Trust system abuse / DT2 member Vod is provably dishonestly rating people

[xtraelv]

Yes I know: digaran if you don't like this system you are free to leave and start your own forum. guess what? day after day you people are losing your credibility and soon you'll become irrelevant to the crowd.

I imagine that the majority of people are oblivious to the trust system and probably also the merit system.

Slightly off-topic and no offence intended - but each time I see "internal investigator"  I think of a colonoscopy.

[1713265603]

1713265603

[1713265603]

1713265603

[1713265603]

1713265603

[1713265603]

1713265603

[digaran]

Snip.

Usually those people who are on DT list try to translate the trust system in a way to suit their agendas, E.G, negative trust means that certain individual doesn't trust you, then people would click on trust page and read the feedback to see why exactly they don't trust you and they will realize who is the untrustworthy person.

Now on topic:
Is there anybody from DT who'd like to again counter Vod's feedback on Anduck to see if Vod is going to further abuse Anduck and again tags him red to say that Anduck is still a scammer?

Note what I said before about expecting to get a tip from Anduck, it was a sarcasm, refer to certain somebody's signature where they say: tipping address. lol.

[shahzadafzal]

I think a big part of the problem is educating on how the system works.  Let me try and simplify.

If you trust someone, you can leave a rating reflecting that.  
If you don't trust someone, you can decline to leave them a rating.  
If someone has engaged in untrustworthy behavior, you can leave them a rating reflecting that.

Perfect... that's what trust is all about !!!
--
Just wondering... i remember Darkstar_ left a +ve trust feedback for Anduck... why did he removed it or changed his mind?

[actmyname]

Just wondering... i remember Darkstar_ left a +ve trust feedback for Anduck... why did he removed it or changed his mind?

Obviously, because digaran's persuasiveness slammed me DarkStar_ so badly that I they realized I they were a trust abuser all along and henceforth deleted my their rating.

[digaran]

Perfect, now I also removed my tag on DarkStar_, now it's time for actmyname, please remove your tag on Anduck. also Vod has to remove his second tag on Anduck now that DarkStar_ has removed his.

Why I ask from actmyname to remove his positive trust from Anduck? because actmyname has no business countering people's negative trust, that would be favoritism and could result in abuse. we don't know whether actmyname took some money to counter Vod's feedback or not, so it would be good if actmyname removes the tag to be clear of suspicion of bribery and misuse of trust system.

[actmyname]

Why I ask from actmyname to remove his positive trust from Anduck? because actmyname has no business countering people's negative trust, that would be favoritism and could result in abuse.

How does that make any sense?

we don't know whether actmyname took some money to counter Vod's feedback or not, so it would be good if actmyname removes the tag to be clear of suspicion of bribery and misuse of trust system.

Simply because there is a possibility, I have to remove it?

Then shit, I might as well never send out feedback at all if there's always a possibility that it's because of a bribe.I'm not removing my counter unless Vod removes his feedback. That's the purpose of the counter.

[digaran]

Why I ask from actmyname to remove his positive trust from Anduck? because actmyname has no business countering people's negative trust, that would be favoritism and could result in abuse.

How does that make any sense?

we don't know whether actmyname took some money to counter Vod's feedback or not, so it would be good if actmyname removes the tag to be clear of suspicion of bribery and misuse of trust system.

Simply because there is a possibility, I have to remove it?

Then shit, I might as well never send out feedback at all if there's always a possibility that it's because of a bribe.I'm not removing my counter unless Vod removes his feedback. That's the purpose of the counter.

Then what happens to Vod's positive trust on you for countering his feedback? I guess that will remain in place like almost every positive feedback Vod has left for others?
If Vod is not going to teach us how we could forgive other people by removing his red tags on Anduck, I'd like to suggest another DT2 member to counter Vod's second tag and wait to see if Vod is going to counter that as well. if he does that then clearly DT1 members would have to consider excluding him from their trust list. because Vod doesn't want to be a productive part of this community and all he wants is to have the final saying on every matter which is not even something that the community wants.

[actmyname]

I'd like to suggest another DT2 member to counter Vod's second tag and wait to see if Vod is going to counter that as well.

There is no second tag. The negative that Vod left after DarkStar_'s was to counter their feedback which I actually agree with. There should only really be one counter-rating. All subsequent ratings should be regarded as regular trust ratings.

[digaran]

I'm here to update you all on the recent events, it seems that Vod has also removed his second tag on Anduck after DarkStar_ removed his.
Here are some facts:
Recently some DT2 members are tagging people based on past events and misbehavior, for example: Vod has tagged Anduck for something from the past. actmyname is also tagging people for their wrongdoings from the past. are we going to allow them to do this and let them damage other people's reputation while they get positive trust left and right for doing this and others would get negative trust?

Anduck is not a scammer, he actually never scammed anybody, there is no complaints against Anduck for attempting to scam anybody, this is based on Vod's judgement which is really poor given that we should trust his feedbacks and accept them to be accurate by default.

[Anduck]

Counter rating is stupid. It doesn't change the bad rating and messes up the system. Correct way is to make bad ratings untrusted.

Why shouldn't there be multiple "counter ratings" against a bad negative rating? Why should only one DT member have a say in there?

[qwk]

negative trust means that certain individual doesn't trust you

Isn't that precisely the way it's supposed to be?

[Welsh]

Counter rating is stupid. It doesn't change the bad rating and messes up the system. Correct way is to make bad ratings untrusted.

Why shouldn't there be multiple "counter ratings" against a bad negative rating? Why should only one DT member have a say in there?

I assume it's to prevent abuse by the cartel that apparently exists here in the forum. Counter ratings are fine as they are good for when someone may disagree with a negative, but can't justify removing the user who left the rating off their trust list, because they generally agree with the rest of the feedback they have left, and still trust that member.

[Quickseller]

negative trust means that certain individual doesn't trust you

Isn't that precisely the way it's supposed to be?

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

[qwk]

negative trust means that certain individual doesn't trust you

Isn't that precisely the way it's supposed to be?

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" may not be equivalent to, but certainly is an emphasized version of "I don't trust this guy", semantically.
At least that's the way I understand it.
Then again, I've always been known for shooting first and asking questions later

[Welsh]

I "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" may not be equivalent to, but certainly is an emphasized version of "I don't trust this guy", semantically.
At least that's the way I understand it.
Then again, I've always been known for shooting first and asking questions later

Generally, in most cases excluding them from your trust list would be the best option if it's the simple matter of "I don't trust this person". However, I would agree that sometimes a negative to warn others might be the better option. Entirely subjective of course, but if you believe someone is gearing up to scam or has shown scammy behaviour without scamming then leaving negative feedback could probably be justified to a certain extent. Which is probably why Vod's feedback is justified, and the only thing I see that could be considered misleading is the fact that he's stated Anduck scammed, although this entirely dependson your interpretation of what a scam is, and whether you consider cultural differences.  

I'll need to catch up with the thread just in case I've missed the justification from Anduck why the item wasn't sold right after the auction, and when this was inquired by another user he replied to the user to send him a personal message, and stated the item was not sold. Again, this depends on your interpretation of things, and you may come to the conclusion that Anduck had no intentions of selling the item to the higher bidder which he since has. After all, if he was truly bidding on the item, and won it he wouldn't want to sell it again would he? There's a justifiable answer to this, but I would be interested what Anduck says instead of giving him this information outright.

[qwk]

Generally, in most cases excluding them from your trust list would be the best option if it's the simple matter of "I don't trust this person".

No.
Your trust list does not say anything about how trustworthy a person is.
Your trust list should include people who "give good trust", i.e. whose trust ratings are useful for yourself and possibly others.
You could even add a known Scammer to your trust list if, and only if this person is careful about giving meaningful trust ratings (even though I would advise against it).
Your trust list should explicitly exclude people whose positive trust ratings have been given to untrustworthy people or whose negative ratings have been given as "retaliation" or whatever.

However, I would agree that sometimes a negative to warn others might be the better option. Entirely subjective of course, but if you believe someone is gearing up to scam or has shown scammy behaviour without scamming then leaving negative feedback could probably be justified to a certain extent.

That's the way I use my trust list. I also offer to delete negative ratings once I see "betterment" or a reasonable explanation for someones behavior. I even sometimes delete "old" trust ratings when I no longer deem them appropriate, maybe because the user in question has "changed" in my eyes. Obviously, I can only do the latter for users I know quite well from our local community.

[Welsh]

No.
Your trust list does not say anything about how trustworthy a person is.
Your trust list should include people who "give good trust", i.e. whose trust ratings are useful for yourself and possibly others.
You could even add a known Scammer to your trust list if, and only if this person is careful about giving meaningful trust ratings (even though I would advise against it).
Your trust list should explicitly exclude people whose positive trust ratings have been given to untrustworthy people or whose negative ratings have been given as "retaliation" or whatever.

You make a good point that I completely overlooked when I made that post. Although, I would like to argue that your very likely not going to include people you don't trust no matter if they leave accurate feedback or not. I would argue that they both go hand in hand.

That's the way I use my trust list. I also offer to delete negative ratings once I see "betterment" or a reasonable explanation for someones behavior. I even sometimes delete "old" trust ratings when I no longer deem them appropriate, maybe because the user in question has "changed" in my eyes. Obviously, I can only do the latter for users I know quite well from our local community.

I've deleted old feedback a few times. However, I normally tend to leave an update especially if we've made a trade recently because after all we did complete a deal, and they showed they were trustworthy in that deal. Honestly, I'm not very active on the trust front anymore, and mostly rely on others to do it for me now. (Thanks!)

[Quickseller]

negative trust means that certain individual doesn't trust you

Isn't that precisely the way it's supposed to be?

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" may not be equivalent to, but certainly is an emphasized version of "I don't trust this guy", semantically.
At least that's the way I understand it.
Then again, I've always been known for shooting first and asking questions later
[img ]https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMi1jZGM0MjBmYjA3NThkM2Ez.png[/img]

I generally don't have an issue with leaving negative trust with very little evidence of wrongdoing (or planned wrongdoing) in order to warn others of general suspicions while an investigation is ongoing (for a short time), provided that after a few days, the rating is either removed, or justified with more solid proof the person is a scammer. This time can be used to either gather more information or ask questions about suspicious activity.

My concern about using the "I don't trust someone" standard, is that it encourages a mob mentality and removes any kind of accountability to those leaving ratings -- both of which seem to be a problem as of recently. It also makes it much easier to leave ratings for personal reasons, which appear to be happening at a greater frequency as of recently.

If you are unable to articulate how someone is a scammer, as a general rule, a negative rating is not appropriate.

[suchmoon]

I generally don't have an issue with leaving negative trust with very little evidence of wrongdoing (or planned wrongdoing) in order to warn others of general suspicions while an investigation is ongoing (for a short time), provided that after a few days, the rating is either removed, or justified with more solid proof the person is a scammer. This time can be used to either gather more information or ask questions about suspicious activity.

My concern about using the "I don't trust someone" standard, is that it encourages a mob mentality and removes any kind of accountability to those leaving ratings -- both of which seem to be a problem as of recently. It also makes it much easier to leave ratings for personal reasons, which appear to be happening at a greater frequency as of recently.

If you are unable to articulate how someone is a scammer, as a general rule, a negative rating is not appropriate.

So when are you going to remove all those unarticulated "scammer" tags without references?

[shahzadafzal]

That's the way I use my trust list. I also offer to delete negative ratings once I see "betterment" or a reasonable explanation for someones behavior. I even sometimes delete "old" trust ratings when I no longer deem them appropriate, maybe because the user in question has "changed" in my eyes. Obviously, I can only do the latter for users I know quite well from our local community.

That needs a bigger heart... and who has that?