overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act

[Joel_Jantsen]

Out of all the people removed,Lauda was the most deserving person to be there.I hope this somehow settles with only Lauda put back to that list.In terms of forum contribution (without taking negative feedbacks left  into consideration) Lauda does  the most.

A lot of scammers will be roaming free..

[1713950390]

1713950390

[1713950390]

1713950390

[1713950390]

1713950390

[1713950390]

1713950390

[Lauda]

I hope this somehow settles with only Lauda put back to that list.

Doubtful given the situation:

HostFat excluded me because of my statements, and later ratings on bcash scammers (ratings which theymos said were valid to leave).

TC will not likely answer an inquiry (given he is/was MIA) and OgNasty's exclusions[1] are.. well I'll let you decide on that one.
[1] All of these:

       TMAN
        Lauda
        isoneguy
        aTriz
        minifrij
        EcuaMobi
        cryptodevil
        suchmoon
        owlcatz
        Zepher
        The Pharmacist
        Lutpin
        Hhampuz

Anyhow, thanks for the post (you && others).

[Cobalt9317]

Out of all the people removed,Lauda was the most deserving person to be there.I hope this somehow settles with only Lauda put back to that list.In terms of forum contribution (without taking negative feedbacks left  into consideration) Lauda does  the most.

A lot of scammers will be roaming free..

It might seem that they are free as a bird, not to mention if all the users got red tagged by Lauda create another account, I could not think what's going to happen next. *very undesirable* outcome indeed.

Nevertheless Majority attacks the minority is surely have a higher chance of winning.

[edgycorner]

A lot of scammers will be roaming free..

Not "a lot", most of them were tagged by other DT members(like ibminer,vod,etcetra).As for the others, I am sure Quickseller will come up with a good solution to filter them out.

Getting a negative trust was the most looked down thing before the tyranny of Lauda.He(it) was tagging people for their personal opinion too! Red trust was losing its value, it was turning into a cliche.

[Lauda]

Not "a lot", most of them were tagged by other DT members(like ibminer).

It is not most of them. Simple example: Most abusers from the recent alts thread are not tagged by anyone.

Getting a negative trust was the most looked down thing before the tyranny of Lauda.He(it) was tagging people for their personal opinion too! Red trust was losing its value, it was turning into a cliche.

That is a lie. The ratings that I have been leaving were proper in one way or another. Let me guess, your alts got freed?

[Joel_Jantsen]

Not "a lot", most of them were tagged by other DT members(like ibminer).As for the others, I am sure Quickseller will come up with a good solution to filter them out.

Starting from alt-accounts thread to ICO pumping accounts,I usually see comments from Lauda who investigates the matter and tags the account involved.I don't think ibminer does it on a scale as that of Lauda.

Getting a negative trust was the most looked down thing before the tyranny of Lauda.He(it) was tagging people for their personal opinion too! Red trust was losing its value, it was turning into a cliche.

Maybe you can support such statements with relevant proofs ?Also 1 case out of 100 doesn't count. I don't see how "removing Lauda" is going to restore faith & integrity in the Red trust again.

[edgycorner]

That is a lie. The ratings that I have been leaving were proper in one way or another.

I would have created a list of all such ratings, but I go to college And I am doing an internship with pretty good stipend You see, I value time and would hate to waste my only life at an online forum

Let me guess, your alts got freed?

TF dude, why would I need an alt here.Stop judging people on how "you are".

[theymos]

I don't have an opinion on this particular issue (Lauda has many good ratings, but also several that seem too trigger-happy), but I have been getting very annoyed about how centralized the trust system is. The reason that I made it a complicated trust network instead of a centralized list/database is so that it'd be decentralized and subjective.

I've been seriously thinking about reopening the idea of enforcing user-defined trust lists via suggestions, etc., deprecating DefaultTrust.

[Doc Martin]

Sweet. Lauda negged me for “lying” after I pointed out his/her past connections to alt accounts and account sales. Glad to see this bullshit doesn’t fly anymore.

[Lauda]

..Lauda has many good ratings..

Thanks.

...but also several that seem too trigger-happy..

I know. The inherent problem with DT1 members is that they just act quietly. How about sending a PM in the lines of: "Hello [InsertDT2 member], I do not agree with the following ratings XYZ because of *[insertReason]". However, no. In a lot of cases, they don't even respond at all when you message them about it.

..but I have been getting very annoyed about how centralized the trust system is...

A lot of people are.

I've been seriously thinking about reopening the idea of enforcing user-defined trust lists via suggestions, etc., deprecating DefaultTrust.

It seems to be at least somewhat better than backroom collusion(s) that we have right now. Would you mind on elaborating on:

The list below is generated automatically, so listed users are not guaranteed to be trustworthy, though the automatic process is very likely to select trustworthy users

Generated how?

Sweet. Lauda negged me for “lying” after I pointed out his/her past connections to alt accounts and account sales. Glad to see this bullshit doesn’t fly anymore.

Hello (dormant) QS army.

[edgycorner]

but I have been getting very annoyed about how centralized the trust system is.

Everyone was, thus this post.

I've been seriously thinking about reopening the idea of enforcing user-defined trust lists via suggestions, etc., deprecating DefaultTrust.

Most of the people value the forum because of how trusted user's from DT are.
Maybe add another feature to the trust system(like an orange rating) for less serious accusations.
After the removal of lauda, DT looks perfect like before.

[Doc Martin]

Right, we’re all Quickseller alts. Everyone who ever said anything ill of you.

[TMAN]

I don't have an opinion on this particular issue (Lauda has many good ratings, but also several that seem too trigger-happy), but I have been getting very annoyed about how centralized the trust system is. The reason that I made it a complicated trust network instead of a centralized list/database is so that it'd be decentralized and subjective.

I've been seriously thinking about reopening the idea of enforcing user-defined trust lists via suggestions, etc., deprecating DefaultTrust.

its simple, replace the current DT-1 members with the DT-2 members.. then allow the system to do what it is supposed to do, just because the people you set 4 years ago were the right people for the job then doesn't mean they are the right guys to fight the scammers now.

[Joel_Jantsen]

its simple, replace the current DT-1 members with the DT-2 members.. then allow the system to do what it is supposed to do, just because the people you set 4 years ago were the right people for the job then doesn't mean they are the right guys to fight the scammers now.

Which boils down to the same point again : Why would I trust some random people as part of my Default-Trust-List ? I'm afraid that you aren't getting the point conveyed by theymos.Goal is to alter the 'centralised ' nature of  the trust network regardless of iteration they follow in the list..

[Lauda]

..but I have been getting very annoyed about how centralized the trust system is...

A lot of people are.

Another example that I forgot to mention here is MemoryDealers. As a DT2 you can not neg. rate him because: a) You'd get excluded (by HostFat). b) You'd get neg. rated after he gets included. If anyone really deserved a negative rating for consistent shady behavior, then it is him.

..just because the people you set 4 years ago were the right people for the job then doesn't mean they are the right guys to fight the scammers now...

Most of them just do nothing at all (at least not if it doesn't financially benefit them).

[TMAN]

its simple, replace the current DT-1 members with the DT-2 members.. then allow the system to do what it is supposed to do, just because the people you set 4 years ago were the right people for the job then doesn't mean they are the right guys to fight the scammers now.

Which boils down to the same point again : Why would I trust some random people as part of my Default-Trust-List ? I'm afraid that you aren't getting the point conveyed by theymos.Goal is to alter the 'centralised ' nature of  the trust network regardless of iteration they follow in the list..

compare the number of DT-1 members and the number of DT-2 Members.. its the simplest way to re-jig a dated system that needs a change to fight the spam, farming & scams. Who better to be part of the new system than the guys that are actually tagging people now.

[theymos]

Generated how?

Currently it's the same as I described here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0 . That's from 2015, so maybe it could be improved. Also, instead of hard-forcing people to set trust as I described there, I think I'd instead have the trust link be red on every person, saying something like "Warning: you need to set your trust!".

[Lauda]

Generated how?

Currently it's the same as I described here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0 . That's from 2015, so maybe it could be improved.

The main/only issue[1] that I see with it right now is:

- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

This could be gamed by account farmers : a) For their benefit, i.e. that their accounts show up. b) To remove someone from showing up.

Also, instead of hard-forcing people to set trust as I described there, I think I'd instead have the trust link be red on every person, saying something like "Warning: you need to set your trust list!".

Sounds good/less intrusive.
[1] Although I'm not sure about the long term impact that it will have on fighting scams and other shady behavior. I mean, if the system gets slowly gamed (as mentioned above) this situation eventually gets more and more enforced. The more often someone shows up on there, the more likely it is that they are going to get included by someone else and the cycle repeats.
Additionally you should make it so that it does not show the people that you have already in your list (to avoid somewhat newer members from getting confused).

[Jet Cash]

Ebay killed my consideration for any trust system. I go by my own impressions of a member by reading his posting history if I need to consider "trust". It might be easier to have a list of apprved escrow members for financial transactions.

[Lauda]

It might be easier to have a list of apprved escrow members for financial transactions.

We have that here, although the list is somewhat flawed given the collusion(s) in the trust system.