DefaultTrust (DT) Network - DT1/2 Members

[ibminer]

I'm conflicted and need a reality check. I believe I'm more reserved in my approach with feedback than say Lauda or The Pharmacist, and I don't really believe theymos had intended DT to act as a cleanup crew for sig spammers on the forum, but that seems to be where this is heading, and I can't say I'm entirely against it because mods and admins have shown they do not, or cannot, get involved on a large scale with the shitposting/sig spamming.

Even though I feel like this type of work should be handled by admins & mods (and I believe they are trying), the constant crap content and one/two-liners in a lot of the larger boards certainly effects the community, and one community-based way to fight back may be the DT system, especially if signature campaign managers are using it as a guide on who can join their campaigns. However, the potential for abusing this and/or the DT system turning into a sort of "good ol' boys club" would be my fear.

This is being sanctioned by upper-level DT members who have other things to do

I'll assume Blazed is included in the comment above but I'm curious which other members may be supporting this, or at least how many support the leaving of feedback based on just the quality of a users post(s)?

I've always seen the rating of accounts based on the quality of their posts as going against the general guidelines set by theymos for the DT system, so I've always had reservations about going down this path and usually try to find more than just the quality of the post as a reason to leave feedback. It would be easier if I didn't have to do this, but I've always made it a personal responsibility.

I'm interested in hearing other opinions & thoughts on this.
If you are not comfortable posting publicly for whatever reason, PM is fine with me.

[1715406932]

1715406932

[1715406932]

1715406932

[1715406932]

1715406932

[unyil]

I do not believe with DT account, so far I know in this forum is strictly prohibited to copy / paste and I have often seen accounts that do copy / paste post or anything in this forum will be banned or just get red trust from DT account. But you can see my thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2642277.0, respectable lauda which consider himself a god who always thinks he is always right, even not issued a red ink on people who have obviously plagiarized my design. Why do members of DT not respond quickly to complaints from users who have a red trust like me? Even lauda can quickly give me a red trust because of the proof I have given https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2482301.0, I really can not accept the attitude of a DT account like that,  think of himself as god but actually he is a demon.

[arallmuus]

Why do members of DT not respond quickly to complaints from users who have a red trust like me?

Because there is another system apart from the DT system.

'FRIEND' system, as long as you are friend with any of them then they will prioritize you.   


How I missed shorena the lone DT warrior in a time like this 

[unyil]

Why do members of DT not respond quickly to complaints from users who have a red trust like me?

'FRIEND' system, as long as you are friend with any of them then they will prioritize you.   

Are you serious? feedback positive / green trust or whatever it's called can be played with a friendship relationship? If so I have spoken true.

think of himself as god but actually he is a demon.

[AdolfinWolf]

I'm conflicted and need a reality check. I believe I'm more reserved in my approach with feedback than say Lauda or The Pharmacist, and I don't really believe theymos had intended DT to act as a cleanup crew for sig spammers on the forum, but that seems to be where this is heading, and I can't say I'm entirely against it because mods and admins have shown they do not, or cannot, get involved on a large scale with the shitposting/sig spamming.

Even though I feel like this type of work should be handled by admins & mods (and I believe they are trying), the constant crap content and one/two-liners in a lot of the larger boards certainly effects the community, and one community-based way to fight back may be the DT system, especially if signature campaign managers are using it as a guide on who can join their campaigns. However, the potential for abusing this and/or the DT system turning into a sort of "good ol' boys club" would be my fear.

This is being sanctioned by upper-level DT members who have other things to do

I'll assume Blazed is included in the comment above but I'm curious which other members may be supporting this, or at least how many support the leaving of feedback based on just the quality of a users post(s)?

I've always seen the rating of accounts based on the quality of their posts as going against the general guidelines set by theymos for the DT system, so I've always had reservations about going down this path and usually try to find more than just the quality of the post as a reason to leave feedback. It would be easier if I didn't have to do this, but I've always made it a personal responsibility.

I'm interested in hearing other opinions & thoughts on this.
If you are not comfortable posting publicly for whatever reason, PM is fine with me.

I feel as if it will only be a matter of time before a number of campaigns will simply adapt to this and remove the "No red trust" rule, which will ultimately result in a lot of time being wasted and leaving the trust system even more broken/misused then it is right now.

Don't get me wrong though, I see and understand why this is happening, and wouldn't necessarily say that i am against it, however it just doesn't seem like a feasible solution in the long run to me.

[arallmuus]

Why do members of DT not respond quickly to complaints from users who have a red trust like me?

'FRIEND' system, as long as you are friend with any of them then they will prioritize you.   

Are you serious? feedback positive / green trust or whatever it's called can be played with a friendship relationship? If so I have spoken true.

think of himself as god but actually he is a demon.

Im not talking about green trust or red trust. Im just saying that your friends will obviously prioritize you over some other bunch of random guy in bitcointalk 

Wether you like or not, its the truth

[unyil]

Why do members of DT not respond quickly to complaints from users who have a red trust like me?

'FRIEND' system, as long as you are friend with any of them then they will prioritize you.   

Are you serious? feedback positive / green trust or whatever it's called can be played with a friendship relationship? If so I have spoken true.

think of himself as god but actually he is a demon.

Im not talking about green trust or red trust. Im just saying that your friends will obviously prioritize you over some other bunch of random guy in bitcointalk 

Wether you like or not, its the truth

Even I have customers that some of them have green trusts but they can not help solve my problems, I do not ask them to help but if what you say is true, I'm sure they have helped me. So basically I'm just prejudiced if they're afraid of getting a red trust if they help me, because I have a red trust on my profile.

Is that a joke? I think no.

[HodorHodl]

My thoughts on this are here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2806313.0

It's out of hand.

[unyil]

Wow amazing! Thank you very much ibminer


This is what I want from DT members, can behave fairly on all members in the forum. I know lauda nobody pays to give me a red trust, but why can not he give his red ink to someone who is obviously plagiarized my design. Do you hate me?

[Joel_Jantsen]

Fun Fact : Out of 100 people tagged by The Pharmacist,80 of them think the feedback isn't fair because they 'can't participate in signature campaigns anymore'. Honestly,if one is on the forum just to participate in the signature campaigns,they shouldn't be here.

I admit The Pharmacist is a bit harsh on them but everyone has their level of tolerance right ? Also majority of the feedback he had given was before getting added to the DT.Now if that feedback really bothered why didn't the spammers make a scene about him then ? Because they knew the untrusted feedback wouldn't stop them from participating in the signature campaigns.

Lately another account actmyname got added to the DT list who I believe is also involved in tagging such accounts.Meanwhile I truly support the 'fights against the spammers' but forming a group of DT accounts to attack particular 'type' of members is not encouraging.

[Lauda]

I'm conflicted and need a reality check. I believe I'm more reserved in my approach with feedback than say Lauda or The Pharmacist, and I don't really believe theymos had intended DT to act as a cleanup crew for sig spammers on the forum, but that seems to be where this is heading, and I can't say I'm entirely against it because mods and admins have shown they do not, or cannot, get involved on a large scale with the shitposting/sig spamming.

Whilst I don't really do it, I have no problem with it.

However, the potential for abusing this and/or the DT system turning into a sort of "good ol' boys club" would be my fear.

That would be true if the user leaving the rating had something to gain from it. E.g., I don't see how The Pharmacist would benefit from tagging random shitposters. Therefore, I find it unlikely that your fear would become true unless he/she went on a ego rampage but that wouldn't last long (easily noticed, easily fixed).

I'll assume Blazed is included in the comment above but I'm curious which other members may be supporting this, or at least how many support the leaving of feedback based on just the quality of a users post(s)?

I wouldn't label people who are neutral to it and support it in the same group. I, e.g., support it whilst I believe Blazed and hilariousandco (if I've read his recent post correctly) just *don't mind it given the current situation*.

I'm interested in hearing other opinions & thoughts on this.

This is somewhat pointless if all you're going to get is: a) Mostly positives from people who are fed up with the shitposting. b) Mostly negatives from the users that are shitposting and/or have been tagged for other peoples. c) A few, rare, libertarian bs negatives.

Meanwhile I truly support the 'fights against the spammers' but forming a group of DT accounts to attack particular 'type' of members is not encouraging.

That's generally a bad idea due to bias and prejudice that would build up over time.

[HodorHodl]

Fun Fact : Out of 100 people tagged by The Pharmacist,80 of them think the feedback isn't fair because they 'can't participate in signature campaigns anymore'. Honestly,if one is on the forum just to participate in the signature campaigns,they shouldn't be here.

I admit The Pharmacist is a bit harsh on them but everyone has their level of tolerance right ? Also majority of the feedback he had given was before getting added to the DT.Now if that feedback really bothered why didn't the spammers make a scene about him then ? Because they knew the untrusted feedback wouldn't stop them from participating in the signature campaigns.

Lately another account actmyname got added to the DT list who I believe is also involved in tagging such accounts.Meanwhile I truly support the 'fights against the spammers' but forming a group of DT accounts to attack particular 'type' of members is not encouraging.

Fun Fact for you, friend: This means that 20 out of 100 are tagged unfairly.

I work in engineering and mathematical modelling, and I can tell you that a 20% fail rate is UNACCEPTABLE.

He's abusing it. And you only need to look at the top 20 topics on the Meta board to have proof.

[actmyname]

Fun Fact for you, friend: This means that 20 out of 100 are tagged unfairly.

How did you get this number?

"80 of them think the feedback isn't fair because they can't participate in signature campaigns anymore" ≠ 20 of them were unfairly tagged. There isn't even any logical sense in your statement.

He's abusing it. And you only need to look at the top 20 topics on the Meta board to have proof.

Selection bias. The loudest ones will complain. And they're usually shitposters.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Fun Fact for you, friend: This means that 20 out of 100 are tagged unfairly.

Those numbers are a clearly an assumption.Over hypothetical as I call it.The said 20 accounts are always free to ask the DT members and get the feedback revised if at all it is unfair according to the community standards.

I work in engineering and mathematical modelling, and I can tell you that a 20% fail rate is UNACCEPTABLE.

Depends on the consequences.Let's not get too technical.I would beat you to it.

He's abusing it. And you only need to look at the top 20 topics on the Meta board to have proof.

Who Am I to judge ?  

That's generally a bad idea due to bias and prejudice that would build up over time.

I concur.

[Maum]

I repeat my suggestion:  Keep  censorships about post quality away from feedback system as it was considered by theymos.

 

[ibminer]

Why do members of DT not respond quickly to complaints from users who have a red trust like me?

DT members are basically just users of this community that are trusted by theymos or the various DT1 members. They are not held to any different set of rules or requirements because they are not admins or mods of this forum, they do not get paid, and they really do not have any obligation to respond to you at all. Your chances of being responded to are reduced quite a bit when you are red from negative feedback by other DT members.

I feel as if it will only be a matter of time before a number of campaigns will simply adapt to this and remove the "No red trust" rule, which will ultimately result in a lot of time being wasted and leaving the trust system even more broken/misused then it is right now.

Don't get me wrong though, I see and understand why this is happening, and wouldn't necessarily say that i am against it, however it just doesn't seem like a feasible solution in the long run to me.

This did cross my mind... they certainly could remove their 'no red trust' rule but with the current conditions I'd foresee campaign managers being fearful of doing this because then they would then be running poorly managed campaigns that encourage or support spammers, which I assume would justify this same type of feedback being left on their own accounts, damaging their own reputation. It might be more likely that campaign managers themselves start excluding specific DT members from their own trust view to de-validate the red from those members, which may result in some of the outcomes you mentioned... but I assume would still lead to DT members tagging the managers.

I wouldn't label people who are neutral to it and support it in the same group. I, e.g., support it whilst I believe Blazed and hilariousandco (if I've read his recent post correctly) just *don't mind it given the current situation*.

I guess I'd like to know who is neutral to it and who supports it then... if the majority of DT1 members are neutral to it given the current circumstances of post quality, this is good information I'd like to have.

This is somewhat pointless if all you're going to get is: a) Mostly positives from people who are fed up with the shitposting. b) Mostly negatives from the users that are shitposting and/or have been tagged for other peoples. c) A few, rare, libertarian bs negatives.

I'm mainly trying to evaluate my own guidelines/criteria for leaving feedback but I'm fine hearing from A), B), and certainly C) in your list... although I'll likely not react to most of the B) group.
And what's wrong with libertarianism??  

[MadZ]

Personally, I won't be leaving negative feedback for low post quality, but I can understand why some feel the need to. Low post quality is definitely a big problem for the forum, but it's just not what the trust system was intended for. In my opinion, negative trust should only be left for people you feel are actually untrustworthy- scammers or would-be-scammers. I try to be fairly reserved with my ratings as well, since they carry more weight than your average feedback. Being unable to speak coherent English doesn't meet this standard in my eyes, although I would consider leaving neutral feedback if signature campaigns took note of it. Overall though, I don't have a problem with others in DT who feel stronger towards it and leave full negative ratings.

[Blazed]

There is not really much communication between Default Trust people that I am aware of (no good ol' boys club). I have reached out the Theymos to get his opinion regarding negative trust and shit posting. This forum has become pretty much useless with the mindless posting for pay that happens. I do not think campaigns will start adding negative trusted users, but eventually they will probably stop advertising here since it is all garbage posts and good users will keep leaving.

[HodorHodl]

He's abusing it. And you only need to look at the top 20 topics on the Meta board to have proof.

Who Am I to judge ?  

This is exactly the problem.

You sit there with your title of Legendary member - legendary for what? Posting shite for a long time?

And then you lie back and allow this forum to turn into a fucking despotic bro-fest?

Cretin.

[Scam Exposey]

Good point there ibminer these furom will look crap if chosen member will abuse the system.

Certain abuse will continue if this issue will not address by same as you since (no good ol'' boys club) has one sided mind and they doesn' t listen to any explanation unless the one who explain are guys who have benifits the same them.