Is the Default trust system still working/active?

[suchmoon]

If I was Satoshi, would you then listen to these ideas I present?

Look at the first post of this thread. See what makes this DT list and what the DT users do.
DT should not be a group that requires whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm talking about (1) abuse/retaliatory feedback and (2) feedback predominantly without references. This is useless and harmful to the trust system. Nothing to do with satoshi or scambusting.

If you got nothing to contribute to the system then don't. But if you're making a mockery of it - I think that disqualifies your opinion on the subject, just like a bounty shitposter isn't qualified to provide input on post quality and merits.

[1714058725]

1714058725

[1714058725]

1714058725

[1714058725]

1714058725

[Anduck]

If I was Satoshi, would you then listen to these ideas I present?

Look at the first post of this thread. See what makes this DT list and what the DT users do.
DT should not be a group that requires whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm talking about (1) abuse/retaliatory feedback and (2) feedback predominantly without references. This is useless and harmful to the trust system. Nothing to do with satoshi or scambusting.

If you got nothing to contribute to the system then don't. But if you're making a mockery of it - I think that disqualifies your opinion on the subject, just like a bounty shitposter isn't qualified to provide input on post quality and merits.

I'm not putting words in your mouth? Wtf. Is that a default line you open up with when you want to make an insulting reply?

My ratings are not sent because of received feedback itself. Hence not retaliatory, I've told you this already, but you keep calling them retaliatory.
Reference is not required. Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable.

Trust system is used in so many ways. Another reason why DT is skewing it up, as the same applies to DT.

[cryptohunter]

Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.

You keep saying that and you even "applied" to DT yourself but in the last year or so you posted around a dozen trust ratings, 2 (perhaps 2.5) of which are retaliatory and others have no reference links. That's a horrible contribution to the trust system and you should not be anywhere near DT nor have any say in how it should be changed.

Who says? you? LOL


I would say ANY person fighting against the systems being improved to be fairer, more reliable and producing valuable data for analysis are the people that should be kept away from trust positions in the first place.

What possible motive can anyone have for fighting against making the systems more robust and reliable and transparent.

Now if there were strict criteria for DT to follow it none of these arguments would be happening. First time they don't abide with the criteria and mandate boom they are gone. Of course they would need to be legends or heros and have a long history of fair behaviour and trustworthy behaviour. Any grey area squabbles would be too risky to start handing out red because unless you actually got scammed or have a clear case to provide that demonstrates they are untrustworthy then it will not be worth losing your DT over.

There should not be persons saying or having opinions on how it should be changed or not changed. There should be proposals that are weighed on their merit. There needs to be systems proposed and then debate on whether and why they are an improvement and if they can be coded into the design of the forum.

"Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable" -suchmoon anduck

Give an example??


"just like a bounty shitposter isn't qualified to provide input on post quality and merits" -such moon

100% agree with most of that and that ANYONE GETTING PAID2POST should not be allowed  into a position of power controlling PAID2POST through merit and trust.  That is a good move for a start.  That takes out most of the sig spammers in meta here.

I always love it when you pop up to help confirm the we need to debate ways to improve the systems you and others seem to control right now. Stick around suchmoon your contributions are sorely missed in meta lately. Bring the others back here too that are poster boys for the fact the systems of control need criteria and a mandate or be abolished.

[suchmoon]

I'm not putting words in your mouth? Wtf. Is that a default line you open up with when you want to make an insulting reply?

whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.

Where did I say that I'm looking for that? Rhetorical question. I didn't say that.

My ratings are not sent because of received feedback itself. Hence not retaliatory, I've told you this already, but you keep calling them retaliatory.

LOL yeah these ratings completely accidentally just happened after you got into fights with these users.

Reference is not required. Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable.

Trust system is used in so many ways. Another reason why DT is skewing up it, as the same applies to DT.

I'm not saying you can't use the trust system that way. Knock yourself out. Anything short of massive spam is allowed. I'm saying you shouldn't be in DT and your opinion on the subject is quite useless due to your abuse and bias. I don't expect you to see it that way, so carry on.

"Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable" -suchmoon

Give an example??

Are you drunk? Edit: LOL, don't answer that. I just realized who I replied to. Another moron unable to figure out who said what, easy to get confused.

[Anduck]

Reference is not required. Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable.

Trust system is used in so many ways. Another reason why DT is skewing up it, as the same applies to DT.

I'm not saying you can't use the trust system that way. Knock yourself out. Anything short of massive spam is allowed. I'm saying you shouldn't be in DT and your opinion on the subject is quite useless due to your abuse and bias. I don't expect you to see it that way, so carry on.

See the trust system guidelines here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664

I'm not putting words in your mouth? Wtf. Is that a default line you open up with when you want to make an insulting reply?

whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.

Where did I say that I'm looking for that? Rhetorical question. I didn't say that.

To me, it sounds like you're implying that DT'ers need to have loads of rating activity / spam/scambusting. So you brought up how I have only "around a dozen trust ratings" and therefore not qualified. Why did you mention my "around a dozen" ratings when you talked about how I am not qualified, if you don't mean that more ratings activity is needed for DT member?

If you want to answer, you can answer me via PM. We should stop derailing this thread.

[cryptohunter]

I'm not putting words in your mouth? Wtf. Is that a default line you open up with when you want to make an insulting reply?

whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.

Where did I say that I'm looking for that? Rhetorical question. I didn't say that.

My ratings are not sent because of received feedback itself. Hence not retaliatory, I've told you this already, but you keep calling them retaliatory.

LOL yeah these ratings completely accidentally just happened after you got into fights with these users.

Reference is not required. Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable.

Trust system is used in so many ways. Another reason why DT is skewing up it, as the same applies to DT.

I'm not saying you can't use the trust system that way. Knock yourself out. Anything short of massive spam is allowed. I'm saying you shouldn't be in DT and your opinion on the subject is quite useless due to your abuse and bias. I don't expect you to see it that way, so carry on.

"Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable" -suchmoon

Give an example??

Are you drunk? Edit: LOL, don't answer that. I just realized who I replied to. Another moron unable to figure out who said what, easy to get confused.

LOL although you can not see the perfect irony in that last statement. I find it quite hilarious. Thank you again for all the smiles you bring me.


Typical suchmoon tactic.

1. yes I was skimming this thread whilst writing out another reply to another thread. So all you need to say is

I did not say that it was anduck have a look.

I will say okay yes. I agree it was not you. I take back that you said it. There you go.... answered later in post scroll down.


NOW though.

You seem to have read my entire post but like suchmoon always does is just ignore the central and most important point that he does not want to answer.

So I will ask him again so there can be no missing it.


WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THE SYSTEMS OF MERIT AND TRUST GIVEN A MANDATE AND CRITERIA SO THAT THEY PROVIDE RELIABLE, VALUABLE DATA THAT IS FAIRLY APPLIED TO ALL.

WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO SEE THESE SYSTEMS IMPROVED?


Keep in mind your post regarding good poster is meaningless without clear definition.


Now feel free to accept my public apology that I misread that other quote as yours . I still think that is wrong... if you can not say exactly why they got red trust you must not leave red trust especially in such a subjective system. So I am in agreement on that part.

After you have done that answer my central point in uppercase above.  I am guessing you will NOT.

Anduck stop being such a pussy as soon as suchmoon confronts you. This is not derailing the topic. These are examples of the DT system in action. It should all be discussed here not on PM.  Well that is if you believe you are telling the truth and that is it relevant to the discussion in the manner you are presenting it does. Of course alone they are only individual experiences but if true can demonstrate that improvements can and must be made.

If you think you are right. Then no need to slink away to PM. If you are right you are right. Simple as that.  Transparent open discussion is key to this board.

Derailing how?? how much more relevant  can prime examples concerning the DT system be  to this thread? we are discussing if we can improve the system right?

Suchmoon has no real power on an open discussion board because nobody does ..only the truth has power. If you get red trust, if you get no merits if you get banned. It does not really matter because you still exist and so does the truth so it can never stop being presented either by yourself or by close friends who can join who will insist on the truth being heard.

Now I agree being bogged down in to much anecdotal individual experience is not giving the full picture if you are presenting something you believe is true and both relevant to the topic then no need to slink off to PM just because suchmoon turns up. We need to find the issues and devise a solution to these issues.

[OgNasty]

Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.

You keep saying that and you even "applied" to DT yourself but in the last year or so you posted around a dozen trust ratings, 2 (perhaps 2.5) of which are retaliatory and others have no reference links. That's a horrible contribution to the trust system and you should not be anywhere near DT nor have any say in how it should be changed.

If I was Satoshi, would you then listen to these ideas I present?

Look at the first post of this thread. See what makes this DT list and what the DT users do.
DT should not be a group that requires whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.

We listen to your ideas now. However, you could be the Queen of Sheba and we’d still say they were misguided.

[Anduck]

We listen to your ideas now. However, you could be the Queen of Sheba and we’d still say they were misguided.

My ideas largely align with theymos' ideas. (e.g. here). Main thing being that DT needs to change or go. How am I misguided?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Because theymos wants to change the system to improve it for everyone. You want to change the system so you are no longer red-tagged.

[OgNasty]

We listen to your ideas now. However, you could be the Queen of Sheba and we’d still say they were misguided.

My ideas largely align with theymos' ideas. (e.g. here). Main thing being that DT needs to change or go. How am I misguided?

You think anyone who is trustworthy should be in default trust. That shows you don’t even understand the system. Trustworthy people have a high trust rating, while those with GOOD JUDGEMENT IN THEIR RATINGS should be in the default trust network. You’ve been shown to have questionable views in regards to auctions and also poor judgement in giving feedback. You’re now lashing out at the system because you refuse to see those 2 truths regardless of how many people take the time to try to point it out to you, further demonstrating your reason for exclusion and the functionality of the current system.

[Anduck]

You think anyone who is trustworthy should be in default trust. That shows you don’t even understand the system. Trustworthy people have a high trust rating, while those with GOOD JUDGEMENT IN THEIR RATINGS should be in the default trust network. You’ve been shown to have questionable views in regards to auctions and also poor judgement in giving feedback. You’re now lashing out at the system because you refuse to see those 2 truths regardless of how many people take the time to try to point it out to you, further demonstrating your reason for exclusion and the functionality of the current system.

My view of what DT should be has nothing to do with my understanding of how it works currently. Also I am not "lashing out at the system" as you describe. I have given out perfectly reasonable feedbacks. Feel free to PM if you feel that some feedback I've sent is unjust, we can talk about it. And that "questionable views in regards to auctions" -- well, vendor bidding really is a common thing in various auctions around the world. I guess you can call it "questionable", but for some reason it still remains to be an acceptable thing in various auction standards. Not in Bitcointalk auction standard, obviously.

[OgNasty]

I have given out perfectly reasonable feedbacks.

SaltySpitoon   2018-12-24   If you do business with SaltySpitoon, be careful. Expect problems especially if anything disputable or surprising happens. This person uses twisted logical argumentation when it suits him. Believes prejudice in the face of facts. Finds reasoning to justify whatever activity, regardless of resulting low level of reasonableness, coherence, fairness or even correctness. Applies double standards. Portrays himself as fair and conscientious -- don't fall for that. I've not done business with SaltySpitoon.

I think the situation with Salty could have been handled more reasonably.

Not in Bitcointalk auction standard, obviously.

Then why are you trying to upend the entire trust network to suit what you believe DT should be as a result of you not adhering to the Bitcointalk auction standard as you understand it?

[Anduck]

I have given out perfectly reasonable feedbacks.

SaltySpitoon   2018-12-24   If you do business with SaltySpitoon, be careful. Expect problems especially if anything disputable or surprising happens. This person uses twisted logical argumentation when it suits him. Believes prejudice in the face of facts. Finds reasoning to justify whatever activity, regardless of resulting low level of reasonableness, coherence, fairness or even correctness. Applies double standards. Portrays himself as fair and conscientious -- don't fall for that. I've not done business with SaltySpitoon.

I think the situation with Salty could have been handled more reasonably.

Possibly.

Not in Bitcointalk auction standard, obviously.

Then why are you trying to upend the entire trust network to suit what you believe DT should be as a result of you not adhering to the Bitcointalk auction standard as you understand it?

These two things are unrelated. The feedbacks I've received merely increased my motivation to get BCT trust system improved. DT people have way too much power. Also FWIW, I've been against DT-including trust system since it was implemented, just not very vocal about it. (See #bitcoin-otc logs.)

About that auction issue,
I learned about Bitcointalk auction standard regarding vendor bids in that auction. Back then, ~3 years ago, I did not know that vendor bids are not cool here. The bitcointalk auction standard is vague and not even described anywhere. I've held countless auctions since, with no complaints. Now two DT'ers are stepping in to rate me for that vendor bid (at least publicly they state that as the reason). Do you see that as reasonable and justified? "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!"

[suchmoon]

I learned about Bitcointalk auction standard regarding vendor bids in that auction. Back then, ~3 years ago, I did not know that vendor bids are not cool here. The bitcointalk auction standard is vague and not even described anywhere. I've held countless auctions since, with no complaints. Now two DT'ers are stepping in to rate me for that vendor bid (at least publicly they state that as the reason). Do you see that as reasonable and justified? "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!"

Your trust rating has not so much to do with your self-bidding but rather with you being stubbornly defiant about it. Any reasonable person would have said "shit, I didn't realize that, sorry" and moved on whereas you're never wrong. This speaks to your poor ability to handle disputes or even minor disagreements. You're lucky to get away with two red trusts (so far).

Here we are derailing the thread again . How about you stick to your cockamamie ideas of destroying DT, those are easier to ignore.

[Anduck]

I learned about Bitcointalk auction standard regarding vendor bids in that auction. Back then, ~3 years ago, I did not know that vendor bids are not cool here. The bitcointalk auction standard is vague and not even described anywhere. I've held countless auctions since, with no complaints. Now two DT'ers are stepping in to rate me for that vendor bid (at least publicly they state that as the reason). Do you see that as reasonable and justified? "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!"

Your trust rating has not so much to do with your self-bidding but rather with you being stubbornly defiant about it. Any reasonable person would have said "shit, I didn't realize that, sorry" and moved on whereas you're never wrong. This speaks to your poor ability to handle disputes or even minor disagreements. You're lucky to get away with two red trusts (so far).

This narrative that I did not do this "shit, didn't realize that" is misleading. Go look up how it went and stop believing in third hand stories. I am not defiant about it, why would I be. Aren't my actions speaking louder? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction! So stop spreading that bullshit narrative, it has nothing to do with reality.

[suchmoon]

This narrative that I did not do this "shit, didn't realize that" is misleading. Go look up how it went and stop believing in third hand stories. I am not defiant about it, why would I be. Aren't my actions speaking louder? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction! So stop spreading that bullshit narrative, it has nothing to do with reality.

I don't need to go anywhere, I have followed your whole 20+ page thread any many detours into other threads. The overwhelming consensus has been that you're wrong but you insist that you're potentially honest somewhere outside of Bitcointalk where self-bidding is acceptable so you must be accepted as being honest here as well. I don't think that's how it works. Your self-bid was a dishonest way to cancel the auction without explicitly cancelling it, regardless of what other auction places may or may not allow.

[Anduck]

This narrative that I did not do this "shit, didn't realize that" is misleading. Go look up how it went and stop believing in third hand stories. I am not defiant about it, why would I be. Aren't my actions speaking louder? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction! So stop spreading that bullshit narrative, it has nothing to do with reality.

I don't need to go anywhere, I have followed your whole 20+ page thread any many detours into other threads. The overwhelming consensus has been that you're wrong but you insist that you're potentially honest somewhere outside of Bitcointalk where self-bidding is acceptable so you must be accepted as being honest here as well. I don't think that's how it works. Your self-bid was a dishonest way to cancel the auction without explicitly cancelling it, regardless of what other auction places may or may not allow.

That's quite an unfair description of what has happened.

[SaltySpitoon]

I have given out perfectly reasonable feedbacks.

SaltySpitoon   2018-12-24   If you do business with SaltySpitoon, be careful. Expect problems especially if anything disputable or surprising happens. This person uses twisted logical argumentation when it suits him. Believes prejudice in the face of facts. Finds reasoning to justify whatever activity, regardless of resulting low level of reasonableness, coherence, fairness or even correctness. Applies double standards. Portrays himself as fair and conscientious -- don't fall for that. I've not done business with SaltySpitoon.

I think the situation with Salty could have been handled more reasonably.

It really could not have. We resolved things the absolute best we could. We exchanged probably over 30 messages, and spoke in depth for well over a week regarding various matters. Neither of us have any misunderstandings of each other, and we both left each other appropriate feedback. I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable outcome. Those who think my judgement is wrong, likely understand Anduck's point of view, and his feedback may be exactly what those people would want to know about me. Likewise in the opposite direction. People who dont care about any of our points of view will ignore each others warnings.

For the most part, the DT system works exactly how the users want it to work. The tool in of itself is just a hierarchical post it note. The people that bring up a cause in Meta or the Reputation sections are who define what the system is used for. Why its become accepted to give negative trust to Scammers, Spammers, Account Farmers, etc are all because of years of history of people asking questions. Debates have been had over, for example, why its ok to give account farmers negative trust. Theymos didn't put any rules anywhere that said, You must mark account farmers with red feedback. Who did they scam? No one. Why is it ok to give them red trust? Well, because people find their actions undesirable and untrustworthy when it comes to accountability and building a community. That resolution came out of a lot of discussion though. The system changes that Theymos would enact are making DT as a tool more flexible for its users, not creating some sort of regulation around it.

As far as I know, the only rule when it comes to DT and the Feedback system, is that you may not spam people's feedback. Everything else is user created. When the community as a whole like like to see something change, it'll change in that direction. That doesn't mean people having a tantrum will get their way however.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

That's quite an unfair description of what has happened.

I hate to keep feeding this discussion about your neg from Vod, but what suchmoon said is completely accurate--it's just not complete, leaving out your private conversation with Vod about feedback removal.  That's a separate matter, but the self-bidding description is on point.  I've already said my piece about both things, so I'm not going to continue flogging that poor dead horse. 

Consensus pretty much is that self-bidding on an auction here is not cool.  That's what reserve prices are for.

[Anduck]

Neither of us have any misunderstandings of each other

No lies, please. You misunderstood me heavily. I told you this (2+ times), and tried to explain what I meant, but you stick to your prejudice. You refused to truly listen to what I had to say, and you kept deliberately understanding my words in the worst possible way.

Consensus pretty much is that self-bidding on an auction here is not cool.

I know this and agree completely. I've done all my auctions without vendor bids since I learned that it's not cool here.