Marketplace trust

[minifrij]

It is not upon anyone else but the project management to decide about the pay worthiness of a post.

I'm in absolute disagreement. Why should I have to sit through someone posting shit and getting rewarded for it, because someone who is too lazy to properly do their job decided that they should be allowed to do so? Why should the other people that disagree with this, just sit around and let it happen? Because someone being paid by a some ICO has ultimate authority?

This has nothing to do with trust anymore but everything with destroying people's accounts just for subjective morbid reasons.

Extremely poor English is not subjective. Anyone that is a speaker of any decent capacity of a language can tell good or bad interpretation of it. Empty, useless posts are also objectively bad. Rehashing the same empty words such as:
"$ 20,000 is a good price. I can not stand to observe the growth rate of bitcoin. Every price increase of $ 1000 can result in a drop of $ 2,000 in the future. I constantly catch myself thinking that I don't want bitcoin to go up. But it seems to me that bitcoin is already so dispersed that no one will stop until it will fall."
Cannot possibly be seen as a decent post by anyone. Any chimp with a typewriter can write drivel such as that, and these people deserve to be paid for such, because some lazy campaign manager says so?

The trust moderation is a shitshow.

Trust moderation doesn't exist, by design.

Nowhere in forum rules or even trust instructions is negative tagging related to post quality.

Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you cannot scam people. There are no 'trust instructions', there are guidelines. Guidelines that were written in a time where spam wasn't such a big of an issue. Guidelines that are just advice, not rules.

It has nothing to do with trustability. Such taggings are abuse.

I can absolutely agree that tagging isn't the best way to do it, and I hope that these taggings will decrease as the merit system finds it's feet. However, when left with no other option, the worst one sometimes becomes the best.

[1713480810]

1713480810

[Deena]

Trust moderation doesn't exist, by design.

Call it as you like. Tagging negative is a form of punishment with which only a couple of members are installed.

Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you cannot scam people. There are no 'trust instructions', there are guidelines. Guidelines that were written in a time where spam wasn't such a big of an issue. Guidelines that are just advice, not rules.

I like your comparison of the trust system with scam. For which it in the present situation is used.

I can absolutely agree that tagging isn't the best way to do it, and I hope that these taggings will decrease as the merit system finds it's feet. However, when left with no other option, the worst one sometimes becomes the best.

That's easy talk from your comfortable position. Accounts of members who did nothing wrong are pointlessly destroyed and they are treated in a very respectless manner. Often a lot of time and efford have been spent in such accounts. I have spoken with members on Telegram who actually cried for it. They were positively engaged in normal forum activity and they did nothing wrong. I really can't understand how so many members support such harsh abuse and destruction.

[BitcoinHome]

I have done nothing for which I could leshit doery! how do I get it back now?

[GuardiumSupport]

 I think that's a really cool idea. It's like post count 2.0.

[EcuaMobi]

I have a couple of questions about this, considering the changes made to the trust system over the years:

- "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.

I've recently left positive trust to OgNasty because he returned the 500 BTC he was holding as treasurer. I entered BTC500 as risked amount without thinking too much about it to be honest.
Being stricter I now see "Risked BTC" is how much I could have lost, and since I personally wouldn't have lost anything in this case it seems I was wrong about that. Is that right?

However, I think that's not important at all. And that takes me to the next point, which I think is no longer valid and needs to be updated:

- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

AFAIK, this is no longer true since a long time. Trust is now calculated in a different way, without taking the risked amount into account at all. Therefore "Risked BTC" is much less important than before.
@theymos, please correct me if I'm wrong, or update OP if this point is no longer valid.

I'm posting this because of Vod's negative counter feedback left on OgNasty's profile: "Just a friendly counter to the 1,500 BTC that three members did not risk with OG, based on Theymos' comments in the reference link. 'Each 50btc risked will count as an additional rating' " with a risked amount of BTC1,500.

I've seen other trust actions taken (or at least justified) based on "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating". This thread is a reference and I think it's very important to keep it up to date.


Update:
Note all the previous posts of this thread are more than one year old. Most probably you don't want to quote or reply to any of them, like jademaxsuy did.

[jademaxsuy]

"DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR POSTS"
I received negative trust for bad English. What's it? My opinion is abuse. Why are some members arrogated to themselves the right of moderation? I can see it becoming a mass phenomenon. Why there is no appeal mechanism?

I do not see any negative feedback on your account and it seems alright since it was neutral and has no feedback about it. I do not think also that a DT user will give you red trust because of your Bad English grammar construction. If it do then probably you must be PM first advise not to post in english sections to avoid becoming a shit poster because of using english with bad grammar construction.

[mikeywith]

Being stricter I now see "Risked BTC" is how much I could have lost, and since I personally wouldn't have lost anything in this case it seems I was wrong about that. Is that right?

I tend to believe that theymos somehow picked the wrong words here, it does not make sense for it to be about only what 'YOU' would have lost, because if it was true, then one can only leave a feedback for members whom they have personally traded with, which is not the case.

in other words, the proper explanation of the risked BTC would be "How much could the member steal / how much they stole"

so as far as your rating on OG goes, i see it as perfectly fit, because technically OG could have ran away with 500 BTC and he did not, does not matter who's BTC is that.

[EcuaMobi]

I tend to believe that theymos somehow picked the wrong words here, it does not make sense for it to be about only what 'YOU' would have lost, because if it was true, then one can only leave a feedback for members whom they have personally traded with, which is not the case.

Yes, maybe. I mostly agree with you. Another option is we can leave feedback but risked amount should be 0 if we didn't risk anything personally.

However the main part of my question is whether "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating" is still valid or not. People has left trust because of it so I consider that important.

[Vod]

I entered BTC500 as risked amount without thinking too much about it to be honest.

I never believed your amount risked was abuse and that is why I never acted on it, other than a general counter feedback.
But thank you for being mature (vs my stalker) and thank you for requesting confirmation!  If it turns out the algorithm has changed, I of course will edit/remove my feedback.

I tend to believe that theymos somehow picked the wrong words here, it does not make sense for it to be about only what 'YOU' would have lost, because if it was true, then one can only leave a feedback for members whom they have personally traded with, which is not the case.

I think Theymos stated exactly what he meant.  If you are allowed to post risked btc that someone else risked, then the feedback system will turn into a pissing contest as people try to impress those they are leaving feedback for.  There are already 115 untrusted profiles that have claimed to have lost 21,000,000 bitcoins.  Who cares about non-trusted, but DT members should be held under consistent scrutiny.

so as far as your rating on OG goes, i see it as perfectly fit, because technically OG could have ran away with 500 BTC and he did not, does not matter who's BTC is that.

Right now it looks like OG could have run away with 2,000 BTC and he did not. 

[OgNasty]

Vod, you are embarrassing yourself.

[mikeywith]

Right now it looks like OG could have run away with 2,000 BTC and he did not.  

If a scammer was tagged by five DT members for scamming one time, it does not make him a five times scammer , am i wrong ?  the other 4 tags represent the individual opinions of each DT member, it simply does not mean he scammed five people/ five times, so I do not agree with your point here , because it does not really look like OG could have run away with 2k BTC , it just shows that four people confirmed the 500BTC point.

However if this "50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating" is still applied and does affect the trust score, then the logic will be different, and i will be leaning towards removing the risked amount and leaving only a positive feedback for OG.

People has left trust because of it so I consider that important.

You are right, and I think it does not count anymore, by looking at satoshi's trust and manually calculating the score, it does not look like any of the risked BTC counts neither towards the left nor the right score , his score would have been over 300 if all the >50 risked BTC did count.

Edited: tried to manually calculate Satoshi score to confirm the validity of the 50BTC thing, and if i did the calcautions right, then it does not affect the score anymore.

[TECSHARE]

Who cares about non-trusted, but DT members should be held under consistent scrutiny.

If that is the case you should ask everyone to remove you from their trust lists.

[xolxol]

Vod, you are embarrassing yourself.

He surely getting depressed,karma is digital nowadays 

[Vod]

You are right, and I think it does not count anymore, by looking at satoshi's trust and manually calculating the score, it does not look like any of the risked BTC counts neither towards the left nor the right score , his score would have been over 300 if all the >50 risked BTC did count.

Edited: tried to manually calculate Satoshi score to confirm the validity of the 50BTC thing, and if i did the calcautions right, then it does not affect the score anymore.

I'll take your word and that of EcuaMobi.  It appears that calculation is no longer used, so I will edit my feedback as promised. 

If a scammer was tagged by five DT members for scamming one time, it does not make him a five times scammer , am i wrong ?  the other 4 tags represent the individual opinions of each DT member, it simply does not mean he scammed five people/ five times,

You are not wrong!  Take a look at that feedback, and you'll see the person that was scammed entered a BTC amount, and the rest of the amounts are 0.
 That is the way it's always been done and I don't think someone can come along and say "well, I think Theymos meant this", when the definition is plain and simple.

Am I wrong?

[mikeywith]

That is the way it's always been done and I don't think someone can come along and say "well, I think Theymos meant this", when the definition is plain and simple.

Am I wrong?

If you read all the points regarding the subject theymos has not mentioned a thing about leaving a feedback to someone "you" haven't traded with, so if this "You" means what you think it does, then we should only leave feedback to people we have directly traded with , but that is not the case , based on this I do think the "You" there does not mean what it seems to mean.

Theymos also mentioned that

- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

which means even if you haven't really risked 50 BTC but just want to make the rating stronger for whatever reason, you can simply use it.

on Simple-Language level your theory is right and mine is wrong, but with all the other theories in hand I still think the statement is "poor" choice of words from @theymos ( I hope he does confirm it )

Anyhow, this is why i have always wanted to see a clear set of rules regarding the use of the trust system, at this point everyone's interpretation of the proper use of the trust system is different and this is why we have all the drama going on because everyone can say they are right".


@TECSHARE you are a bit off-topic here

[Vod]

on Simple-Language level your theory is right and mine is wrong, but with all the other theories in hand I still think the statement is "poor" choice of words from @theymos ( I hope he does confirm it )

Why would be bother to confirm a rule that is not ambiguous?  That would lead to newbies complaining that they thought certain rules meant something else in their opinion.  "I still think the statement 'No begging' means constantly asking for money - not just once.  Theymos please confirm!"

I'm not going to be immature and call any trust I dislike "abusive" or "bullshit", but as the current rules stand, and as we have always done it, four people claiming to have risked 500 BTC is wrong, and Theymos has stated I am allowed to counter it.   

[EcuaMobi]

I'm not going to be immature and call any trust I dislike "abusive" or "bullshit", but as the current rules stand, and as we have always done it, four people claiming to have risked 500 BTC is wrong, and Theymos has stated I am allowed to counter it.    :-\

I have some questions for you. I hope you answer directly to all of them:

• I do think I made a mistake entering BTC500 as the risked amount. I did it without thinking too much about it. But I don't think that's important at all because the reference makes it really clear what happened and because the new algorithm doesn't consider the risked amount to calculate the total trust. I think the only important part is that action deserved positive trust so I left it. However I have no issues about updating my trust.
  Would you completely remove your counter if we all update our feedback by setting the risked amount to 0? (I don't know if I can convince everyone but I'd try. Just to confirm, you're referring to Pamoldar, dbshck and me, right?)
• If OgNasty didn't have any other DT negative trust and you didn't have any issues with him, would you still have left that (first) negative trust and made his account negative or ??? just because the risked amount is wrong?

[Vod]

Would you completely remove your counter if we all update our feedback by setting the risked amount to 0? (I don't know if I can convince everyone but I'd try.)

You don't need anyone's cooperation.  I can adjust/remove the feedback as needed.  Just do what you feel is right. 

I was planning on changing OG's red to neutral tonight, as his social media harassment seems to have calmed down after his little break a few days ago.  His account may be ? ? ? to you, but to default trust he has positive trust right now.

[OgNasty]

I was planning on changing OG's red to neutral tonight, as his social media harassment seems to have calmed down after his little break a few days ago.  His account may be ? ? ? to you, but to default trust he has positive trust right now.

Vod, you are such a lying piece of shit.  I've never contacted you using any means whatsoever outside of this forum.  I used to think you were just a troll, but after this experience I can see you have deep rooted mental issues.

[Vod]

I think the only important part is that action deserved positive trust so I left it. However I have no issues about updating my trust.

Can I ask why it deserves so much trust?   When I took a test drive last year, they didn't put me in their commercials for returning the car.  I had no choice as they knew who I was.   Sure, if OG would have been able to convert the coin to $$ without red flags, he would be a fugitive for the rest of his life.  That's hard with children.

He did what he had to - let's not make it so dramatic.  

Let's also remember he was paid very generously (6 BTC a year) to brag everywhere he had all this coin...