DT1 users may be artificially increasing their own trust (Updated March 26th)

[Annon001]

It's understandable users will add to their trust list several people they've traded with. It's likely trust may have been exchanged with several of them
However for DT1 members there's a conflict of interests because adding those users will increase their own trust. They should avoid doing that more so than regular users
This is especially unacceptable if a considerable percentage of those users were added only by that DT1 user

I've checked all DT1 members for this behaviour and all of them (except Maged) increased their own trust score
It's acceptable to increase it by a few points, 15% or even 20%. I would consider that normal
However using this trick to increase their own score by 10+ unique trusts (eventually 100+ trust points) or by 35% or more shows it was intentional

There are 2 DT1 members who have manipulated their trust list to increase their own trust by 10 and even 22 unique trusts (100 or 220 points) totalling 40% and 440%!
They should immediately remove those users from their trust lists (and thus from DT2) or they should be removed themselves from DT1
DT1 members should not use their special powers to manipulate the system and appear more trusted than they really are

Here's the complete data for every DT1 user. This is obtained by checking their trust with default settings (only DefaultTrust) and compare it when explicitly excluding that specific user from the trust list (i.e. DefaultTrust and ~DT1user). The difference shows the artificial increase in trust due to them adding users to DT2.

The following information is included:
  DT1 username
  Trust with default settings
  Trust ~excluding the DT1 user (i.e. without counting DT2 additions made by that DT1 user)
  Trust artificially increased (percentage of increase)

MARCH 26th	MARCH 20th
hilariousandco 58: -0 / +8 50: -0 / +7 +8: +1 (14.3%)	hilariousandco 57: -0 / +7 50: -0 / +6 +7: +1 (16.7%)
dooglus 134: -0 / +14 114: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)	dooglus 134: -0 / +14 114: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)
Maged 30: -0 / +3 30: -0 / +3 +0: +0 (0%)	Maged 30: -0 / +3 30: -0 / +3 +0: +0 (0%)
dserrano5 10: -0 / +1 0: -0 / +0 +10: +1 (inf%)	dserrano5 10: -0 / +1 0: -0 / +0 +10: +1 (inf%) (Huge percentage, but only one unique trust)
Tomatocage 210: -0 / +21 150: -0 / +15 +60: +6 (40%)	Tomatocage 220: -0 / +22 160: -0 / +16 +60: +6 (37.5%)
SaltySpitoon 140: -0 / +14 120: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)	SaltySpitoon 140: -0 / +14 120: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)
philipma1957* 105: -0 / +11 105: -0 / +11 +0: +0 (0%)	philipma1957 260: -0 / +27 45: -0 / +5 +215: +22 (440%)
Cyrus 62: -0 / +7 42: -0 / +5 +20: +2 (40%)	Cyrus 62: -0 / +7 42: -0 / +5 +20: +2 (40%)
Blazed 304: -0 / +31 255: -0 / +26 +49: +5 (19.2%)	Blazed 334: -0 / +34 285: -0 / +29 +49: +5 (17.2%)
theymos 161: -0 / +17 141: -0 / +15 +20: +2 (13.3%)	theymos 160: -0 / +17 140: -0 / +15 +20: +2 (13.3%)
HostFat 40: -0 / +4 0: -0 / +0 +40: +4 (inf%)	HostFat 40: -0 / +4 0: -0 / +0 +40: +4 (inf%) (Huge percentage, but only 4 unique trust)
OgNasty 298: -0 / +31 194: -0 / +20 +104: +11 (55%)	OgNasty 338: -0 / +35 244: -0 / +25 +94: +10 (40%)

* philipma1957's trust without counting his own trust list has greatly increased (from 45 to 105) during the last week because OgNasty added several users who were initially added only by philipma1957. Besides this change out of philipma1957's control, he made a huge change in his list which produced his trust with default settings to drop from 260 to 105 (and it would be even less without the mentioned change made by OgNasty)


I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

[1714910557]

1714910557

[1714910557]

1714910557

[1714910557]

1714910557

[LFC_Bitcoin]

There’s going to be fireworks in here.....

[OgNasty]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

[Jet Cash]

I'm probably unusual in that I completely ignore trust. I don't do any trading, apart from a few domain names, and those tend to be run through an escrow service. I thought trust was about trading, and money exchanges, but it seems to be a lot more here. I'm not sure that I understand it's purpose. It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

[Lauda]

Well, to get a clearer picture you might want to look at whether someone was included before or after leaving positive trust to their "superior". For example, I don't remember exactly when Blazed added me to their trust list but I haven't left them a rating until 06-20-2017. I am not completely sure about my rating on hilariousandco; it may have been posted after I got added which would nullify his case.

It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

[mdayonliner]

I'm probably unusual in that I completely ignore trust. I don't do any trading, apart from a few domain names, and those tend to be run through an escrow service. I thought trust was about trading, and money exchanges, but it seems to be a lot more here. I'm not sure that I understand it's purpose. It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

I really do not understand these DT1, DT2 etc things. Can anyone enlighten me please. I saw people send trust for others if they are not trust worthy. I really interested to know actually what is the purpose of trust things and how to find these DT1, DT2 etc things. A link of the details should be fine for me.

Thanks

[akamit]

I'm probably unusual in that I completely ignore trust. I don't do any trading, apart from a few domain names, and those tend to be run through an escrow service. I thought trust was about trading, and money exchanges, but it seems to be a lot more here. I'm not sure that I understand it's purpose. It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

Trust system is all about trust rating of a user who should earn it by trading or any activity where money involved, nothing more nothing less in my opinion.

But now it is what you have mentioned > It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

Btw op, once I left a rating for philipma1957, and I'm not in his trust network. He earned it for his nice work, that was a way of expressing appreciation.

[owlcatz]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

Seriously? You abuse and diddle the system with your buddy Quickscammer all the time. Quit playing dumb and btw, are you ever going to answer my scam accusation about whether or not you sent that PM to Michael Silver? You also negged minifrij yesterday for nothing, then bragged about it to all your minions. That's not abuse? LOL, you are such a fool, and everyone will finally see it eventually.

This is the most trustworthy user here? FFS, really?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677479#msg32677479

[minifrij]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...

The idea is to add users that contribute to the trust network, not just users that you trust. If you trust someone, give them a positive rating.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...

I have no idea why Tomatocage isn't listed as such, however in the case of Cyrus and Hostfat I'd expect it has to do with their low trust score after the fact - as mentioned in the post.

(Huge percentage, but only 4 unique trust)

Someone giving themselves +1 rating, while not necessarily right to do, is less damaging than someone giving themselves +20.

[Quickseller]

The only real concern I see here is the number of additional ratings that philipma1957 has as a result of his own trust list.

After CITM was removed, more people were added to the DT network, and I am fairly confident that those trusted directly by DefaultTrust are more conscientious of not adding too many people who have given them positive ratings, although this is sometimes unavoidable.

What is more concerning is the one or two "DT1" members who have a trust list made up of people who have given eachother positive ratings. 

[Blazed]

Looks like Blazed has a pretty low and respectable %...what a great guy! I guess it would be pretty easy to pump up my overall ratings, but honestly to what end? Having a high score for pretty much most of the DT1 users makes no difference. I do not think anyone trusts me more if my score were 300 or 600?

[Annon001]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

The goal is to add users who leave correct trust without abuse, helping others to recognize trusted users from scammers
If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

I considered the percentage but even more the total amount of added trust points. You are red because you added 94 points (soon to be 100) to yourself. Specifically you've added 12 users not added by any other DT1 member (i.e. they are DT2 only because of you) and 10 of them left positive trust to you (83%). It's more than obvious the fact they added positive trust to you is a very important factor for you to decide to make them DT2

I wasn't sure if Tomatocage had to be orange or red, I had to put the limit somewhere. Imagine he is red too if that makes you feel better. Anyhow besides philipma1957 and you it's clear Tomatocage, Cyrus and maybe HostFat and Blazed should do something to prevent this conflict of interest

[owlcatz]

The goal is supposed to be to add users to your network that you trust in order to decentralize the network...  Not really a measure of abuse.  theymos has even encouraged us to add users to decentralize the network by voicing his displeasure with the centralization.

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

The goal is to add users who leave correct trust without abuse, helping others to recognize trusted users from scammers
If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

I considered the percentage but even more the total amount of added trust points. You are red because you added 94 points (soon to be 100) to yourself. Specifically you've added 12 users not added by any other DT1 member (i.e. they are DT2 only because of you) and 10 of them left positive trust to you (83%). It's more than obvious the fact they added positive trust to you is a very important factor for you to decide to make them DT2

I wasn't sure if Tomatocage had to be orange or red, I had to put the limit somewhere. Imagine he is red too if that makes you feel better. Anyhow besides philipma1957 and you it's clear Tomatocage, Cyrus and maybe HostFat and Blazed should do something to prevent this conflict of interest

I wouldn't bother. This pussy ass fucktwit won't do anything. See my ratings for him if you don't believe me. He never admits any wrongdoing, and is a blatant trust abuser and outright narcissistic prick.

Besides he still refuses to answer one basic question - DID YOU SEND THIS PM TO SILVER815 Siccing scammed users from your escrow thread on me for ZERO reason? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677479#msg32677479

YES OR NO??? !!!!

Thanks!

PS - You will just feel dumber after reading all his bullshit. Don't bother... LOL

[TMAN]

Typical OG move - Deflect and attack.. with a little bit of persecution mixed in..

Strange that I'm listed as a clear trust abuser along with someone that is 400% higher than I am in his "artificially increased" rating while Hostfat, Cyrus, & Tomatocage are all within a few % of me or infinitely higher and aren't...  Seems like someone here is trying to grind an axe against me or something?

The goal is to add users who leave correct trust without abuse, helping others to recognize trusted users from scammers
If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

I considered the percentage but even more the total amount of added trust points. You are red because you added 94 points (soon to be 100) to yourself. Specifically you've added 12 users not added by any other DT1 member (i.e. they are DT2 only because of you) and 10 of them left positive trust to you (83%). It's more than obvious the fact they added positive trust to you is a very important factor for you to decide to make them DT2

Anyhow besides philipma1957 and you it's clear Tomatocage, Cyrus and maybe HostFat and Blazed should do something to prevent this conflict of interest

So OG is using the trust system for personal gain? I count that as trust abuse.. maybe theymos can chime in here with his views? it would be great if he could clarify if this personal gaming of the system is how he intended the trust system to be used? if not Blazed as the truly most trusted member of this forum could act out and pull an OG move by adding the magic ~ before a few peoples names?

[Quickseller]

If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

That might be your opinion, however your account was created today, and you have two posts, so your opinion is worthless. (your motivations are transparent). You can present an argument as to why your opinion is right, or you can shut up.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are vouching for their integrity, and obviously trust ratings. In order to do this, you must have somehow gotten to know this person, and have observed their behavior. This is fairly easy for moderators and admins because this is closely aligned with their normal job duties as a moderator, hence why (in part) the moderators among those trusted directly by DefaultTrust have few people on their trust lists who have given them positive trust ratings. Those who are not moderators, generally must interact with those they add to their trust lists directly in order to properly evaluate if it is appropriate to do so - one of the easiest ways to be able to make this evaluation is to trade with the person under competitive terms (and/or otherwise collaborate with the person), which will often result in positive trust being exchanged, especially after multiple transactions, so it should be expected for non-moderators to have positive trust from those on their trust list.

If you are a moderator and have not traded with many people on your trust list, or otherwise interacted with them, then there is a good chance you are adding a bunch of strangers to your trust list.

[TMAN]

If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

That might be your opinion, however your account was created today, and you have two posts, so your opinion is worthless. (your motivations are transparent). You can present an argument as to why your opinion is right, or you can shut up.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are vouching for their integrity, and obviously trust ratings. In order to do this, you must have somehow gotten to know this person, and have observed their behavior. This is fairly easy for moderators and admins because this is closely aligned with their normal job duties as a moderator, hence why (in part) the moderators among those trusted directly by DefaultTrust have few people on their trust lists who have given them positive trust ratings. Those who are not moderators, generally must interact with those they add to their trust lists directly in order to properly evaluate if it is appropriate to do so - one of the easiest ways to be able to make this evaluation is to trade with the person under competitive terms (and/or otherwise collaborate with the person), which will often result in positive trust being exchanged, especially after multiple transactions, so it should be expected for non-moderators to have positive trust from those on their trust list.

If you are a moderator and have not traded with many people on your trust list, or otherwise interacted with them, then there is a good chance you are adding a bunch of strangers to your trust list.

Annon001's opinion is worth more than yours QS, all you seem to do is come running when anyone points out absolutely anything controversial about your master OG..

it is obvious to anyone with an IQ of over 60 that OG is gaming the system here, but yet again you come in and attack and try to deflect the pertinent issue

[Annon001]

If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

That might be your opinion, however your account was created today, and you have two posts, so your opinion is worthless. (your motivations are transparent). You can present an argument as to why your opinion is right, or you can shut up.

When you add a person to your trust list, you are vouching for their integrity, and obviously trust ratings. In order to do this, you must have somehow gotten to know this person, and have observed their behavior. This is fairly easy for moderators and admins because this is closely aligned with their normal job duties as a moderator, hence why (in part) the moderators among those trusted directly by DefaultTrust have few people on their trust lists who have given them positive trust ratings. Those who are not moderators, generally must interact with those they add to their trust lists directly in order to properly evaluate if it is appropriate to do so - one of the easiest ways to be able to make this evaluation is to trade with the person under competitive terms (and/or otherwise collaborate with the person), which will often result in positive trust being exchanged, especially after multiple transactions, so it should be expected for non-moderators to have positive trust from those on their trust list.

If you are a moderator and have not traded with many people on your trust list, or otherwise interacted with them, then there is a good chance you are adding a bunch of strangers to your trust list.

Yes my motivations are completely transparent: I want DT1 members to stop abusing their powers, especially (in this order) philipma1957, OgNasty and Tomatocage
I have presented my arguments (i.e. facts) along with my opinions and continue to do so. I don't try to start a fight. I ask you to read these arguments and refrain from attacking me with your "shut up"

Of course when you add someone to your trust list it's very likely you've dealt with him and positive trust has been exchanged, I said exactly so in OP (please read it). However there's a conflict of interest which should be avoided as much as honestly possible.
While trust may have been exchanged, it's not a requirement for that to happen. You can realize someone leaves valid and helpful trust by reading what he posts and what feedback he leaves, with what arguments and references. Actually this is a better method than dealing with him because here we're talking about the trust they leave, not if they can be trusted with money.

Maybe this process is somewhat easier for moderators but of course you don't have to be a moderator to make that little research, it's based on public information. Besides a honest DT1 user can just ask those added to DT2 just by him to leave him neutral feedback (if at all), that's a simple request without negative consequences. Conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible, that's true for anyone with power, here and IRL. This conflict of interests happens only because they are DT1. That's not the case for other users. That's why another solution would be for them to be removed from DT1 so they can keep acting as a regular user without any issues. If they are on DT1 then their main reason to add someone to their trust list should be helping the forum, not themselves

So it's definitely normal to expect DT1 members to add some users they've exchanged positive trust with but definitely not more than half. The 440% increase of trust made by philipma1957, the +94 points added by OgNasty (along with the fact 83% of users he's added to DT2 left positive trust to him) or the +60 points added by Tomatocage are definitely wrong

[SaltySpitoon]

Looks like Blazed has a pretty low and respectable %...what a great guy! I guess it would be pretty easy to pump up my overall ratings, but honestly to what end? Having a high score for pretty much most of the DT1 users makes no difference. I do not think anyone trusts me more if my score were 300 or 600?

I hear that SaltySpitoon fella is pretty solid as well  but joking aside, the quality of a person's feedback and the users it is from are more important than some numerical score. Having a +10 from Theymos is probably more telling than +100 from 10 random people. At a certain point, I really don't think the number matters all that much.

It is an interesting metric, but there are a lot of reasons why you can't necessarily draw conclusions from this alone. For example, each person's marketplace presence. Phillipma has a pretty large presence in the computer hardware section (if I'm not mistaken, I'm not looking up post history now, just recalling this from memory), Ognasty and Blazed in the Collectibles sections, myself in the Goods/Collectibles sections, and the others not as much. The 15-20% that you are calling normal seems to be about the standard for those not as heavily involved in the marketplace sections, so what does that mean about people who are getting tons of feedback for trades they are doing?

As you said in your OP, there is also some consideration to the nature of how a relationship starts. I have a couple of people on my trust list that I would never have known had I not traded with them, so to a certain extent its inevitable. The real metric for who you should trust to add to your trust list, are people that you believe will leave accurate feedback for others and act fairly.

And finally, usergroups kind of just establish themselves in boards where people frequent. The Alt coin sections have pump/dump groups, the ICO hunter groups, etc. Another example is the weird cult of people that have established themselves in the collectibles section. If you find yourself in one of those groups, by interacting with them, you'll probably find people you trust to add to your trust list. More so than just following the posts of a user you agree with in the speculation section. If that group was formed in a section that facilitates trades, your % I'd imagine would get higher.

Phillipma is indeed a large outlier, but this thread serves as the smoke to warrant further investigation, not necessarily something to draw conclusions from. I'm really tired so ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes, I write walls of text and proofreading is more than I'm up to right now.

[Quickseller]

Maybe this process is somewhat easier for moderators but of course you don't have to be a moderator to make that little research, it's based on public information.

A moderator will likely see reports from users in their trust list, which may play a role in deciding if they can be trusted or not. There also may be non-public information in the staff section about certain users.

Conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible, that's true for anyone with power, here and IRL.

I agree with your statement, however I disagree with your conclusion that this presents a conflict of interest.

With the exception of philipma1957, I don't think the change in trust score reasonably changes the community perception of how trusted these people are.

Except for hilariousandco, and SaltySpitoon I don't think any of the staff members engages in any meaningful trades on behalf of themselves, so their trust scores are arguably irrelevant. One could also argue that their global moderator tags contribute more to their ability to be trusted than their trust score realistically would.

Although dooglus has been involved in very shady activity, he has handled tens of millions of dollars (when bitcoin was in the low triple digits) worth of other's bitcoin, and returned said money when his website shut down. If someone is doing their research on dooglus, his trust score will probably be a very small factor.

Both tomatocage and OgNasty have handled millions of dollars of other people's money (over time), and have for a long time been arguably the most trusted members in the community, and their increased trust scores do not change that.

I would be more concerned about DT1 members adding people to their trust list, and the result is certain 3rd parties' trust scores are inflated substantially. This could be an indication that a DT1 member is using their trust list to increase the trust score of either their sockpuppet, or a potential accomplice in a later scam, and/or is giving certain users credibility that may not be warranted. This is much less transparent than what you are describing, and has the potential to cause damage multiple times.

[hilariousandco]

Well, to get a clearer picture you might want to look at whether someone was included before or after leaving positive trust to their "superior". For example, I don't remember exactly when Blazed added me to their trust list but I haven't left them a rating until 06-20-2017. I am not completely sure about my rating on hilariousandco; it may have been posted after I got added which would nullify his case.

It was left after. I added you on July 11 2017.

[Jet Cash]

It is an interesting metric, but there are a lot of reasons why you can't necessarily draw conclusions from this alone. For example, each person's marketplace presence. Phillipma has a pretty large presence in the computer hardware section (if I'm not mistaken, I'm not looking up post history now, just recalling this from memory), Ognasty and Blazed in the Collectibles sections, myself in the Goods/Collectibles sections, and the others not as much.

I'd love to be active in the domain name sales section. Unfortunately there isn't one, and digital goods is full of stuff that gets bumped but doesn't appear to sell.

The sale of vitual assets, and the acceptance of Bitcoin in settlement, is one area where trust could be really helpful.

[LoyceV]

theymos
160: -0 / +17
140: -0 / +15
+20: +2 (13.3%)

How does one become DT1? I always assumed they were hand-picked by theymos, which would put him at 100% by definition (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just stating the obvious here).

It is an interesting metric, but there are a lot of reasons why you can't necessarily draw conclusions from this alone. For example, each person's marketplace presence. Phillipma has a pretty large presence in the computer hardware section (if I'm not mistaken, I'm not looking up post history now, just recalling this from memory), Ognasty and Blazed in the Collectibles sections, myself in the Goods/Collectibles sections, and the others not as much.

I've noticed before that many of the dark green trusted people are very active trading physical items, and earned most of their trust in those sections. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that can quite easily be farmed: buy some items from the right people now, and a year later you're at +80 or more!
I've also seen people receive green trust for participating in an escrow deal. The whole reason to use escrow is because they aren't trusted in the first place, so they shouldn't become more trusted after the deal.

[hilariousetc]

How does one become DT1? I always assumed they were hand-picked by theymos, which would put him at 100% by definition (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just stating the obvious here).

Theymos is in charge of adding people to DT1.

I've noticed before that many of the dark green trusted people are very active trading physical items, and earned most of their trust in those sections. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that can quite easily be farmed: buy some items from the right people now, and a year later you're at +80 or more!

People obviously do just do trades with the right people to get trusted feedback. The easiest to abuse though are people selling digital goods for fairly cheap and that is what was happening with TheButterZone's emails he was selling. The vast majority - if not all - the people who purchased them had likely just worked out they could buy a cheap 'green feedback' from him. Buying physical goods is much more expensive and you have to give out personal information that exposes you which is something I wouldn't want to do here for obvious reasons.

[Jet Cash]

Buying physical goods is much more expensive and you have to give out personal information that exposes you which is something I wouldn't want to do here for obvious reasons.

That isn't completely true. I can transfer a domain name to you without any information at all other than your registrar account name. This is true even if the name is worth several thosands of pounds ( or dollars ). It's called a registrar push, and I can order it through my registration panel just by entering your account name. I don't need any other details. I've got two stage verification, and locking on my names to prevent theft, but that is related to my account, and is not related to the gaining account.

[LoyceV]

People obviously do just do trades with the right people to get trusted feedback. The easiest to abuse though are people selling digital goods for fairly cheap and that is what was happening with TheButterZone's emails he was selling. The vast majority - if not all - the people who purchased them had likely just worked out they could buy a cheap 'green feedback' from him.

Based on checking his feedback, he hasn't sold any email forwarding since he was removed from DT2. That confirms your theory as of why people bought it.

Buying physical goods is much more expensive and you have to give out personal information that exposes you which is something I wouldn't want to do here for obvious reasons.

That isn't completely true. I can transfer a domain name to you without any information at all other than your registrar account name.

I wouldn't call a domain naim a physical good. Those are things you can touch after they arrive at your real shipping address.

[Frij]

That isn't completely true. I can transfer a domain name to you without any information at all other than your registrar account name...

A domain isn't a physical good. I expect that hilarious is referring more to places like the 'Collectibles' subforum, where actual physical items are bought and sold.

Based on checking his feedback, he hasn't sold any email forwarding since he was removed from DT2. That confirms your theory as of why people bought it.

It's likely a similar story to what happened with bigtimespaghetti and his coin making guide.

[Jet Cash]

My apologies to Hilarious and the forum. Of course a domain name isn't a physical item. That will teach me to post whilst I am listening to YouTube.

I was listening to a report on the death of the last male white rhino, and I got fairly stressed over it.

[FFrankie]

People obviously do just do trades with the right people to get trusted feedback. The easiest to abuse though are people selling digital goods for fairly cheap and that is what was happening with TheButterZone's emails he was selling. The vast majority - if not all - the people who purchased them had likely just worked out they could buy a cheap 'green feedback' from him.

Based on checking his feedback, he hasn't sold any email forwarding since he was removed from DT2. That confirms your theory as of why people bought it.

Buying physical goods is much more expensive and you have to give out personal information that exposes you which is something I wouldn't want to do here for obvious reasons.

That isn't completely true. I can transfer a domain name to you without any information at all other than your registrar account name.

I wouldn't call a domain naim a physical good. Those are things you can touch after they arrive at your real shipping address.

How can you say that TBZ hasn't sold any emails forwarding service since he was removed?

There are plenty of newbis that buy goods in the physical and don't get any trust

[LoyceV]

How can you say that TBZ hasn't sold any emails forwarding service since he was removed?

There are plenty of newbis that buy goods in the physical and don't get any trust

My assumption was based on TBZ leaving trust after a deal, but you're right, it's non-conclusive.

[suchmoon]

OP, you might be on to something but this needs work.

Making philipma1957 look like an example of some sort of abuse is quite ridiculous I think. He trades a lot, many here know his real name and address, AFAIK he even does re-shipping escrow. Basically what you're saying is that he should not deal with people in his trust list, or discourage them from posting positive trust for him, or not add people he's dealt with to his list just because of that. I don't see how that would improve the DT, quite the contrary I think. Phil's personal score is largely irrelevant anyway.

Do we know the date of when someone gets added to a trust list? I guess those who download trust dumps regularly could figure this out. Maybe that needs to be accounted for.

[Quickseller]

Buying physical goods is much more expensive and you have to give out personal information that exposes you which is something I wouldn't want to do here for obvious reasons.

Plenty of people who deal in physical goods use either a PO box or a drop shipping address, both of which are used in the regular course of business by many and it is generally trivial to obtain either of these without disclosing you identity.

Some people in the collectibles section also often have coins shipped to a third party, sometimes with the intent of the third party forewarding the coin to them, other times it appears they are making a proxy and/or straw purchase. Often times it is unclear that both physical transfer ownership transfer occurs in sales. I have also occasionally seen coins won in an auction only to have the buyer pay for the coin, have the seller not ship the coin and immediately list the coin for sale as being shipped from the original seller.

[hilariousetc]

Theymos should probably consider tweaking the algorithm slightly. 'Micro-transactions' or deals of small amounts probably shouldn't count for much if anything at all and certainly shouldn't be giving people a +1 or 'green' feedack because it just leads to users seeking out doing certain deals as cheaply as possible purely for the feedback. As for escrow deals, maybe neutral feedback would be more appropriate.

OP, you might be on to something but this needs work.

Making philipma1957 look like an example of some sort of abuse is quite ridiculous I think.

I haven't looked into who he's added and for what, but people shouldn't really be added to DT just for doing one or two trades with them. People who have done this in the past have been removed from DT and rightly so. I think the feedbacks that person has left for others should carry just as much weight as the deals they have done with that person. If a person has only really left a few feedbacks then they're largely useless in the grand scheme of the network.

Plenty of people who deal in physical goods use either a PO box or a drop shipping address, both of which are used in the regular course of business by many and it is generally trivial to obtain either of these without disclosing you identity.

Some people in the collectibles section also often have coins shipped to a third party, sometimes with the intent of the third party forewarding the coin to them, other times it appears they are making a proxy and/or straw purchase. Often times it is unclear that both physical transfer ownership transfer occurs in sales. I have also occasionally seen coins won in an auction only to have the buyer pay for the coin, have the seller not ship the coin and immediately list the coin for sale as being shipped from the original seller.

PO boxes are usually very expensive (or at least they are here) and you need several forms of ID to prevent people using them for shenanigans. It wouldn't really be worth it just for the casual user, but if I had to buy something from here though I certainly wouldn't get it shipped straight to me.

[Jet Cash]

Theymos should probably consider tweaking the algorithm slightly. 'Micro-transactions' or deals of small amounts probably shouldn't count for much if anything at all and certainly shouldn't be giving people a +1 or 'green' feedack because it just leads to users seeking out doing certain deals as cheaply as possible purely for the feedback. As for escrow deals, maybe neutral feedback would be more appropriate.

Or even free "transactions". I've got some positives on another forum for giving domain names to other members without charge. They were names that I was going to let drop, so they were of no value to me anyway, but they have given me a positive rating. In this case the rating is really a bit meaningless.

[philipma1957]

I love this forum  and frankly  I don"t care about the trust rating I have.

As far as I am concerned I have pruned that list over and over and over and over again.

and I will prune it again. Today  right now

As for the newbie that started the thread  why don't  you come out from the shadows and let us know  whom  or who you are?






I have many  trusts I left out  look here:

over 70  to count them

Code:

Untrusted feedback

These ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate.


User	Date	Risked BTC amount	Reference	Comments
thesourc3	2018-03-20	0.00000000		Donated a $100 Bitmain coupon, came through within hours. I appreciate it!

MagicSmoker	2018-03-05	0.00350000		My first transaction with a Bitcointalk member couldn't have gone smoother!

bill gator	2018-02-18	0.06600000	Reference	Acted very cool when it took me a bit to get payment in order and then went out of their way to accommodate me in multiple ways. Highly recommend, didn't even think to use escrow for over $700.

Caveman-Vegas	2018-02-13	0.22000000	Reference	Another great escrow with Phil. Quick responses, very easy to work with. I highly recommend his services.

Caveman-Vegas	2018-02-09	20.00000000		Philip was the escrow for a transaction I did— I was the buyer. Everything went flawlessly. 

Thank you!

JaredKaragen	2018-01-30	0.00550000	Reference	Purchased a processor. Prompt replies and shipping info given. I would definitely do business with Phil again in the future.

Raymond_B	2018-01-26	0.05000000		Purchased a GTX 1070ti from Phil, it was promptly shipped and delivered. Thank you!

BenRickert	2018-01-25	1.50000000		I purchased an Antminer S9 from Philipma1957 directly. I've had previous experiences dealing with him that gave me confidence to trust him. I sent him the LTC payment prior to the miner arriving at his residence, knowing it was arriving 2-3 hours later. It did, and Philip immediately took it to the UPS location and shipped it in a double box, unopened from the original 
Bitmain packaging. It arrived on schedule and is hashing away as I type. Philipma is 100% trustworthy and always goes the extra mile.
akamit	2018-01-22	0.00000000		Reference: Positive Rating Below My One. 
********************************** 

I'm really shocked after seeing the positive rating as the reference. He is really an honorable person. 

Respect for you!

DinosaurBit	2017-12-28	0.01461600	Reference	Delivered SP20 as promised. Extremely fast shipping. Smooth deal. Thanks a lot!

Tszunami98	2017-12-14	0.20000000	Reference	I bought a pangloian miner from Phillip. Excelent collaboration.

oldmanjk	2017-12-11	0.02000000	Reference	I sent .02 BTC for an Onda B250 BTC-D8P. He shipped it quickly. Works fine. This is my first purchase from him 

Thanks again

ATCkit	2017-12-10	0.00000000		I have purchased twice from Phil. I didn't bother with escrow as he has high trust. He is a man of his word and sent me the items right away. In fact, I live in Canada and his shipments arrived faster than any other purchases from the US. He did not "hose me" for the shipping costs. A real stand up guy and true ambassador for the crypto industry.

JaredKaragen	2017-11-16	0.02743139	Reference	Purchased motherboard. Prompt and proper shipping. 100% Trustworthy user.

darb21	2017-11-03	0.85800000		Did 2 deals with Phil as the escrow agent. He stayed on top of the process the whole time and kept us informed. Additionally, he was very responsive and quick to release funds when the buyers gave thumbs up. A+++++ stand up guy. Will definitely use again.

stugots2	2017-11-01	0.33000000		My second one this week with Phil and as always, outstanding experience all together!!!!!!! this guy goes above and beyond each and every time.

stugots2	2017-10-28	0.32000000		Phil is simply the best, nothing else can be said, JUST THE BEST. 

I had 2 deals going with him at the same time (Escrow) not only did he do a fantastic / Fair job, the guy went above and beyond and helped me setup my purchased product, who does that???? 

+ just days before this Phil spent literally hours helping me try to fix my nightmare Avalon!!

Steamtyme	2017-09-15	0.41512000	Reference	Phillipma1957- offered to Provide Escrow for the sale of an s-9, for myself and several units for others. 
He did a great job put in a lot of work, and protected us from this scammer. 
On top of that he used what he would have earned in Escrow fees, to refund us the .007 BTC shipping we had prepaid to the scammer. 
100% trust and faith in any dealings I have Phillipma1957

Last of the V8s	2017-09-02	0.03000000		followed through - sent me some treasure

Erotic Toothpaste	2017-08-16	1.17000000	Reference	Did an escrow for a Mac Book Pro. Everything went smooth and was professionally handled. Thanks again!

iwantapony	2017-07-25	1,500.00000000		I trust this guy !

mandertherick	2017-06-29	0.00154959	Reference	Thank you very much! Cards worked perfectly.

techguy007	2017-06-23	0.40000000		escrowed 3 of my trades, cool guy, A+

Wusolini	2017-06-09	0.16000000		Escrowed me 0.16 BTC trade.

CardShare	2017-06-04	0.00000000		Great guy. His topics on development in the mining world are fantastic. Very pleasant guy to talk to and have vast knowledge of miners and all things bitcoin! A+ user

delicopsch56	2017-05-07	0.00000000		Just a class act, shares valuable info here everyday!

Akarabzie	2017-04-28	0.50000000		Bought (4) 480X 8GB cards from phil. He packed them well, all had original boxes/manuals/foam, and have been mining for 2 days with no issues. He even gave me a free mini atx mobo for free!
rifiuti	2017-04-08	0.00000000		I've been reading his threads and comments about mining equipments and tools. Very valuable person to this community. Keep up good work :)

Humanxlemming	2017-03-25	0.00000000		Just trade again with him very trustworthy 

-My btc to his PP, smooth transact

Jdope	2017-03-23	0.00000000		Bought 2 MSI rx 470s, sent first and he shipped in the same day, fast, trustable and very friendly!

superiorus	2017-03-20	0.20000000		Great deal! Exchanged my 0.2 BTC for Paypal. 
100% recommended!

miningdude	2017-02-19	0.00000000		Funny dude, make me laughs at his posts

what1005	2017-02-02	0.00000000		Good trader.

what1005	2017-01-25	0.00000000		I sent btc for Paypal 

I sent BTC first.
rockmoney	2016-11-24	0.00000000		Sent Items I won in an auction to benefit GekkoScience before I fully paid. Items arrived FAST, all were working, & even included some free items he knew I needed. 

Very trustworthy in my opinion, & was very kind, helpful, generous, & polite!

Last of the V8s	2016-10-29	3.13370000	Reference	Ran a good game

-EOS-	2016-10-17	0.00000000		Phil sold and shipped miner as described, fast. Will work with him again in a heart beat.

bigs21024	2016-07-02	0.15000000	Reference	I bought a script miner from edonkey and Phil did escrow and he was great at it. Very hands on with the deal and great communication. Super cheap for the work he did will do business again and will also tell others. Thanks so much job well done sir!

DanDan	2016-06-02	0.00000000		I won his difficulty prediction game and he paid me asap.

aarons6	2016-05-14	1.15000000		Bought an Avalon6, rpi, psu and all the cords to go with it.. very fast shipping and very well packaged.. he even mined on my pool for me for a week while it was being shipped. thanks again..

TheButterZone	2016-04-28	0.75500000	Reference	Great deal, fast shipping, thanks!

utbeauchamp	2016-04-06	0.10000000		Was involved in a Avalon 6 group buy that was undermined by Bitmain, but Phil sold me a fan for my new A6 (from HolyScott) and sent me the controller for free. Awesome guy to deal with. Very helpful and trustworthy!

buyandhold	2016-03-19	0.00000000	Reference	Ran a competition and paid the winner as promised

aarons6	2016-03-11	0.27000000		Bought a power supply.. he also threw in some insulated duct to help keep my s7 quiet.. works great.. thanks again.

wikkidtt	2016-02-09	0.00000000		Fast transaction on a S7 coupon. Much appreciated. Great asset to the Bitcoin community!

Cyper_BLC	2016-02-08	0.00000000		helpful man.. thanks

bctmke	2016-02-05	2.80000000		Phil as always was a gentleman and a scholar. He took care of another Avalon 6 group buy. My miner went where it was supposed to and was available when he said it would be.

kipper01	2016-01-28	2.56000000	Reference	Phil was nice and easy to work with on this Avalon 6 group buy. 
Would definitely do transactions with him in the future.

aarons6	2015-12-11	0.02500000		He gave me a USB hub and a Y-USB cable, all i paid was shipping.. Thanks again.. its working great..

tss	2015-09-18	0.00000000	Reference	i won the diff thread pool. paid quickly by suchmoon. thanks phil for running the game.

tss	2015-09-18	0.10000000	Reference	sent .1 btc for a surprise box. he shipped within 24 hours on a saturday and i got it very quick. box was worth it. highly recommended.

edric	2015-09-07	0.00000000		Thanks for answering my mining question!

edric	2015-09-06	0.00000000		Helped me with my mining equipment questions. Thanks!

Kexkey	2015-05-28	5.00000000	Reference	Phil has been very transparent, patient and generous when managing the CKPool-Solo Club. Very trustworthy and active in the forums, helping a lot of people. Would do business with him again without hesitating.

btc2code	2015-05-15	1.15380000	Reference	Escrow for a trade on 399.9USD Amazon order to 280USD worth BTC between me and 

DeathEscaped. Very smooth transaction!

5w00p	2015-05-07	1.11000000		Performed escrow for me. Honest escrow. Thank you.

Muhammed Zakir	2015-01-10	0.00000000	Reference	Trustworthy user! Pruned the list just after telling!

Quickseller	2015-01-10	0.00000000	Reference	philipma1957 was made aware of the fact that his trust list was compromised of many people who probably should not have been on level 2 default trust after he was promoted to level 1 default trust. He quickly pruned his trust list which protected the community from people who may potentially act maliciously in the future. +1

cryptoglance	2014-12-30	0.30000000	Reference	Told me valuable information regarding the Bitmain S5, directed me towards the correct fan type to replace on the miner

Albertdroid	2014-12-17	0.48000000	Reference	Bought Antminer S3, Quick status updates and delivered promptly. A Trustworthy person. TY!

boldar	2014-12-06	0.55005500	Reference	Bought 1 Antminer S3 with PSU from Phil. The transaction was smooth as silk! He really went above and beyond to make the experience better by proving the hashrate on my own pool overnight, sending shipping verification and being generally helpful. Very well spoken in his communication. This guy is a good honest member that the community should look towards as an example of how everything should be :) Looking forward to dealing with him again soon!
Xtra7973	2014-10-18	0.50000000		He gave me a great deal on a couple psu's two switches two fans and even gave me some extra wires. I wouldn't hesitate to make any deals with him. Before I could even send him a thank you in a PM he already printed out a shipping label with tracking for me. Fast shipping. Great guy thanks again

de_ixie	2014-08-26	0.65000000		Sold me a S3 for 0.65 BC, I paid upfront, he honored the deal, highly trusted member

MoreBloodWine	2014-08-09	0.00000000		No reference link available, deal was done via PM. 

I asked if he could order a Toshiba laptop recovery disc set for me. I offered to pay first but like the nice guy that he is, he ordered first and then asked for payment. 

This is my second dealing with him and I couldn't be happier, Thx Philip !

SDRebel	2014-06-27	0.50000000		bought gridseeds from him twice. both times he was clear on the terms, quick to ship, provided tracking info and updates. everything was clear and well and also offered help when needed. awesome.

RitzGrandCasino	2014-05-29	0.00000000	Reference	trusted great signature member

MunkeySpaz	2014-05-17	0.55590000	Reference	He was very honest and worked with me. Met in a public place during the day and everything worked out perfect. 
Was for Antminer S1, Seasonic PSU for .5559 ($250)

dyland	2014-05-05	0.53600000		Acted as escrow for my sale of Dualminer USBs to stex2009. 

Very professional and much appreciated.

sebdude420	2014-04-19	1.00000000		Great guy, always pays on time, ships on time. Ol' time miner. :D

tripppn	2014-02-17	0.09000000		Phil sold me a PSU and shipped it immediately and it arrived ahead of scheduled. Thanks!

crocko	2014-01-16	0.25000000		I sent 0.25 BTC to philip as payment for 5 shares from DZMC without escrow. Very trustworthy member. I recommend !

Delarock	2014-01-14	0.12000000		Sent first for a hub, received without issue with extras. Answered all my questions, great transaction.

MoreBloodWine	2014-01-13	0.03600000		I paid him $30 for 0.036 BTC and it was promptly received in about 1 hr. 

Ty !

CoinGeneral	2013-11-29	0.12300000		Awesome trader. Risked $100 which is .123 BTC at the time, package arrived with all working pristine condition items with original packaging in promptly 3 days. 

Would trade again yes.

btceic	2013-10-30	0.00000000		Phil is a great seller, very fair negotiations and fast professional shipping. 

Purchased 21 asic miner USB sticks.

bronxnua	2013-10-29	0.00000000		Where did you get those fans used on the 49 usb hub ? I can't post pm or reply to messages.

my trust list is here


-ck
CrazyGuy
Unacceptable
kano
champbronc2
Cablez
davecoin
~TheButterZone
iluvpcs
crashoveride54902
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
TookDk
Chris_Sabian
DefaultTrust
Stratobitz
Blazed
btcxcg
~MoreBloodWine
~pcfli
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
nicehash
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin
~philippma1957
~Cryptotradenz


let us all go over it together

-ck ---------------------------- Stays
CrazyGuy ---------------------- Stays
kano --------------------------- Stays
buysolar ----------------------- Stays
HagssFIN -----------------------Stays
edonkey ----------------------- Stays
generalt ----------------------- Stays
VoskCoin ---------------------- Stays


Unacceptable ------------- ?    I have not done anything with him  since 2013 off my list
champbronc2  -------------- ? No longer active off my list

Cablez ----------------------- ? Stays as he has not done anything wrong I will keep an eye on him to see if he stays active

davecoin -------------------- ? has not done anything wrong  since my 1 deal with him and is an active member  stays
iluvpcs ---------------------- ? no longer active off my list
crashoveride54902 --------- ? no lunger active off my list

Stunna ---------------------- ? -------- Stays

lazlopanaflex ---------------- ? -------- Stays I know him from another forum and he has done nothing wrong
not.you --------------------- ? ---------- Stays
TookDk ---------------------- ? ---------- off list because  we have not done a deal in 5 years
Chris_Sabian --------------- ? ----------- off list no longer active
Stratobitz -------------------- ? ---------- off list we have not done business in years
Blazed ----------------------- ? ----------- stays we did multiple deals and he has not done anyone wrong that I can see
btcxcg ------------------------- ? --------- off list our deals are old  and all his deals for trust are old
wlefever ----------------------- ? --------- stays  
Mikestang ---------------------? ---------- stays
vg54dett ---------------------- ? ----------- stays
AriesIV10 --------------------- ? ----------- Stays

nicehash ---------------------- I will take them off

DefaultTrust

~MoreBloodWine
~pcfli
~TheButterZone
~philippma1957
~Cryptotradenz

[suchmoon]

I haven't looked into who he's added and for what, but people shouldn't really be added to DT just for doing one or two trades with them. People who have done this in the past have been removed from DT and rightly so. I think the feedbacks that person has left for others should carry just as much weight as the deals they have done with that person. If a person has only really left a few feedbacks then they're largely useless in the grand scheme of the network.

That's exactly what the OP's numbers don't account for. Perhaps some sort of deeper analysis of downlevel trust feedback would help, e.g. how active the "subordinates" are. In any case, I disagree with the OP framing this as "manipulation" unless it can be proven that the DT1 member did it for reasons inconsistent with the purpose of the DT (murky, I know).

[SaltySpitoon]

This is somewhat related, but I personally feel that Feedback should be given without any second thought to the potential green numbers for any trade, as long as long as its accurate. If someone wanted to do a 0.001 BTC trade with me, where the funds are escrowed, I wouldn't hesitate to leave them accurate feedback saying they did the trade with me, I risked 0 BTC because the funds were escrowed, and how the deal went. The whole concept of farming feedback seems flawed to me, because green numbers shouldn't mean anything by themselves. Its the quality and contents of the feedback itself.

Because this is an issue in the first place, I'd love to see an option to leave people feedback without it being included in feedback score calculation. I'd far prefer an Ebay type feedback system, where before you buy something from someone, you quickly check their negatives to see if they ship things that "don't arrive", or arrive broken, etc. The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

[hilariousetc]

The whole concept of farming feedback seems flawed to me, because green numbers shouldn't mean anything by themselves. Its the quality and contents of the feedback itself.

But people do put a lot of weight on it. Feedback = trustability to a lot of people (though it obviously shouldn't). I've seen people offering their services here and calling themselves a 'trusted user' just because they did a few deals with the right people. It's like a badge of honour to a lot of people and I suppose it gives them the edge over someone who has zero feedback so that's why it's worth something. Some campaigns have even started offering higher payments if you've got it which is ludicrous and just encourages more abuse. 

Because this is an issue in the first place, I'd love to see an option to leave people feedback without it being included in feedback score calculation. I'd far prefer an Ebay type feedback system, where before you buy something from someone, you quickly check their negatives to see if they ship things that "don't arrive", or arrive broken, etc. The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

You can leave them neutral. An ebay-like system is far from perfect as well and wouldn't really work on here for numerous reasons.

[philipma1957]

So I altered list and I am now at 536 vs 670

Not sure how op wrote numbers up.

But  I had already left out 70+ feedbacks 

So At this point I will look to alter it more if possible

[TMAN]

So I altered list and I am now at 536 vs 670

Not sure how op wrote numbers up.

But  I had already left out 70+ feedbacks 

So At this point I will look to alter it more if possible

thanks - even though it is a small change its great to see you take this seriously, unlike the other guys in question

[SaltySpitoon]

But people do put a lot of weight on it. Feedback = trustability to a lot of people (though it obviously shouldn't). I've seen people offering their services here and calling themselves a 'trusted user' just because they did a few deals with the right people. It's like a badge of honour to a lot of people and I suppose it gives them the edge over someone who has zero feedback so that's why it's worth something. Some campaigns have even started offering higher payments if you've got it which is ludicrous and just encourages more abuse. 

I feel that is their problem more than anyone else's. Feedback should be taken exactly for what it is, not some algorithm created green numbers. If someone has 100 positive feedback for 0.001 BTC trades, that wouldn't mean I'd trust them with 1 BTC even if their score is higher than someone I would trust with 1 BTC. If someone does a trade, I believe they deserve accurate feedback for it. I really don't like the green/red numbers. They are a cop out for people who don't feel they need to read a person's feedback and judge its validity for themselves. I've added a few people to my trust list in the past that asked me to remove them because they didn't want to have to change any of their feedback habits because of cases like this, and I really think its a shame. I added them specifically for their feedback habits, and those are exactly the type of people that I think needed to be on DT.

You can leave them neutral. An ebay-like system is far from perfect as well and wouldn't really work on here for numerous reasons.

Neutral kind of has its own connotation to it. Of course I read someone's neutral trust before I judge what it means, but that split second before I start reading and I see that font, I think that its someone on DT that wanted to give a negative for something, but because of their position decided against it. I find its more useful for comments about a person, their behavior, or just general notes that you think someone should see before they trade with that person. It doesn't feel right to give someone a neutral when you've done a successful trade with them.

As far as the Ebay like feedback system is concerned, I meant in format, not with the backing of a paid central company monitoring it. You leave someone feedback, and its saved on a page that can be brought up and filtered if someone would like to search through it, and a field where the person can respond on their own profile to claims against them.

[Annon001]

The 15-20% that you are calling normal seems to be about the standard for those not as heavily involved in the marketplace sections, so what does that mean about people who are getting tons of feedback for trades they are doing?

Maybe. But DT1 members should actively work to improve the forum. They should add users who leave rightful trust, not just the ones they've traded with
Their special powers should come with special behavior. I think it's absolutely OK for regular users to add to their trust only (or mainly) users they've traded with, but not so for DT1 users

As you said in your OP, there is also some consideration to the nature of how a relationship starts. I have a couple of people on my trust list that I would never have known had I not traded with them, so to a certain extent its inevitable. The real metric for who you should trust to add to your trust list, are people that you believe will leave accurate feedback for others and act fairly.

Yes. Definitely the real reason to add someone must be you believe they will leave accurate feedback, not because they left trust to you or because they can be trusted with money

Phillipma is indeed a large outlier, but this thread serves as the smoke to warrant further investigation, not necessarily something to draw conclusions from

Fair point. I'll try to investigate more, mainly for the top 3: philipma1957 (I see he's doing so himself, thanks!), OgNasty and Tomatocage
I want to see mainly what users where added to DT2 only because of each one of them and if they're really actively leaving trust to others and thus helping the forum
As others have suggested I also want to know if they were added after or before leaving positive trust to those DT1 members but I don't see how. Let me know if someone can help on this

A moderator will likely see reports from users in their trust list, which may play a role in deciding if they can be trusted or not. There also may be non-public information in the staff section about certain users.

Non-public sections are despicable for most non-moderators users. It won't change the research significantly

With the exception of philipma1957, I don't think the change in trust score reasonably changes the community perception of how trusted these people are

This trick does change the trust of those involved. philipma1957 seems much more trusted as you mention (but again, he's already working on that), OgNasty falsely appears as the user with the most trust (http://dev.martinlawrence.ca/bpip/), Tomatocage increased their trust but less significantly

I would be more concerned about DT1 members adding people to their trust list, and the result is certain 3rd parties' trust scores are inflated substantially. This could be an indication that a DT1 member is using their trust list to increase the trust score of either their sockpuppet, or a potential accomplice in a later scam

I would be very interested if this is happening. Post your arguments (i.e. facts or data)

OP, you might be on to something but this needs work.

Do we know the date of when someone gets added to a trust list? I guess those who download trust dumps regularly could figure this out. Maybe that needs to be accounted for.

Yes it needs work. I'll work more on this and I want help. I agree knowing those dates would help but I can't get them

Making philipma1957 look like an example of some sort of abuse is quite ridiculous I think

The fact he's already working to solve this issue makes me think so too

people shouldn't really be added to DT just for doing one or two trades with them. People who have done this in the past have been removed from DT and rightly so. I think the feedbacks that person has left for others should carry just as much weight as the deals they have done with that person. If a person has only really left a few feedbacks then they're largely useless in the grand scheme of the network.

Exactly. The feedback that person has left for others should carry more weight. I will research more to see if users added by these 3 DT1 members are useful "in the grand scheme of the network"

As far as I am concerned I have pruned that list over and over and over and over again.
and I will prune it again. Today  right now

Wonderful! Great work. Thanks. I'll check those users later and post here. I hope you can appreciate my feedback

As for the newbie that started the thread  why don't  you come out from the shadows and let us know  whom  or who you are?

Why? You should check my arguments much more than who I am

Unacceptable ------------- ?    I have not done anything with him  since 2013 off my list

I don't think "I have not done anything with him  since 2013" is a good argument here. He should stay if he's left useful trust to others, not if he's done anything with you
I see he hasn't left any feedback since almost a year ago and has left only one negative trust (and without reference) in total so I agree he should be removed but for those reasons

But people do put a lot of weight on it. Feedback = trustability to a lot of people (though it obviously shouldn't)

Yes. They shouldn't but they do. that's the reason why DT2 members must leave positive trust considering the fact their feedback is trusted by default (i.e. leave positive trust only to trusted users)
and DT1 members should take this into account to consider adding someone to DT2

So I altered list and I am now at 536 vs 670
Not sure how op wrote numbers up.
But  I had already left out 70+ feedbacks  
So At this point I will look to alter it more if possible

Thanks for this!

Someone sent a PM to me asking me about the numbers too. It's very simple:
First I see your trust with default settings. i.e. my trust list looks like this:

Code:

DefaultTrust

and I see your trust, currently:
190: -0 / +20 instead of the previous 260: -0 / +27
Then I exclude you (or the DT1 member being checked) so my trust list loos like this:

Code:

DefaultTrust
~philipma1957 

and check your trust again:
45: -0 / +5

The difference is the trust you've got because of the fact you added several users as DT2. You wouldn't have that extra trust if you weren't DT1

[philipma1957]

I would prune the list more as I found at least 5 old accounts that did not belong there.


My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.

So If I prune more maybe you are looking to hurt people  that should not be pruned.

Ie you could be OgNasty for all I know  or anyone it is obvious you  have an older account  and used a newbie account.

for now here is the newer list


-ck
CrazyGuy
~Unacceptable
kano
~champbronc2
Cablez
davecoin
~TheButterZone
~iluvpcs
~crashoveride54902
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
~TookDk
~Chris_Sabian
DefaultTrust
~Stratobitz
Blazed
btcxcg
~MoreBloodWine
~pcfli
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
~nicehash
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin
~philippma1957
~Cryptotradenz

[Frij]

for now here is the newer list
-ck
...

You don't necessarily have to exclude users from your list (~) unless you distrust their ratings. In most cases, just deleting them from the list entirely will accomplish the same result.

It's what this place has turned in to, censoring via negatives and exclusions.

It's not particularly fair to blame the forum in it's entirety for the actions of (mostly) one user. Not naming any names of course.

[Lauda]

My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.

I'm pretty sure that the reason for which they did that, given the sensitive nature of this subject, is because they are afraid of a negative rating for speaking out. It's what this place has turned in to, censoring via negatives and exclusions.

for now here is the newer list
-ck
...

You don't necessarily have to exclude users from your list (~) unless you distrust their ratings. In most cases, just deleting them from the list entirely will accomplish the same result.

Actually, he shouldn't be adding a ~ prefix.

[Quickseller]

The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

[Quickseller]

My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.

I'm pretty sure that the reason for which they did that, given the sensitive nature of this subject, is because they are afraid of a negative rating for speaking out. It's what this place has turned in to, censoring via negatives and exclusions.

Oh the irony in this statement lol.

[SaltySpitoon]

We have a nice thread going here that is getting results, ideas are being exchanged, and people aren't fighting with each other. Would it be possible to prevent the fighting before it begins? You guys have your own threads going.

*edit*

The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

Allowing retaliatory feedback or not, what I mean is that I've often seen people who receive feedback, mainly neutral or negative, respond to that feedback on the other person's trust page. Having a place to respond to it on your own profile, so you can dispute the claim, maybe leave a reference link with your side of the story, without having to post it on the other person's profile would be beneficial.

[TMAN]

We have a nice thread going here that is getting results, ideas are being exchanged, and people aren't fighting with each other. Would it be possible to prevent the fighting before it begins? You guys have your own threads going.

Fair point. ill back away can QS please let the grown ups continue to be productive here?

[philipma1957]

I put in
~
as a tracking method as it does the job on lowering the ratings the same as a delete

If there is an issue I will delete instead.



I know the op did not want to get tagged but since I have no idea now of whom he or she was I did not fully prune my list as I see that there are 3 to 4 more I could remove.

I have always stated in these threads  when they pop up a few things:

1) I Never asked for default trust 1 rating
2) pm me with issues on my list.

here is something new
philiparcario@yahoo.com  is my email  send me emails if you want privacy  since pm's are not private



So  I will just delete them  rather then ~

-ck
CrazyGuy
kano
Cablez
davecoin
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin



~pcfli
~MoreBloodWine
~Stratobitz
~TookDk
~Chris_Sabian
~iluvpcs
~crashoveride54902
~champbronc2
~Unacceptable
~TheButterZone
~nicehash
~philippma1957
~Cryptotradenz

[Annon001]

My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.
So If I prune more maybe you are looking to hurt people  that should not be pruned.
Ie you could be OgNasty for all I know  or anyone it is obvious you  have an older account  and used a newbie account.

Again. You should check at my arguments and decide for yourself. It shouldn't matter who I am

for now here is the newer list

Here are some comments about some of the users listed by you:

CrazyGuy: hasn't left any trust in a long time
kano: no conflict of interests as he hasn't left trust to you, but has left only one single trust and it was 5 years ago. I don't see why you consider he should be on DT2
Cablez: hasn't left any trust in a long time
davecoin: no negative trust left at all (no scammers tagged)
buysolar: only 3 positive trust left, 2 of them to you. The last left feedback was 3 years ago
not.you: not active during the last year but has tagged some scammers
btcxcg: Only 5 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent. Last feedback was 4 years ago
generalt: No negative trust sent. Last (positive) feedback sent was one year ago
Mikestang: Last feedback was sent 2 years ago, but he did tag 1 scammer at least
vg54dett: Only 6 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent at all
AriesIV10: Positive trust only to 2 users, including yourself, only one negative sent

I'd appreciate if you can check again kano, buysolar, btcxcg, vg54dett and AriesIV10
(other users, post your comments about these members. I don't want philipma1957 or others to believe I have personal issues against any of them)
And you may consider adding users who leave much more feedback after you verify they're not abusing as I didn't find any really active user in your list


I'll check OgNasty's and Tomatocage's lists later

[OgNasty]

So I altered list

Thank you for making your thought process public.  I looked over some of your comments and added a few to my list also as they seemed to use good judgement in their dealings thus far.  I guess my abuse rating is probably higher now that I've expanded my network (as all DT members should be doing so things aren't as centralized).

[Quickseller]

The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

Allowing retaliatory feedback or not, what I mean is that I've often seen people who receive feedback, mainly neutral or negative, respond to that feedback on the other person's trust page. Having a place to respond to it on your own profile, so you can dispute the claim, maybe leave a reference link with your side of the story, without having to post it on the other person's profile would be beneficial.

Yes absolutely, allowing someone to respond to allegations is the most basic ethical considerations that should be made when something is published that affects their reputation.

Until that happens, it would be more appropriate to leave a neutral rating rather than a negative. Also, many retaliatory ratings do not in any way address claim supposedly in dispute, they are more accurately described as them saying “you said something bad about me, so I ruin your reputation”. To be honest, giving retaliatory feedback really is evidence the person is trying to cover something up, and is very clearly evidence they are willing to cover up bad behavior in the future.

[Annon001]

So I altered list

Thank you for making your thought process public.  I looked over some of your comments and added a few to my list also as they seemed to use good judgement in their dealings thus far.  I guess my abuse rating is probably higher now that I've expanded my network (as all DT members should be doing so things aren't as centralized).

Actually your trust went down to 328: -0 / +34
Probably because of someone removed by philipma1957
Your abuse rating seems to be still the same

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you (as 83.3% of your list when I started this thread), and avoid the conflict of interests

[OgNasty]

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you, and avoid the conflict of interests

Obviously I don't do that, or my DT rating would be in the thousands.  I can give more examples of me NOT doing that than nearly anyone, because I have received far more positive trust ratings from different members than most.

[Blue Tyrant]

But people do put a lot of weight on it. Feedback = trustability to a lot of people (though it obviously shouldn't). I've seen people offering their services here and calling themselves a 'trusted user' just because they did a few deals with the right people. It's like a badge of honour to a lot of people and I suppose it gives them the edge over someone who has zero feedback so that's why it's worth something. Some campaigns have even started offering higher payments if you've got it which is ludicrous and just encourages more abuse. 

This the problem with any form of trust system, any "visible" signs are taken at face value by people so your average joe would see a green trust and not check why the green trust was left and would blindly trust them irrespective of whether they are really worth the trust given. Things I  personally check and recommend others to do is when you want to check someone's trust first open their trust page and check the following:

• Check who sent the trust, if a very responsible user leaves a rating then I'd weigh rating with much greater importance than a rating by a random user  (the DT system reduces the issue but I'd still recommend adding reasonable people who leave ratings accurately to your trust list since a lot people arent in DT due to politics, not being well known, etc)
• Check the details of the trust - In bold because this one is important. Being cooperative with an escrow where the risked BTC is 0 absolutely worthless in my eyes. I've seen some DT Escrows leave neutral feedbacks which is better IMO since it gives the details while not tampering with the trust system. There are DTs who seem to leave positive feedback for using them as an escrow but I feel that's abusive in a way similar to how people accused The Butter Zone for his email forwarding related trusts. People are more likely to pick you for the cheap and quick trust from using you as an escrow (again not taking names but just something I noticed)
• References, see this always if it's present. A lot of the retaliatory feedback is for what I feel are just dumb misunderstandings between some users or ego clashes or whatever and all resulting feedbacks can be safely disregarded

~snip~

It's pretty refreshing for a DT1 to quickly respond with appropriate action since I've seen most DT1s seem to be quiet in the shadows and just lurking and rarely posting unless forced to.

I feel that is their problem more than anyone else's. Feedback should be taken exactly for what it is, not some algorithm created green numbers. If someone has 100 positive feedback for 0.001 BTC trades, that wouldn't mean I'd trust them with 1 BTC even if their score is higher than someone I would trust with 1 BTC. If someone does a trade, I believe they deserve accurate feedback for it. I really don't like the green/red numbers. They are a cop out for people who don't feel they need to read a person's feedback and judge its validity for themselves. I've added a few people to my trust list in the past that asked me to remove them because they didn't want to have to change any of their feedback habits because of cases like this, and I really think its a shame. I added them specifically for their feedback habits, and those are exactly the type of people that I think needed to be on DT.

The entire problem as I mentioned above is the average user (who are the ones the trust system is supposed to protect) never sees anything beyond the trust number. The only ones I ever see who do check the ratings thoroughly are the ones who are smart enough to not need really need the trust system.

For example you're a veteran user, pretty sure you have a fair idea of the list of people you can place a decent amount of trust in without seeing the ratings, but the average user? They just see a green + beside the name and think that the user is probably a good guy and assume the opposite for anyone with red trust.

As an example of the strong colour based mentality, anyone remember Alia and her search for dark green trust members?

[Annon001]

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you, and avoid the conflict of interests

Obviously I don't do that, or my DT rating would be in the thousands.  I can give more examples of me NOT doing that than nearly anyone, because I have received far more positive trust ratings from different members than most.

Obviously you do that. You've added 14 new users to DT2 (i.e. not added by other DT1 users, they're DT2 only because of you). 10 of them left positive trust to you so it's obvious that's the main factor for you to add someone to DT2. That's 71.4% of them, actually some progress versus the 83% before I started this thread but still 94 points (100 soon)

Here are all 14 users added to DT2 by you along with some comments:
allinvain: Left positive trust to you.
molecular: Left trust only to 4 users, last one 3 years ago, no scammers tagged
naypalm: Left positive trust to you.
mdude77: Left positive trust to you.
Bees Brothers: Left positive trust to you. The last trust left was more than 2 years ago
bigtimespaghetti: Left positive trust to you.
nonnakip: Left positive trust to you. Actually he's left only one trust and it was to you. The only change adding him produced was adding 10 more points to you, nothing else at all
MarkAz: No scammers tagged at all.
FiniteByDesign: No scammers tagged at all.
ManeBjorn: Left positive trust to you.
bithalo: Left positive trust to you.
mindtrip: Left positive trust to you.
Rmcdermott927
Finksy: Left positive trust to you. Last trust sent one year ago, but has left a few

I didn't find any really active users in your list at all

because I have received far more positive trust ratings from different members than most.

I know you're the user with the most positive trust (http://dev.martinlawrence.ca/bpip/). You trust manipulation was enough for this, no need to go to the thousands and make it even more obvious. Of course you wouldn't be #1 if you weren't DT1
However the fact you've made a lot of successful deals and thus received positive trust doesn't have anything to do with how well you decide which users to add to DT2. That's obvious, I'm sure you really know this

Please argue (with arguments) instead of just bragging. Have an open mind to realize and correct your faults instead of just blindly denying them

[OgNasty]

Here are all 14 users added to DT2 by you along with some comments:
allinvain: Left positive trust to you.
molecular: Left trust only to 4 users, last one 3 years ago, no scammers tagged
naypalm: Left positive trust to you.
mdude77: Left positive trust to you.
Bees Brothers: Left positive trust to you. The last trust left was more than 2 years ago
bigtimespaghetti: Left positive trust to you.
nonnakip: Left positive trust to you. Actually he's left only one trust and it was to you. The only change adding him produced was adding 10 more points to you, nothing else at all
MarkAz: No scammers tagged at all.
FiniteByDesign: No scammers tagged at all.
ManeBjorn: Left positive trust to you.
bithalo: Left positive trust to you.
mindtrip: Left positive trust to you.
Rmcdermott927
Finksy: Left positive trust to you. Last trust sent one year ago, but has left a few

Please argue (with arguments) instead of just bragging. Have an open mind to realize and correct your faults instead of just blindly denying them

You seem to have singled these users out as having showed some sort of behavior that would put in question their ability to leave ratings that I would find beneficial to have added to my trust network.  Whether or not they have left me trust or tagged scammers aren't valid reasons for them to be in/excluded, as much as you want to make it about that, so please stick to valid arguments as to whether or not they deserve to be DT2 members.

Please give examples of ratings left by the listed users that you feel warrant them not being included in the trust network as you seem to be implying.

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

[Annon001]

You seem to have singled these users out as having showed some sort of behavior that would put in question their ability to leave ratings that I would find beneficial to have added to my trust network.  Whether or not they have left me trust isn't a valid reason for them to be included, as much as you want to make it about that, so please stick to valid arguments as to whether or not they deserve to be DT2 members.

Please give examples of ratings left by the listed users that you feel warrant them not being included in the trust network as you seem to be implying.

I'm including all users added to DT2 by you, every single one of them. I only left out users also added by other DT1 members. They would be DT2 anyway without you doing anything

You didn't comment on any single one of them, no even nonnakip who left positive trust only to you and nobody else. Why did you add him to DT2?

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

[OgNasty]

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

I think all of the users you listed are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members and I am happy to have played a role in decentralizing the default trust network with their inclusion.  If you feel otherwise, please give a relevant example of why you feel that way.  Them having left me trust is NOT a relevant reason for someone to NOT be included in the trust network, but displays your mindset fairly well.

[suchmoon]

CrazyGuy: hasn't left any trust in a long time
kano: no conflict of interests as he hasn't left trust to you, but has left only one single trust and it was 5 years ago. I don't see why you consider he should be on DT2
Cablez: hasn't left any trust in a long time
davecoin: no negative trust left at all (no scammers tagged)
buysolar: only 3 positive trust left, 2 of them to you. The last left feedback was 3 years ago
not.you: not active during the last year but has tagged some scammers
btcxcg: Only 5 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent. Last feedback was 4 years ago
generalt: No negative trust sent. Last (positive) feedback sent was one year ago
Mikestang: Last feedback was sent 2 years ago, but he did tag 1 scammer at least
vg54dett: Only 6 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent at all
AriesIV10: Positive trust only to 2 users, including yourself, only one negative sent

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.

I put in
~
as a tracking method as it does the job on lowering the ratings the same as a delete

If there is an issue I will delete instead.

Your exclusion may cause someone to be effectively removed from DT2, if another DT1 member excludes that person. I don't think that applies to anyone in your list though.

[TMAN]

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

I think all of the users you listed are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members and I am happy to have played a role in decentralizing the default trust network with their inclusion.  If you feel otherwise, please give a relevant example of why you feel that way.  Them having left me trust is NOT a relevant reason for someone to NOT be included in the trust network, but displays your mindset fairly well.

Why on earth are you so stubborn? Can't you see the bloke is trying to help the community?

[Quickseller]

I don’t think someone “tagging” scammers should be a criterion to include them in your trust list unless they have nearly 100% accuracy and you can otherwise trust the person. I have seen a number of accounts over the years that were used to call out scams, however they often had very low accuracy, relied on conjecture, and often parroted what others already said, and many times turned out to be less than trustworthy people. Adding someone who “tags” a lot of scammers without substantial trading experience will also lead to poor ratings quality and it will be difficult to authoritatively say they can be trusted.

As mentioned previously, having people on your trust list that left you a positive rating should not necessarily be a bad thing as this is evidence you know the person well enough to trust them.

Also, someone no longer being active is not necessarily a reason to remove them from your trust list as prior trust ratings are not invalid because of this.

[Annon001]

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

I think all of the users you listed are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members and I am happy to have played a role in decentralizing the default trust network with their inclusion.  If you feel otherwise, please give a relevant example of why you feel that way.  Them having left me trust is NOT a relevant reason for someone to NOT be included in the trust network, but displays your mindset fairly well.

How exactly does the inclusion of nonnakip help the community and decentralizes the trust system? He left trust only to you, no one else at all

Explain why you think all of them are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members. You haven't explained that at all. They have barely left a few trust among all of them
The only thing most of them have in common is leaving few trusts and including you in that feedback

While of course leaving trust to you is not a reason to automatically exclude them it's definitely not a reason to include them either

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.

No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place

As mentioned previously, having people on your trust list that left you a positive rating should not necessarily be a bad thing as this is evidence you know the person well enough to trust them.

It is definitely a bad thing if they left trust only to you and you are a DT1 member
And it is probably a bad thing if they left trust only to a few users besides you

[suchmoon]

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.

No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place

The DT1 member trusts the judgment of that person. What's wrong with that?

You're really starting to go off the rails with this one. What difference does the number of feedback ratings make? Is there a quota that a DT2 member is supposed to meet? Does the DT2 spot cost money to the forum?

[o_e_l_e_o]

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.

No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place

The DT1 member trusts the judgment of that person. What's wrong with that?

You're really starting to go off the rails with this one. What difference does the number of feedback ratings make? Is there a quota that a DT2 member is supposed to meet? Does the DT2 spot cost money to the forum?

The counter argument is what use is trusting the judgement of that person if that person never/very rarely exercises that judgement to leave trust ratings (positive or negative).

Just playing devil's advocate.

[Annon001]

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.

No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place

The DT1 member trusts the judgment of that person. What's wrong with that?

You're really starting to go off the rails with this one. What difference does the number of feedback ratings make? Is there a quota that a DT2 member is supposed to meet? Does the DT2 spot cost money to the forum?

What does quota have to do with anything?... It seems we're misunderstanding each other
The issue here is that it seems a few DT1 users abused the system and added several users to DT2 only because they left positive trust to them

I'm just trying to understand why DT1 users really added the users they added. They should be added because the trust they leave is helpful to the community
I'll illustrate this with the most extreme example I've found: nonnakip. He left trust only to OgNasty. So, why was he added to DT2?
If I fail to find any explanation for this then I conclude the reason is exactly that: he left positive trust to the DT1 member who added him

[suchmoon]

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.

No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place

The DT1 member trusts the judgment of that person. What's wrong with that?

You're really starting to go off the rails with this one. What difference does the number of feedback ratings make? Is there a quota that a DT2 member is supposed to meet? Does the DT2 spot cost money to the forum?

The counter argument is what use is trusting the judgement of that person if that person never/very rarely exercises that judgement to leave trust ratings (positive or negative).

Just playing devil's advocate.

"Never" is a long time. "Rarely" is enough if that person tags even one scammer (or a trustworthy person) in 100 years. My point - it's not like that DT2 member is taking the DT2 spot away from some superior scam buster. The number of DT2 positions is not limited so the DT1 member trusting the judgement of someone who rarely sends feedback does not cost anybody anything or deprive anybody of anything.

What does quota have to do with anything?... It seems we're misunderstanding each other
The issue here is that it seems a few DT1 users abused the system and added several users to DT2 only because they left positive trust to them

I'm just trying to understand why DT1 users really added the users they added. They should be added because the trust they leave is helpful to the community
I'll illustrate this with the most extreme example I've found: nonnakip. He left trust only to OgNasty. So, why was he added to DT2?
If I fail to find any explanation for this then I conclude the reason is exactly that: he left positive trust to the DT1 member who added him

Correlation does not imply causation. Don't be Quicksy.

I doubt that DT1 members are concerned about green trust to begin with, not to mention that there are too many ways for them to run a con without drawing attention to it with something as simple as padding their trust rating.

If you really want to uncover abuse you need to dig deeper and you also need to be able to accept the outcome even if it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm starting to doubt that you're up to the task.

[Carisba]

I'm probably unusual in that I completely ignore trust. I don't do any trading, apart from a few domain names, and those tend to be run through an escrow service. I thought trust was about trading, and money exchanges, but it seems to be a lot more here. I'm not sure that I understand it's purpose. It seems to be used as a weapon, more than a trading rating.

Yes,It was for trading but now some signature campaign doesn't want an untrusted user .So a dt user can negate the possibility to partecipate in campaign with their power abuse

[philipma1957]

My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.
So If I prune more maybe you are looking to hurt people  that should not be pruned.
Ie you could be OgNasty for all I know  or anyone it is obvious you  have an older account  and used a newbie account.

Again. You should check at my arguments and decide for yourself. It shouldn't matter who I am

for now here is the newer list

Here are some comments about some of the users listed by you:

CrazyGuy: hasn't left any trust in a long time
kano: no conflict of interests as he hasn't left trust to you, but has left only one single trust and it was 5 years ago. I don't see why you consider he should be on DT2
Cablez: hasn't left any trust in a long time
davecoin: no negative trust left at all (no scammers tagged)
buysolar: only 3 positive trust left, 2 of them to you. The last left feedback was 3 years ago
not.you: not active during the last year but has tagged some scammers
btcxcg: Only 5 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent. Last feedback was 4 years ago
generalt: No negative trust sent. Last (positive) feedback sent was one year ago
Mikestang: Last feedback was sent 2 years ago, but he did tag 1 scammer at least
vg54dett: Only 6 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent at all
AriesIV10: Positive trust only to 2 users, including yourself, only one negative sent

I'd appreciate if you can check again kano, buysolar, btcxcg, vg54dett and AriesIV10
(other users, post your comments about these members. I don't want philipma1957 or others to believe I have personal issues against any of them)
And you may consider adding users who leave much more feedback after you verify they're not abusing as I didn't find any really active user in your list


I'll check OgNasty's and Tomatocage's lists later

Well  here goes
 
  CrazyGuy --- is a good seller  he stays
  buysolar ---- is my partner in the solar array he stays he will also be doing the Canaan  training with me. he stays
  generalt ---- has purchased from me multiple times I meet him in person many times he stays
 
  Kano-------- goes

 

  I could argue that the people below could be removed but since I don't know why the op created the thread (other then the claim in the first thread)
I now need to leave these for a while.

 Cablez ------ stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  davecoin ---- stays because you the op "       "     "   "
  not.you ----- stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  btcxcg ------- stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  Mikestang ---- stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
  vg54dett ------ stays because you the op wants to be anonymous
 AriesIV10 ------ stays because you the op wants to be anonymous

  I need to leave them just in case the op has an agenda not revealed in his opening thread.

I have not reached or discussed the 70 on the list of  feedback given to me and not on the list.

All of them were left off basically because these thread pop up.

I will get back to this thread in a bit and check the ones I bolded and left up just in case there was or is a hidden agenda by the op.

@ op  I realize you don't want to get tagged  and left you real forum name out and did a newbie post.

Maybe or maybe there is something else about the real you and you have agenda  against me or OgNasty to anyone you listed.

I know enough to know  that  I left all those names removed intact because you may be trying to scrub a negative off someone  and that is why I am at least suspicious since I now removed as many as I did has someone been  lift from negative to positive?

What assurance do I have that my actions did not help someone today by pruning the list?
.
You also gave me more work to do as I will need to check what happened by my deletions.

[Lauda]

I know enough to know  that  I left all those names removed intact because you may be trying to scrub a negative off someone  and that is why I am at least suspicious since I now removed as many as I did has someone been  lift from negative to positive?

What assurance do I have that my actions did not help someone today by pruning the list?

The solution to that is somewhat simple. Go through the sent ratings of the user you're going to remove, and back up the negative ratings in case that they are valid. Shouldn't be a problem with the claimed (by OP) inactivity/lack of activity of said users.

[Annon001]

Correlation does not imply causation

I know that. I insist, I just want to understand why DT1 members added those users
Do you find any explanation why nonnakip was added? You seem neutral, of course I'll really consider your possible explanation

If you really want to uncover abuse you need to dig deeper and you also need to be able to accept the outcome even if it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm starting to doubt that you're up to the task.

I know that too. I'm still digging deeper and help is much appreciated. Discarding everything is not helping, digging with me is

I'm open to be corrected and I'll admit if I'm wrong. But I'm not open to be discarded without arguments
philipma1957 is suspicious of me and that's perfectly fine. But he's really checked his list. Of course it's fine he keeps the users he considers must stay after his checking
I no longer believe he is abusing the trust system

OgNasty has just denied everything, even straightforward cases like nonnakip, and hasn't given any explanations about that at all

Tomatocage hasn't reacted yet. Let's see what happens

Well  here goes
 
  CrazyGuy --- is a good seller  he stays
  buysolar ---- is my partner in the solar array he stays he will also be doing the Canaan  training with me. he stays
  generalt ---- has purchased from me multiple times I meet him in person many times he stays
  
  Kano-------- goes

I appreciate you re-checked them

I could argue that the people below could be removed but since I don't know why the op created the thread (other then the claim in the first thread)
I now need to leave these for a while.

Feedback from other users would be helpful here then. It seems you're very open to listening to them

I will get back to this thread in a bit and check the ones I bolded and left up just in case there was or is a hidden agenda by the op.

@ op  I realize you don't want to get tagged  and left you real forum name out and did a newbie post.

Maybe or maybe there is something else about the real you and you have agenda  against me or OgNasty to anyone you listed.

I know enough to know  that  I left all those names removed intact because you may be trying to scrub a negative off someone  and that is why I am at least suspicious since I now removed as many as I did has someone been  lift from negative to positive?

What assurance do I have that my actions did not help someone today by pruning the list?
.
You also gave me more work to do as I will need to check what happened by my deletions.

Do check what happened by your deletions. Do verify what would happen if you remove more users. Do keep your exclusions if you've checked them and don't trust the feedback they've left. Do leave negative trust to those whose trust stopped being red because of your exclusions (if any). Do not trust me. I'm happy you did check your trust list, whatever the result

I don't see how I could prove I don't have a hidden agenda, even if I disclose who I am

I really appreciate you didn't take this as an attack to you (even though you're suspicious) and instead were open to check your list

[philipma1957]

Correlation does not imply causation

I know that. I insist, I just want to understand why DT1 members added those users
Do you find any explanation why nonnakip was added? You seem neutral, of course I'll really consider your possible explanation

If you really want to uncover abuse you need to dig deeper and you also need to be able to accept the outcome even if it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm starting to doubt that you're up to the task.

I know that too. I'm still digging deeper and help is much appreciated. Discarding everything is not helping, digging with me is

I'm open to be corrected and I'll admit if I'm wrong. But I'm not open to be discarded without arguments
philipma1957 is suspicious of me and that's perfectly fine. But he's really checked his list. Of course it's fine he keeps the users he considers must stay after his checking
I no longer believe he is abusing the trust system

OgNasty has just denied everything, even straightforward cases like nonnakip, and hasn't given any explanations about that at all

Tomatocage hasn't reacted yet. Let's see what happens

Well  here goes
 
  CrazyGuy --- is a good seller  he stays
  buysolar ---- is my partner in the solar array he stays he will also be doing the Canaan  training with me. he stays
  generalt ---- has purchased from me multiple times I meet him in person many times he stays
  
  Kano-------- goes

I appreciate you re-checked them

I could argue that the people below could be removed but since I don't know why the op created the thread (other then the claim in the first thread)
I now need to leave these for a while.

Feedback from other users would be helpful here then. It seems you're very open to listening to them

I will get back to this thread in a bit and check the ones I bolded and left up just in case there was or is a hidden agenda by the op.

@ op  I realize you don't want to get tagged  and left you real forum name out and did a newbie post.

Maybe or maybe there is something else about the real you and you have agenda  against me or OgNasty to anyone you listed.

I know enough to know  that  I left all those names removed intact because you may be trying to scrub a negative off someone  and that is why I am at least suspicious since I now removed as many as I did has someone been  lift from negative to positive?

What assurance do I have that my actions did not help someone today by pruning the list?
.
You also gave me more work to do as I will need to check what happened by my deletions.

Do check what happened by your deletions. Do verify what would happen if you remove more users. Do keep your exclusions if you've checked them and don't trust the feedback they've left. Do leave negative trust to those whose trust stopped being red because of your exclusions (if any). Do not trust me. I'm happy you did check your trust list, whatever the result

I don't see how I could prove I don't have a hidden agenda, even if I disclose who I am

I really appreciate you didn't take this as an attack to you (even though you're suspicious) and instead were open to check your list

I have always been open to list changes.

It is a  fact    that  I don't mind pruning and checking my list.

I don't do it as much as I should and I don't mind being asked to do it.

as  for a trust list and what belongs on it  Well  I have been here years  and I have not been on the DT1 list for more then 3 of them

maybe 4 I don't really remember.

So anything I did from 2012 and 2013 and 2014 is pre DT1 list

It is a lot of work to really check it for every deal I do and there is a problem  as I  am more of a miner /seller and I try to promote

coins in general in the mining world.

 Basically If you check me  out on the meta threads I don't post much.

I post in
 Mining altcoins
 Mining bitcoins
 Marketplace

I would think  80%  of my posts are there. 
My trusts are based more on good buyers and sellers.
But I also support other people with trusts.

I will check back on the other names  that I did not list at all but gave me positive feedback.


The real issue is  I am on the DT1 list  and I sell and buy a lot in the marketplace Along with escrow services.

But I was asked to go on the list by theymos  I said sure.

I stay on it  simply because he did not ask me to leave the list.

[suchmoon]

Correlation does not imply causation

I know that. I insist, I just want to understand why DT1 members added those users
Do you find any explanation why nonnakip was added? You seem neutral, of course I'll really consider your possible explanation

I'll take Og's word for it (and I'm not a big fan of his), seeing that nonnakip has been removed anyway. I'm not really neutral since Og has excluded me but I don't do DT butthurt drama either.

If you really want to uncover abuse you need to dig deeper and you also need to be able to accept the outcome even if it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm starting to doubt that you're up to the task.

I know that too. I'm still digging deeper and help is much appreciated. Discarding everything is not helping, digging with me is

I'm open to be corrected and I'll admit if I'm wrong. But I'm not open to be discarded without arguments
philipma1957 is suspicious of me and that's perfectly fine. But he's really checked his list. Of course it's fine he keeps the users he considers must stay after his checking
I no longer believe he is abusing the trust system

OgNasty has just denied everything, even straightforward cases like nonnakip, and hasn't given any explanations about that at all

Tomatocage hasn't reacted yet. Let's see what happens

I did provide some arguments as to why focusing on a narrow set of numbers the way you do is wrong in my opinion. Here is another one courtesy of Phil:

 buysolar ---- is my partner in the solar array he stays he will also be doing the Canaan  training with me. he stays
  generalt ---- has purchased from me multiple times I meet him in person many times he stays

All other things being equal, interaction IRL beats forum numbers any day.

If you want to dig deeper - look into timing of feedback, interactions between the involved members (butt kissing vs real trades), that sort of thing. Number of feedback ratings is a dead end. IMHO.

Og said this about nonnakip, not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation:

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

Have you contacted Tomato?

[TMAN]

I know that. I insist, I just want to understand why DT1 members added those users
Do you find any explanation why nonnakip was added? You seem neutral, of course I'll really consider your possible explanation

maybe if we just focus on the nonnakip inclusion as OG has totally ignored this, other than his personal credibility boost for the fanclub I fail to see what the benefit to the forum is, I could be blind but maybe OG could "educate me" on this.

from an outsiders perspective there is no gain to the DT network as the only positive rating is to OG and he has made 0 effort in tagging people or trading with people to give positive ratings - so in short what is the point of him being in DT?

[OgNasty]

Og said this about nonnakip, not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation:

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why.  So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network.  That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.

[TMAN]

Og said this about nonnakip, not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation:

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why.  So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network.  That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.

I missed that post. It wasn't about trouble it was about having a decentralised trust system. My personal feelings about our back and forth are being held back here

Then you need to add more members who are actively tagging people and trying to fight the scams.

Btw great work with QS.

[Blazed]

Og said this about nonnakip, not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation:

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why.  So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network.  That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.

I really doubt Og was adding people to boost his score since it makes no difference overall to him. I agree Nonnakip's being added did not help the network in anyway, but it also did not hurt anything. The way DT was explained to me years ago by Theymos was pretty simple... Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback. I have gone over my list and feel it is pretty solid, but if anyone has a legit concern then by all means let me know who I should review.

[Annon001]

I'll take Og's word for it
-snip-
not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation

You really should stop taking someone's word for it without a proper explanation. He hasn't explained why he added nonnakip in the first place, or anyone else for that matter
They clearly do not help the community. Maybe they don't hurt it either but the fact none (or almost none) of them helps the community rises the question why they were included then

He removed nonnakip because it was too obvious his addition was wrong but it was always wrong, even the day he added him, so why did he add him?
This wouldn't matter if there were only a few cases but that appears to be the norm. So explanations are still required, or at least openness to feedback and improvement

Have you contacted Tomato?

I can't PM him, he doesn't receive PMs from newbies. Would you?

They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why

Please don't lie, don't insult me, and don't insult my and others intelligence

So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network.  That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.

Do you really still don't understand the issue? DT1 users should add more users to DT2 but they should do that to help the community. They must choose users whose ratings are valid and help others. It must not be based mainly on private trades with them (making a successful deal doesn't necessarily mean they're good at leaving feedback) and even less so by the fact they left positive trust to you

I really doubt Og was adding people to boost his score since it makes no difference overall to him

The difference is not huge but there is a difference. That difference is just enough to make him be the user with the highest trust for example. But of course there's a possibility that was not his intention

I agree Nonnakip's being added did not help the network in anyway, but it also did not hurt anything

Maybe it didn't hurt anything. But it does raise questions when almost all of the users added by him do little good to the community, not just him or a few

The way DT was explained to me years ago by Theymos was pretty simple... Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback

This exactly. DT1 members should add users to DT2 if their feedback helps the community, not just because they were trading partners or received positive trust from them
If this rule is applied then it's not possible 10 out of 12 users added by OgNasty left positive trust to him and none of them significantly helped the community
I only see 2 options. Worst case scenario: OgNasty added them to boost their own trust. Best case scenario: OgNasty really doesn't know the role of DT1 members and doesn't apply this rule

I have gone over my list and feel it is pretty solid, but if anyone has a legit concern then by all means let me know who I should review.

I appreciate you checked your list and are open to suggestions. I'll check it too and post only if I find something


I encourage everyone to check Blazed's and also philipma1957's lists and post comments.
While the decision of how DT1 members handle their trust lists belongs only to them and the decision of which DT1 members are excluded or included belongs only to theymos, because those decisions affect everyone in the forum we all must check it and provide feedback

[ibminer]

Do DT members get some sort of guidelines sent to them by theymos when they are added to DT1?  Blazed mentioned theymos said "Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback", which makes sense to me, but I'm seeing a few comments here which seem to imply DT members are being added based on trades, in general. DT1/DT2 members leaving positive trust for someone is what I would see as someone saying "I trust this person, based on this particular trade/reason/comment".

nonnakip should have just gotten positive trust, and maybe multiple, based on various work or trades with Og/Nasty*. I feel like Og's response to nonnakip being added to DT2 may just be "Well, I trust him!".. which he may, but does the inclusion of nonnakip help the DT network, no. Does it hurt it? Short-term probably no, long-term may be debatable. Unless there are specific guidelines sent to DT1 members like Og* specifically stating all of this, it seems tough to deem this "DT abuse". Maybe I've missed it but I'm not sure I've ever really seen any public guidelines involving DT1 members and why they should or should not be adding people to DT2.

It seems like the real question to be asked for inclusion by DT1 members is "Do I trust this persons feedback and/or judgement of other members on this forum?" If the person has not left feedback for others, there is nothing to go off of. Even if the person added has left good feedback on eBay and gives you good feedback on your product/services directly, it doesn't mean they are going to have useful or accurate feedback on this forum towards other members, and so while they may be trustworthy to you, I'm not sure they are beneficial to the DefaultTrust network which serves an important niche of the community.

As for centralization/decentralization of DT. It makes me nervous to think of many more DT1 or DT2 members being added to the DT network as a way to decentralize it, as I believe this increases the percentage of shadiness/scams that may occur within DT, and DT-level shadiness IMO is the worst kind because of the power it creates, whether the power was intended or not - it exists, and higher-level scams may likely occur more often when those percentages of DT members suddenly increase. Adding more DT members in the name of decentralization feels like a double-edged sword to me.

Og said this about nonnakip, not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation:

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why.  So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network.  That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.

It would be nice to hear theymos clarify what he meant when he referred to the DT network becoming centralized, as maybe I have misinterpreted this. My take was that centralization of power was occurring around the activity level of a handful of DT members, as opposed to being related to the count of DT members. Additions and/or exclusions may need to happen, but educated decisions in a slow and controlled manner.. not just add a bunch of new DT1/DT2 members and say we are more decentralized now.

[pugman]

Additions and/or exclusions may need to happen, but educated decisions in a slow and controlled manner.. not just add a bunch of new DT1/DT2 members and say we are more decentralized now.

Two people : The Pharmacist and Loyce V have been added to the DT network recently. And nonnakip has been excluded. Maybe even more, I might have missed out on something as Philipma1957 did remove someone. OP has made this thread just three days ago, and DT1 members should rather take more time on deciding who should actually stay on the list before excluding someone. I see Philipma1957 has already evaluated their list,but it would rather be better to take a good look at their previous list again and think rationally. Though this thread is helping in giving suggestions on how DT1 members should improvise their lists,using the term "DT abuse" is not going to help. And like ibminer said, I'd like to see what theymos has to say on this whole DT networking and how exactly he wants the system to be decentralized. A lot of DT1/2 accounts have been bought and sold in the past and the more decentralized the network gets, more easy it becomes to get hands on DT member's accounts.

[OgNasty]

Do DT members get some sort of guidelines sent to them by theymos when they are added to DT1?

No.

nonnakip should have just gotten positive trust, and maybe multiple, based on various work or trades with Og/Nasty*. I feel like Og's response to nonnakip being added to DT2 may just be "Well, I trust him!".. which he may, but does the inclusion of nonnakip help the DT network, no. Does it hurt it? Short-term probably no, long-term may be debatable. Unless there are specific guidelines sent to DT1 members like Og* specifically stating all of this, it seems tough to deem this "DT abuse". Maybe I've missed it but I'm not sure I've ever really seen any public guidelines involving DT1 members and why they should or should not be adding people to DT2.

I would trust nonnakip to hold every cent I have and value his judgement more than any other human being alive.  I've removed him because as stated, he doesn't leave trust for anyone so there is no current value there, but make no mistake that he would be on my trust list if he left any ratings for anyone other than myself.

[suchmoon]

I'll take Og's word for it
-snip-
not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation

You really should stop taking someone's word for it without a proper explanation. He hasn't explained why he added nonnakip in the first place, or anyone else for that matter
They clearly do not help the community. Maybe they don't hurt it either but the fact none (or almost none) of them helps the community rises the question why they were included then

He removed nonnakip because it was too obvious his addition was wrong but it was always wrong, even the day he added him, so why did he add him?
This wouldn't matter if there were only a few cases but that appears to be the norm. So explanations are still required, or at least openness to feedback and improvement

You said there was no explanation. There was one and it's as good as any when it comes to DT1/DT2 inclusions or exclusions.

I can see why you don't like it but that's another story. Feel free to come up with evidence of wrongdoing. The mere fact of nonnakip being in DT2 does not show that.

Have you contacted Tomato?

I can't PM him, he doesn't receive PMs from newbies. Would you?

No. Ask QS, he's tight with Tomato.

It seems like the real question to be asked for inclusion by DT1 members is "Do I trust this persons feedback and/or judgement of other members on this forum?" If the person has not left feedback for others, there is nothing to go off of. Even if the person added has left good feedback on eBay and gives you good feedback on your product/services directly, it doesn't mean they are going to have useful or accurate feedback on this forum towards other members, and so while they may be trustworthy to you, I'm not sure they are beneficial to the DefaultTrust network which serves an important niche of the community.

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

[ibminer]

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

I might trust my doctor to have good judgement on what medication I need but I wouldn't trust his or her judgement to leave feedback to someone on this forum.  

What if the feedback is about Lauda's pill addiction?

Ok, I'll get my coat.

The doctor doesn't even know who Lauda is, nor the knowledge needed to make Lauda send a signed message to verify Lauda == his patient!  

[suchmoon]

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

I might trust my doctor to have good judgement on what medication I need but I wouldn't trust his or her judgement to leave feedback to someone on this forum. 

What if the feedback is about Lauda's pill addiction?

Ok, I'll get my coat.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

I might trust my doctor to have good judgement on what medication I need but I wouldn't trust his or her judgement to leave feedback to someone on this forum. 

What if the feedback is about Lauda's pill addiction?

Ok, I'll get my coat.

What about a pharmacist?

Hold the door suchmoon, I'm just coming.

[MagicSmoker]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

[Blazed]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

[DarkStar_]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

[Blazed]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

The amount of comments would probably make this hard to get done. Maybe if we had a thread that only DT could post in?

[philipma1957]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

I want to mention a few things I looked at my list and could remove more from it.
I will.  But I have 75 or 76 feedbacks I left out I know I can add more then 10 of them by multiple criteria mentioned here. I don’t because it would help my numbers I would approach 1000 for my score.

Yet those people are good for the forum.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

So I can’t know how much anyone helps this way.
I can not read pms not that I want to but I have no idea of any good any one does via pms.
An example I had no idea this thread was here but someone pm’d me. So that person helped the forum by getting me on the thread.

[botany]

I want to mention a few things I looked at my list and could remove more from it.
I will.  But I have 75 or 76 feedbacks I left out I know I can add more then 10 of them by multiple criteria mentioned here. I don’t because it would help my numbers I would approach 1000 for my score.

Yet those people are good for the forum.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

So I can’t know how much anyone helps this way.
I can not read pms not that I want to but I have no idea of any good any one does via pms.
An example I had no idea this thread was here but someone pm’d me. So that person helped the forum by getting me on the thread.

If you feel that adding those 10 people would be good to the forum, they should obviously added. It would improve decentralization of DT. The fact that they left you positive feedback shouldn't count against them. Being on DT1 trust is a far more important indicator of being trustworthy than having a 'dark green' trust score.

I do not think accuracy in reporting posts counts towards determining whether somebody's feedback can be trusted. It might help if you want to act against spammers, but that is something which I feel moderators should be doing in any case.

[LoyceV]

I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why.

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

The amount of comments would probably make this hard to get done. Maybe if we had a thread that only DT could post in?

DarkStar_ beat me to it. Instead of a closed door meeting, I think it would be interesting to read this in public.
You could create a self-moderated thread in Reputation, with a local rule that only DT1 members can post there. Delete anything else.
A thread filled with DT1 sounds scary enough not to break local rules, and if someone else posts there anyway, just delete it.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

See Report to Moderator stats [Added few questions for Mods].

[philipma1957]

I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why.

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

The amount of comments would probably make this hard to get done. Maybe if we had a thread that only DT could post in?

DarkStar_ beat me to it. Instead of a closed door meeting, I think it would be interesting to read this in public.
You could create a self-moderated thread in Reputation, with a local rule that only DT1 members can post there. Delete anything else.
A thread filled with DT1 sounds scary enough not to break local rules, and if someone else posts there anyway, just delete it.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

See Report to Moderator stats [Added few questions for Mods].

Nice info  but it only goes to about  600 reported posts

and i did 250 or so.  so  people from  250 to 600 reports are left out.


I further changed my trust list
-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin


is now
-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN

generalt

[TrumpD]

I've never experienced a heated thread with a lot of "high" ranking members before. This is truly "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"... *takes out popcorn and enjoys the show* One thing is clear out of this, there has to be a way, for transparent accountability no matter what level one is on. Just a suggestion *retreats back into seat*

[philipma1957]

I've never experienced a heated thread with a lot of "high" ranking members before. This is truly "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"... *takes out popcorn and enjoys the show* One thing is clear out of this, there has to be a way, for transparent accountability no matter what level one is on. Just a suggestion *retreats back into seat*

There are difficult issues for trust guys to deal with .

I pruned my list and dropped from 700 to 375 score.

I had already left 70 plus people out that if I put on trust my list would jump over 1000 score.

I will later check those 70 out and see if I think they should go on the list.  And each and every one I list brings my score higher.

So I have a built in conflict of interest but it would all be visible and someone like the op would see what i did.


My worry is if I only trust people that did not trust me. Then I could have a huge list. With hundreds of people

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

[o_e_l_e_o]

Would it be possible for theymos to implement a system where DT2 members do not boost the ratings of DT1 members, unless the DT2 member has been added by 2 or more DT1s? Would pretty much solve this entire issue immediately.

[Blazed]

Annon001 - You should re-run the numbers and see how much of a difference the changes have made the numbers.

[philipma1957]

I want to mention a few things I looked at my list and could remove more from it.
I will.  But I have 75 or 76 feedbacks I left out I know I can add more then 10 of them by multiple criteria mentioned here. I don’t because it would help my numbers I would approach 1000 for my score.

Yet those people are good for the forum.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

So I can’t know how much anyone helps this way.
I can not read pms not that I want to but I have no idea of any good any one does via pms.
An example I had no idea this thread was here but someone pm’d me. So that person helped the forum by getting me on the thread.

If you feel that adding those 10 people would be good to the forum, they should obviously added. It would improve decentralization of DT. The fact that they left you positive feedback shouldn't count against them. Being on DT1 trust is a far more important indicator of being trustworthy than having a 'dark green' trust score.

I do not think accuracy in reporting posts counts towards determining whether somebody's feedback can be trusted. It might help if you want to act against spammers, but that is something which I feel moderators should be doing in any case.

this is my issue.  I do 20000 usd in business with x he is wonderful  I do 5 deals  over 18 months  no issues.  I know where he lives and   have been to his house.

I am being asked to not put him in for trust  because he  does not fit   the op's standards  of what trust list is for.  Better in the case of generalt he gave me feedbacks I should leave him off.

Well  I take the fact I am on DT1 list seriously  and I removed a lot of names  in the last few days.

I am now going to be looking to see names to put in.  Since I mostly deal with  mining and gear  my name list will always in that direction.

I may be adding kilo17 today  and I think  that will boost my  score. But he has helped a lot of peopel and done a lot for bitcointalk

393 0 41   is what I am before I add him

393: -0 / +41  I stayed at that number


and this is my list now

-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17


if I do only this for my list

DefaultTrust

I drop to this

Trust:   303: -0 / +32  just default
   
Trust:   393: -0 / +41 so my people added  moved me to

here is another point  with a score of

303: -0  / +32    I think it is high enough  to be trusted   

[Jet Cash]

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

This illustrates one of the problems that I have with the trust system. I don't understand why reporting posts accurately should indicate that a person can be trusted in a financial transaction.

[philipma1957]

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

This illustrates one of the problems that I have with the trust system. I don't understand why reporting posts accurately should indicate that a person can be trusted in a financial transaction.

I hear you.

Frankly  when I now look at the current list I have

-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17

and I add in this  rule for trust I know where you live and have contacted you in person or telephone or emails.

my list shrinks to this

-ck
buysolar
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17
DefaultTrust

So based on  the op and possible liability for me I should further shrink my list to just that.

I certainly don't want someone saying my  list caused them a monetary loss.

So for now I think I will shrink my list again.

As I think you would be safe dealing with those people and I know they help  the forum.


when I look at my profile  I read this

 Trust:   343: -0 / +36

[LoyceV]

So I altered list and I am now at 536 vs 670

I think you've set your Trust depth to 3 (instead of the default value 2). For people who stick to the default, your trust is currently 145: -0 / +15.

I may be adding kilo17 today  and I think  that will boost my  score. But he has helped a lot of peopel and done a lot for bitcointalk

393 0 41   is what I am before I add him

393: -0 / +41  I stayed at that number

The effect on DT2 may or may not be different than DT3.

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

This would be a terrible idea: anybody can go to the Altcoin-board and easily report 600 bad posts. That shouldn't give him the power to leave trusted feedback.

[philipma1957]

So I altered list and I am now at 536 vs 670

I think you've set your Trust depth to 3 (instead of the default value 2). For people who stick to the default, your trust is currently 145: -0 / +15.

I may be adding kilo17 today  and I think  that will boost my  score. But he has helped a lot of peopel and done a lot for bitcointalk

393 0 41   is what I am before I add him

393: -0 / +41  I stayed at that number

The effect on DT2 may or may not be different than DT3.

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

This would be a terrible idea: anybody can go to the Altcoin-board and easily report 600 bad posts. That shouldn't give him the power to leave trusted feedback.

Okay

trust value at 4 Trust:   556: -0 / +58
trust value at 3 Trust:   343: -0 / +36
trust value at 2 Trust:   146: -0 / +16



My trimmed list

-ck
buysolar
DefaultTrust
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17


Now I simply say this for all default trust people  the op accused more then one of us  for manipulating our numbers.
I am USA based and live in New Jersey this thread subjects me to possible litigation and anyone else op mentioned.

A person that lost  money buying from anyone I listed  could say my high trust caused them to purchase  for instance Dragonmint miners.

I would then need to defend myself

So frankly to the op  

who are you?

@ theymos  after reviewing this thread I think I want off the list.

for now  I have  altered my trust list to this

 -ck
buysolar
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17


note I left  DefaultTrust off the  list

my numbers are now

Trust:   126: -0 / +14  at level 2

I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2. The op's accusations clearly have created a basis for me to think very long and hard about this as I live in a very litigious part of the USA : New Jersey.

[Lauda]

Now I simply say this for all default trust people  the op accused more then one of us  for manipulating our numbers.
-snip-
@ theymos  after reviewing this thread I think I want off the list.
-snip-
I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2. The op's accusations clearly have created a basis for me to think very long and hard about this as I live in a very litigious part of the USA : New Jersey.

Why are you taking this thread, which isn't even solely directed at you, so personally?

[MagicSmoker]

Now I simply say this for all default trust people  the op accused more then one of us  for manipulating our numbers.
-snip-
@ theymos  after reviewing this thread I think I want off the list.
-snip-
I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2. The op's accusations clearly have created a basis for me to think very long and hard about this as I live in a very litigious part of the USA : New Jersey.

Why are you taking this thread, which isn't even solely directed at you, so personally?

Well, at a guess it might be the overly inflammatory title of the thread...

Re-titling it as, for example, "Possible manipulation of trust metrics by DT1 members" would express much the same without the incendiary aspects.

Or less incendiary, anyway.

[philipma1957]

Now I simply say this for all default trust people  the op accused more then one of us  for manipulating our numbers.
-snip-
@ theymos  after reviewing this thread I think I want off the list.
-snip-
I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2. The op's accusations clearly have created a basis for me to think very long and hard about this as I live in a very litigious part of the USA : New Jersey.

Why are you taking this thread, which isn't even solely directed at you, so personally?

Well  there is the crux of the issue.  Because I normally  don't bother with  Meta at all.

But  at this point in time after reviewing all the op said  I realized  I am exposed to litigation due to his or hers accusation.

I am active in :

  the DragonMint sha 256 thread
  the 16 gpu industrial miner thread is my review thread for the gear
  the 13 gpu autominer.at thread is my review thread for the gear
  and  I may be doing a canaan thread
  along with an orion miner thread

If any of the above turn out to be a disaster   I could be looking at consequences   for saying the gear is worthwhile  and as op said here faking my ratings

I simply don't need the aggravation caused  by a ghost (op)  even if his or hers real agenda was to go after OgNasty or others named  and they tossed me in to make it look good.

Basically  as I have have stated in a few meta threads I never asked to be put on the DT1 list.
Since I don't know the op at all I don't like what was done here.  
So I don't think I am unreasonable at acting this way.

The truth is I don't know much about the people he accused other then OgNasty
but the list has me as 11x worse then anyone else



philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

OgNasty
338: -0 / +35
244: -0 / +25
+94: +10 (40%)

hilariousandco
57: -0 / +7
50: -0 / +6
+7: +1 (16.7%)
dooglus
134: -0 / +14
114: -0 / +12
+20: +2 (16.7%)

Maged
30: -0 / +3
30: -0 / +3
+0: +0 (0%)
dserrano5
10: -0 / +1
0: -0 / +0
+10: +1 (inf%)
(Huge percentage, but only one unique trust)
Tomatocage
220: -0 / +22
160: -0 / +16
+60: +6 (37.5%)

SaltySpitoon
140: -0 / +14
120: -0 / +12
+20: +2 (16.7%)

Cyrus
62: -0 / +7
42: -0 / +5
+20: +2 (40%)
Blazed
334: -0 / +34
285: -0 / +29
+49: +5 (17.2%)

theymos
160: -0 / +17
140: -0 / +15
+20: +2 (13.3%)

HostFat
40: -0 / +4
0: -0 / +0
+40: +4 (inf%)
(Huge percentage, but only 4 unique trust)


I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation


I blank my list to just default I have

Trust:   105: -0 / +11

current list is
-ck
buysolar
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17

Trust:   126: -0 / +14

if a combine and go to

DefaultTrust
-ck
buysolar
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17


Trust:   146: -0 / +16

now base on op's criteria

I go to

146:  -0  / +16
105:  -0  / +11

+41     +5  still a fail

as 5/11 = 45%   which still makes my list the worst one.  So frankly  I do consider it to be a direct attack on me and  I don't even know the op's name.

What  really annoys me is many of the names  were done before I was even on the trust list.  I don't add a lot of people to the trust list anymore.

And the op is saying  that no one should ever add a person to the trust list if it improves their score.

So I can not put anyone one the trust list I got a feedback from even if the feedback was before I was on the Dt1 list.

So in effect I am listed as the biggest villain  in his first post when  10 of the additions were done before the I was on the Dt1.

Even though  I now pruned the list   the original number of 440% remains  and  this effectively is a barrier to my ability to function  as a DT1 member .
even though I mentioned in numerous threads  I am open to   dt1 alterations
even though I have multiple feedbacks  saying I have changed my dt1 list  when asked

and @ lauda  how do I know  the op is not you? or anyone else

 @ all I never marked an unfair tag on anyone here
 @ all I have never been marked negative by anyone
 @ all I never cheated anyone
 @ all I have promo'd coins across the world
 @ all I gave away  many btc in the diff thread picks
 
 @ all I am really pissed at the op
 

 

[akamit]

@philipma1957

I am a total outsider here regarding the issue, I'm just expressing my opinion.

Just do not take this thread personally anymore, forget this thread and concentrate on your work.

You, philipma1957 have proved that you are one of the trusted members of our community. And your actions regarding the issue also confirms how trusted and serious you are.

Whether you stay at DT1-4 or not, that actually doesn't matter anymore... What matters here is your name philipma1957. Peoples will remember you with your name, now and in future.

[Lauda]

...
as 5/11 = 45%   which still makes my list the worst one.  So frankly  I do consider it to be a direct attack on me and  I don't even know the op's name.
...

Doesn't matter; you improved on it even thought you could have ignored it like some did. That's what matters. I don't see this as a direct attack on anyone, yet.

and @ lauda  how do I know  the op is not you? or anyone else

You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to).

[OgNasty]

I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2.

Please don't further centralize DT1 by leaving.  We need to include more trustworthy people in the network to get better accuracy.  Those of us who have been trustworthy for a long time and interacting with lots of users will naturally have high scores and other longtime trusted members on our lists.  The OP took a random metric and tried to make it something that it isn't.  The effect has been the exact opposite of what we should be seeing.  Add more people you trust to your list.  Be thankful you learned a few things about how it works as a result of this thread, and keep doing what you've been doing.  You are appreciated around here and too valuable to spend your time greasing the squeaky wheels.  Welcome to the 'you've become a target of jealousy over your trust status' club.

[philipma1957]

I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2.

Please don't further centralize DT1 by leaving.  We need to include more trustworthy people in the network to get better accuracy.  Those of us who have been trustworthy for a long time and interacting with lots of users will naturally have high scores and other longtime trusted members on our lists.  The OP took a random metric and tried to make it something that it isn't.  The effect has been the exact opposite of what we should be seeing.  Add more people you trust to your list.  Be thankful you learned a few things about how it works as a result of this thread, and keep doing what you've been doing.  You are appreciated around here and too valuable to spend your time greasing the squeaky wheels.  Welcome to the 'you've become a target of jealousy over your trust status' club.

Yeah guess it is a case spring fever  caused by the 4 easter's we had here in NJ

I normally don't take it that badly but  this time I did.

[Annon001]

Do DT members get some sort of guidelines sent to them by theymos when they are added to DT1?

No.

Maybe theymos didn't send any guideline to you but he did send at least a very short one to Blazed and, hopefully, other DT1 members. His instance is very clear:

Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback

I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

If you mean that as the only parameter to add someone to DT2 then that would be the worst idea! But that could be a good start as long as you check feedback left by every of those users to see if that trust helps the community and is left with proper arguments, references and without abuse. Or you can check the Marketplace and find users who leave trust there. Those seem better ways to start than those you've dealt with or have exchanged trust with. Of course those are just ways to start, proper checking of their left trust is required

Annon001 - You should re-run the numbers and see how much of a difference the changes have made the numbers.

Good suggestion. I've updated OP

As I think you would be safe dealing with those people and I know they help  the forum

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money. It should mean their feedback can be trusted. It should mean the trust they leave helps others see who can be trusted with money.
Those added to DT2 should help the forum by leaving accurate and helpful trust, not just by making good deals
Of course you won't add a scammer to DT2 under any circumstances as he will abuse his power but just being trusted to hold money is not reason enough. Just leave positive trust in that case

Now I simply say this for all default trust people  the op accused more then one of us  for manipulating our numbers.
I am USA based and live in New Jersey this thread subjects me to possible litigation and anyone else op mentioned.
-snip-
I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2. The op's accusations clearly have created a basis for me to think very long and hard about this as I live in a very litigious part of the USA : New Jersey.

Don't take this as an attack. You seem to forget I said this after you actively began to re-check your list:

I no longer believe he is abusing the trust system

I have updated the title of OP so hopefully you and other DT1 members don't take it as a personal attack

The OP took a random metric

Sure, random  Coincidentally that metric tells the exact change each one made to their own trust by setting their own list. The difference shown there is the exact effect each DT1 had on their own trust by being DT1 and adding others to DT2. But I was just lucky because the metric was chosen at random

Add more people you trust to your list

Absolutely, as I've said before. As long as the reason to add those users to DT2 is because the trust they left helps the community, not just because you've dealt with them or even because they can be trusted with money (in that case leave positive trust to them, don't add them to DT2)

[Quickseller]

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal.

[MagicSmoker]

Add more people you trust to your list

Absolutely, as I've said before. As long as the reason to add those users to DT2 is because the trust they left helps the community, not just because you've dealt with them or even because they can be trusted with money (in that case leave positive trust to them, don't add them to DT2)

Huh, you did, indeed, change the thread title to something less inflammatory.

Okay, I get your argument here, that a person who is entirely trustworthy in a transaction might not necessarily be trusted to leave unbiased feedback, but given that no human being is truly unbiased or immune to favoritism, etc., this may be a distinction without a difference, so to speak.

[Joel_Jantsen]

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

I disagree.Considering how members are selected does matter.For instance, The Pharmacist was added to the DT because they actively tag scammers/spammers which somehow adds to spam reduction.They can certainly be trusted with their tagging skills but not with the money as they don't have a history of doing so.Having said that,I'm not sure where you picked that definition of being on the DT from but atleast in 2018 it does not mean a DT member should be blindly trusted with money unless of course they have had records of doing it successfully.

Not to mention but MasterP's case is quite evident.

If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal.

What ? That is absolutely wrong.Speaking practically,you mean only people who can afford millions are added on the default trust ?

[hilariousetc]

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal.

I think he probably means that merely being on DefaultTrust doesn't magically give them a gold seal that they are trusted to hold x amount of money. Once you get added to DT 1 or 2 this isn't a guarantee by theymos or anyone else that they're trusted to hold massive amounts of money but more that they've been trusted to be a valid member of the trust network for whatever reason. I personally don't think there would be many DT members that I would trust with millions of dollars and at the end of the day most people here are just a username on a screen and the ratings you've left and activity amongst the community should be taken into consideration more than how much money you have handled.

[suchmoon]

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal.

That doesn't make any sense. Many (perhaps most) DT members never even approach the amounts of monetary risk you're talking about.

[philipma1957]

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal.

That doesn't make any sense. Many (perhaps most) DT members never even approach the amounts of monetary risk you're talking about.

My largest escrow was about 45k
My biggest trust was having 75k in gear at buysolar's solar array

[Annon001]

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

Are you trying to imply I advised DT1 members to include untrusted people, scammers or users with red trust to their trust list? Read everything I posted, including this

Of course you won't add a scammer to DT2 under any circumstances as he will abuse his power but just being trusted to hold money is not reason enough

I think he probably means that merely being on DefaultTrust doesn't magically give them a gold seal that they are trusted to hold x amount of money

Exactly. And just being trusted enough to hold x amount of money doesn't necessarily mean the trust they send can be trusted or is helpful, unbiased, with good references
Leaving good, helpful feedback and being trusted enough to hold money are different things. Some users can have both qualities, others none. But it's completely possible to have only one

[Quickseller]

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

Are you trying to imply I advised DT1 members to include untrusted people, scammers or users with red trust to their trust list? Read everything I posted, including this

Of course you won't add a scammer to DT2 under any circumstances as he will abuse his power but just being trusted to hold money is not reason enough

In order to be on DT2, you should be very trusted, because you can potentially make other accounts, including undisclosed sockpuppets, look very trusted when this is not appropriate, and can use the threat of negative ratings to obtain things that they are not due. Having a little bit of positive trust is very far from being sufficient to be on DT2.

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money.

This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public.

If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal.

That doesn't make any sense. Many (perhaps most) DT members never even approach the amounts of monetary risk you're talking about.

My largest escrow was about 45k
My biggest trust was having 75k in gear at buysolar's solar array

Suchmoon has a history of acting in bad faith. I very clearly said the DT1 member should be able to trust every single person on their trust list with a hundred thousand+ dollars [if the opportunity arose] without hesitation. Suchmoon responded to my statement as if I was saying this kind of transaction would need to have actually happened.

[suchmoon]

Suchmoon has a history of acting in bad faith. I very clearly said the DT1 member should be able to trust every single person on their trust list with a hundred thousand+ dollars [if the opportunity arose] without hesitation. Suchmoon responded to my statement as if I was saying this kind of transaction would need to have actually happened.

You have a history of being a liar.

Your statement still doesn't make sense. You're the one treating everything (including DT) as a sockpuppeting opportunity.

[TookDk]

The whole point of the trust system is that you appoint a group of people to DT1 - because they are trustworthy.
It will then be up to them to add people on DT2 to extend the default network.
It is not a perfect system - but it has worked well for many years.

But in order for the system to work - then must the DT1 user be free to add/remove anyone on their trust list - without having to constantly defend them self - they havde been appointed to DT1 because theymos trust their judgement.

I do not se how any DT1 users would be motivated to manipulate their trust score?
They are already been proven trustworthy and every veteran user here know exactly who is on DT1.
The trust score means nothing for these users.

Op basically imply that the DT1 user is not allowed to have feedback from someone on their trust list - this is nonsens, as the people ending up on DT2 most likely did some type of business or trade with the DT1 user in the past - which ultimately lead to being trustworthy and be on DT2.

Basically OP just point out how the trust system works, there is really nothing useful in the information listed - maybe there are some academic interest, but that's all.
Obviously Annon001 is a shill account - if you want to discuss this core matter, then plz use your primary account.

[Lauda]

But in order for the system to work - then must the DT1 user be free to add/remove anyone on their trust list..

While I do agree with this to some extent, no good will come out of too much unsupervised freedom.

...without having to constantly defend them self - they havde been appointed to DT1 because theymos trust their judgement.

DT1 members are rarely under "attack" in comparison to DT2 member, thus they are surely not constantly defending themselves.

-snip-
Obviously Annon001 is a shill account - if you want to discuss this core matter, then plz use your primary account.

That won't happen due to fear of retaliation.

[allahabadi]

-snip-
Obviously Annon001 is a shill account - if you want to discuss this core matter, then plz use your primary account.

I've been reading this post for quite some time but did not comment for primarily two reasons :

1. I don't trade with anonymous accounts.
2. Noone trades with me.

But this post has come closest to expressing what has been crossing my mind since I have begun reading this post.

I think to call it a manipulation is an exaggeration; I dunno how it can be a manipulation unless they have begun adding members with whom they've not had trades or provided false feedbacks to add them, unless the OP has adequate proof of this I think this is a slanderous attempt by selective highlighting of facts with incendiary thread headlines.

Also, I do think that even providing DT status to one scammer is enough to be a manipulator; if you do it while being in the know and you don't need 100s of DT additions for it.


P.S. If I'm not wrong theymos had TradeFortres on his DT and he came out as the most legendary DT member.  So, better trust your judgement and not other trusted and experienced members or BMs; for it is your money you are putting at risk; although a quick look at ratings (both trusted and untrusted) is a must.



P.P.S. @philipma1957 change your jurisdiction; if complaints can be filed for such frivolous issues and you can actually be held liable, apart from that I think you are doing nothing wrong.