Default trust depth should be set to 3

[Lauda]

I wouldn't be against that, I'd support it tbh.

Why? Would it land you in DT3?

I think the only people who'd oppose it would be untrustworthy people any way.

There is absolutely no logical coherence between not wanting this change and being untrustworthy.

[1714006986]

1714006986

[1714006986]

1714006986

[1714006986]

1714006986

[1714006986]

1714006986

[actmyname]

I think the only people who'd oppose it would be untrustworthy people any way.

There is absolutely no logical coherence between not wanting this change and being untrustworthy.

To this, I actually believe that enabling DT3 as default could add more potential problems regarding trust cycles (similar to the DeaDTerra case) and farming. It enables users to have much more accessibility to gaining trust which, albeit can be good and bad, would usually end up being the latter.Ergo, my belief is to keep trust the way it is in its restrictive model and prevent any scam overflow.

[Quickseller]

I would agree with theymos that a greater number of people need to be trusted by DefaultTrust, and more people need to be trusted by those people. Having a third level of users' trust ratings show up by default would result in more drams and in too many people having the ability to add users to whose ratings show up by default, which opens up the trust system for more abuse by scammers, and others with ulterior motives.

In addition to the above, I believe the current trust system has lost credibility and needs to be reevaluated. More specifically, those who are trusted by DefaultTrust needs a serious reevaluation (although the trust system in general should probably be reevaluated). I believe it is a serious problem when someone can attempt to extort others (when the facts allowing someone to reasonably conclude extortion was attempted are not in dispute), and remain in the default trust network. Similarly (although less of an issue), when someone engages in repetitive behavior that would result in multiple negative ratings, is defended, given positive trust, and remains in the default trust network is concerning. It is difficult to take the trust system seriously when multiple people give (negative) ratings for reasons inconsistent with how ratings are described ( "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", and "Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade."), no community input in taken into consideration when giving these ratings beyond a small group of friends, and public disputes regarding these ratings are met with what can only be described as trolling. To a much lesser extent, it is not good when someone is allowed to leave (and keep up) ratings they know to be false and remain in the default trust network.

Removing one or two people from being trusted directly by DefaultTrust would address the majority of the above concerns.

I would argue that there should be something put into place that holds the "sponsor(s)" of a user's ratings accountable when a user either turns out to be a scammer, or when a user's rating(s) are disputed. When someone is added to your trust list, you are explicitly endorsing their trust ratings (and one could argue their overall behavior as well), so it should be public when someone is disputing a rating left by someone you are causing to show up by default.