lower depth (ie, closer to your trust list) disagrees with someone at a higher depth, then the person at the lowest depth wins. Due to this, no one can overrule anything you put in your trust list directly.
2. If multiple people at the same depth disagree, then the rating type that is most popular among these people wins. For example, say that you have three people in your trust list. If two of them trust someone and one of them excludes that person, then the person will not be excluded.
3. If an equal number of people at the same depth include and exclude a person, then the person will be included.

Finally, I added an easier-to-understand way of viewing your trust network to the trust settings page. The number in parentheses is the number of people in the preceding (lower) depth level who trust the person minus the number of people at the preceding depth level who exclude that person. This view contains slightly less information than the hierarchical view -- there's a link to the old view at the bottom of the trust settings page.

Also, the maximum trust depth is now 4 instead of 3, though it's probably still not a good idea to go above 2.

[1] not really

[mexxer-2]

I hate[1] it when you make me look up things.
-snip-

Erm hate to say it, but I'm right

[shorena]

I hate[1] it when you make me look up things.
-snip-

Erm hate to say it, but I'm right

Well, shall we make a test then? Since we are both on DT 2 same as Lutpin they should be removed (if Im correct) or not (if you are correct) if we both exclude them.

mexxer-2 is correct, two exclusions from the same level do not remove someone.

[electronicash]

Where do we see all these DT levels? I think users should really need to understand these stuff as well because leaving red trust seem acustom nowadays.  how do you see which DT1 added DT2 user?

[shorena]

Where do we see all these DT levels? I think users should really need to understand these stuff as well because leaving red trust seem acustom nowadays.  how do you see which DT1 added DT2 user?

-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

[mexxer-2]

Where do we see all these DT levels? I think users should really need to understand these stuff as well because leaving red trust seem acustom nowadays.   how do you see which DT1 added DT2 user?

-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

I don't like to brag but this explanation of mine is pretty easy for average users to understand(part 2 somewhere below) here. Also, Lutpin'd hate me for using him as a guinea pig but done

[jjoorriissjjuuhh]

Simply put, no matter what people say in this thread, people give them for whatever they think they need to give it.
Some are crusaders looking for scammers, others just dont like the other etc etc.
It is just abused.

[BrassicBob]

Simply put, no matter what people say in this thread, people give them for whatever they think they need to give it.
Some are crusaders looking for scammers, others just dont like the other etc etc.
It is just abused.

Thanks, I learned a lot from this thread, I had been wondering what all the trust stuff was all about. I learn more about this place every time I come here!

[Decoded]

Negative reps are here to publicly show how "(un)trusted" a user is. Trustable people get +reps, and and other people trust them. Scammers get -reps, and people don't trust them.

[Zeke2345]

Simply put, no matter what people say in this thread, people give them for whatever they think they need to give it.
Some are crusaders looking for scammers, others just dont like the other etc etc.
It is just abused.

But you are lumping people that disagree as people that just hate the people, its the tactic that is the issue! Not gonna go at any other aspect, think you mean well.

Negative reps are here to publicly show how "(un)trusted" a user is. Trustable people get +reps, and and other people trust them. Scammers get -reps, and people don't trust them.

We are talking about abuse of ratings in paticular, title might have thrown you.

[whywefight]

Simply put, no matter what people say in this thread, people give them for whatever they think they need to give it.
Some are crusaders looking for scammers, others just dont like the other etc etc.
It is just abused.

But you are lumping people that disagree as people that just hate the people, its the tactic that is the issue! Not gonna go at any other aspect, think you mean well.

Negative reps are here to publicly show how "(un)trusted" a user is. Trustable people get +reps, and and other people trust them. Scammers get -reps, and people don't trust them.

We are talking about abuse of ratings in paticular, title might have thrown you.

you even dont know what abuse is. just face the facts: you dont like certain ratings because you dont agree with them. doesnt mean someone got abused... get over it

[Zeke2345]

Simply put, no matter what people say in this thread, people give them for whatever they think they need to give it.
Some are crusaders looking for scammers, others just dont like the other etc etc.
It is just abused.

But you are lumping people that disagree as people that just hate the people, its the tactic that is the issue! Not gonna go at any other aspect, think you mean well.

Negative reps are here to publicly show how "(un)trusted" a user is. Trustable people get +reps, and and other people trust them. Scammers get -reps, and people don't trust them.

We are talking about abuse of ratings in paticular, title might have thrown you.

you even dont know what abuse is. just face the facts: you dont like certain ratings because you dont agree with them. doesnt mean someone got abused... get over it

Another assumption but thats a fact for you, right?
Have seen this happen on enough forums to know it ends bad for everyone.
I don't like people seeking it out like its the hip new thing. If its the same people all day long, maybe theres a reason.
The language used or snarky responses just proves its not about community and about image. Building trust to get more business, get more power.
More sinister, the long scam once the dominoes are in place. Scammers are all about building trust.
Its not about community, so its?

[whywefight]

Another assumption but thats a fact for you, right?

you proved it with your last posts on different topics.

Have seen this happen on enough forums to know it ends bad for everyone.

So you think the current state is way better?

I don't like people seeking it out like its the hip new thing. If its the same people all day long, maybe theres a reason.

Currently there are more than 600k+ registered users here (dont nail me on the number) but i only see a few complain that are not tagged as scammers (and i respect their posts) i see a lot of scammers complain and finally you. makes about 599500 user who had been left alone.

The language used or snarky responses just proves its not about community and about image. Building trust to get more business, get more power.

Again, power is given to someone, you dont run around and collect it like XP.

More sinister, the long scam once the dominoes are in place. Scammers are all about building trust.

Well, have an eye on us and watch our steps so you can -ve and report us, in the rare case one of "us" will scam...

Its not about community, so its?

It is, you just dont get it.

[MontyOnTheRun]

I just changed my Default trust level to 0, now I can't see any red flags on my trust level and am free to post what I like without having to worry about getting a negative from people who don't agree with me.

I'm not going to be joining a sig campaign, because I don't agree with them so it makes no difference to me.

[MontyOnTheRun]

Forgot to add I do think it is unfair for users to be given negative trust for participating in a Ponzi thread - a neutral would be better - as the punishment   for participating and for actually carrying out the Ponzi scam are the same.

So the victims of the scam are punished twice, sometimes a third time as there has been occasions where a sig campaign has kicked them out for the unjust punishment of receiving a neg feedback.

Maybe the heavy handed self appointed Ponzi police should think a little of the ramifications of their actions.  

[mexxer-2]

Forgot to add I do think it is unfair for users to be given negative trust for participating in a Ponzi thread - a neutral would be better - as the punishment   for participating and for actually carrying out the Ponzi scam are the same.

You were promoting the ponzi directly in your Personal text, and posting outside the Investors based games. Which is why the neg

Also, good thing you finally are managing your trust list but others can still see the neg from DT as trusted, as most users have DT in their trust ist by default

[cryptodevil]

Forgot to add I do think it is unfair for users to be given negative trust for participating in a Ponzi thread - a neutral would be better - as the punishment   for participating and for actually carrying out the Ponzi scam are the same.

So the victims of the scam are punished twice, sometimes a third time as there has been occasions where a sig campaign has kicked them out for the unjust punishment of receiving a neg feedback.

Maybe the heavy handed self appointed Ponzi police should think a little of the ramifications of their actions.  

Which part of, "I will remove the negative rating if they delete their participation posts" is complicated?

Yesterday alone I tagged and then subsequently removed about a dozen ratings from people who complied. So, no, it isn't heavy-handed it is fair and effective.

[MontyOnTheRun]

Forgot to add I do think it is unfair for users to be given negative trust for participating in a Ponzi thread - a neutral would be better - as the punishment   for participating and for actually carrying out the Ponzi scam are the same.

You were promoting the ponzi directly in your Personal text, and posting outside the Investors based games. Which is why the neg

Also, good thing you finally are managing your trust list but others can still see the neg from DT as trusted, as most users have DT in their trust ist by default

I was posting the faucet aspect which while it was running was very good - 0.0006BTC a day. As soon as the site died and the admin ran off I removed the personal text. I never advised people to upgrade and put their own money in and in the thread itself only gave honest feedback on my experience at the time and when it went tits up posted that too.

I know others can see the negative feedback, but I can't so it doesn't bother me.

Cryptodick is still ignored, because he is not worth the effort responding to.

[MontyOnTheRun]

Mexxer, I've removed the neg by the way - it served it's purpose.