Can we regulate the trust system ?

[mrcash02]

The system isn't the problem. It could work perfectly if unfair, bizarre or inconsistent feedbacks were nulled by the judgement of another DT members, it's possible in the currently system.

Or a little change would be useful too, for an example: to make a feedback valid, more than one DT member must sign it.

[1714961058]

1714961058

[1714961058]

1714961058

[1714961058]

1714961058

[Anduck]

The system isn't the problem.

Of course the system (DT list) is the problem. There's no place for central authority in a trust network.

[r1s2g3]

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

In this case at least we can stop/minimize the abuse in which people are tagged for saying "lemon".  I guess 3 people will not be having hatred for lemon simultaneously.

Same goes  for +ve feedback too, where people get +ve for doing a $10-20 trade, at least  you need to be trusted by at least by 3 people to get the +ve rating.

Since many of the DTs are inactive, we need to expand this network but at same time it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.

[Anduck]

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

In this case at least we can stop/minimize the abuse in which people are tagged for saying "lemon".  I guess 3 people will not be having hatred for lemon simultaneously.

Same goes  for +ve feedback too, where people get +ve for doing a $10-20 trade, at least  you need to be trusted by at least by 3 people to get the +ve rating.

Since many of the DTs are inactive, we need to expand this network but at same time it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.

This would give even more power to this DT structure. The goal is to encourage people to make their own trust lists and giving DT any more perceived legitimacy is not helping.

[S_Therapist]

I can't see a lot of problem with the current trust system. We might have a little portion of invalid feedback from DT (I'm not sure if it exists in realityI'm not sure such kind of feedback exists, I have edited this sentence since people may think I have talked about DT existence, lol.). Despite this little amount of invalid feedback, we the normal member are getting a vast number of valid feedback which is vety helpful for us. I would prefer to stay with the current system with a little edition if theymos/community agrees.

1. You must have to provide a reference link, of course it will be from marketplace.
2. The person whom you are going to provide feedback must have to reply on that thread, it ensures a deal was happened. Applies for DT only.
3. If you are not in DT, both the person have to create a reply on that thread so that a 3rd party can't provide an invalid feedback.

I got this system in another forum and found it quite nice where invalid feedback can't be given.

If someone is talking about moderating feedback-
1. Everyday hundreds of new post will be created in meta.
2. Theymos have to trust a few moderators (a few can't cover it though) which seems impossible. If you look at the current recovery system, you will realize why theymos will not give the power to someone for moderating the trust system.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

That will make the system even more inefficient to the point where I bet DT members would stop tagging anyone.  What am I supposed to do when I find an account seller and want to tag him--drop a PM to another DT member to request that he cosign my negative trust?  Wait for a response and if the answer is no, then move on to another DT member?  What if I get scammed myself?  Am I then not allowed to leave a neg unless I have approval from someone else on DT?

There are so many problems with that suggestion that for me it's a non-starter right from the get go.  DT members aren't paid staff.  The ones that do tag scammers do so on their own time, voluntarily.  The ones who've shown themselves to be untrustworthy or use bad judgement when leaving feedback (or for whatever other reason) get removed.  That's a fact, as evidenced by all the ones who've already been removed.  

The people I see railing the hardest against the system are the members who've been tagged by DT members for their untrustworthy behavior.  

And Anduck, you can argue that self-bidding in auctions is allowed by certain auctioneers, but it is not a commonly-accepted practice and I think you learned the hard way what the bitcointalk community thinks about it here.  The only thing you have going in your favor as far as that goes is that there wasn't a rule against it here, but Vod wasn't alone in thinking it was very shady of you to do it.  I do recall some sort of attempt at bargaining that Vod did about feedback removal (I don't know where that thread is now), and I do recall thinking that it wasn't something he should have engaged in and isn't the behavior he typically displays.  

Even if he was wrong in doing that, I think his feedback on you about the self-bidding is absolutely correct.  If I wasn't familiar with the situation, I would definitely want a visible warning that you might be bidding on your own auctions.

Edit:

Can we please not derail yet another thread in to Anduck's personal beef.

Yes, sorry about that.

Of course. The people affected by the wrongdoing are the loudest about it, naturally. See e.g. banks, politics or whatever subject. On the other hand, the people being most supportive of current DT list are the people on it.

Fair enough, but I would like to add that I do think the trust system needs to be revamped and I've always said it was broken as well.  If Theymos were to make changes that affected the weight of my feedback, I'd be totally OK with that except for the fact that all the negs I've left wouldn't be much of a warning to anyone else.  I don't like the trust system the way it is, but there should be a mechanism by which members can be warned about scammers and so forth.  Unfortunately I don't have any great ideas on how to improve the system we have now, and the vast majority of suggestions I've heard so far either wouldn't help or would make things worse.

[o_e_l_e_o]

We might have a little portion of invalid feedback from DT (I'm not sure if it exists in reality).

We do get incorrect feedback being left by DT members - they are only human. You can't expect 100% infallibility from anyone. However, when people open threads appealing their red trust, we also see lengthy and reasoned discussions amongst both DT members, non-DT members and the accused, which generally either results in the red trust being removed as the consensus is against the DT member in question, or the red trust being reinforced as the consensus is against the accused member. It isn't some grand conspiracy, and the people who suggest otherwise are invariably those who have had their red trust reinforced after an unsuccessful appeal.

1. You must have to provide a reference link, of course it will be from marketplace.
2. The person whom you are going to provide feedback must have to reply on that thread, it ensures a deal was happened. Applies for DT only.

1 - Who is going to verify that every link is accurate?
2 - So if a scammer just ignores that thread, they can't be tagged?

I'm afraid your suggestion would essentially remove the ability to pre-emptively tag a scammer before the scam takes place. If someone is offering a ROI of 50% a day or advertising a bitcoin doubler, you don't need a trade to take place to know they are a scammer.

Can we please not derail yet another thread in to Anduck's personal beef.

[Lauda]

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

Great, I can finally get double the amount of "Lauda gang" complaint threads.

[Anduck]

The people I see railing the hardest against the system are the members who've been tagged by DT members for their untrustworthy behavior. 

Of course. The people affected by the wrongdoing are the loudest about it, naturally. See e.g. banks, politics or whatever subject. On the other hand, the people being most supportive of current DT list are the people on it.

And Anduck, you can argue that self-bidding in auctions is allowed by certain auctioneers, but it is not a commonly-accepted practice and I think you learned the hard way what the bitcointalk community thinks about it here. 

Indeed. It is not a commonly accepted practice here but e.g. in my country it is. Nonetheless, it's a practice which is common in some communities/countries. In any case, arguing that vendor bidding is untrustworthy, unethical or scamming is simply ridiculous.

The bitcointalk auction standard is not defined anywhere, and is very vague and only learned by watching what others are doing. It simply didn't even cross my mind that vendor bid may be not cool, as it's common in my country. Of course after seeing how community reacted to it, I learned that it's not part of the auction standard here, and I've kept numerous successful auctions since, for 2-3 years already.

The only thing you have going in your favor as far as that goes is that there wasn't a rule against it here, but Vod wasn't alone in thinking it was very shady of you to do it.  I do recall some sort of attempt at bargaining that Vod did about feedback removal (I don't know where that thread is now), and I do recall thinking that it wasn't something he should have engaged in and isn't the behavior he typically displays.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that people are incompetent regarding auctions. Auctions are not simple at all. There are loads of assumptions etc.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction. Later on that same day his opinion changed 100% to the opposite, because I provoked him by telling him that I don't specifically trust him. He also threatened to red-rate me unless I removed my rating to him. I didn't remove my rating, so he proceeded in red-rating me. It's incredibly stupid for people to think that Vod rates me because of the auction, even after he himself told me that he will rate me (for completely other reason). Obviously he will not state e.g. "he pissed me off, this is me wrecking his account" in his rating. All the sources are public and verifiable, so go see yourself how it went. The PM conversation is the thing in there, and shows very poor conduct by Vod, conduct enabled by him being on DT.

Even if he was wrong in doing that, I think his feedback on you about the self-bidding is absolutely correct.  If I wasn't familiar with the situation, I would definitely want a visible warning that you might be bidding on your own auctions.

It was a single case ~3 years ago. Why would I bid on my auctions here now that I know it's not part of the auction standard here? That's ludicrous.

[cryptohunter]

-------------

DT trust needs strict set of guidelines.
So does merit.

I do not agree with the merit part, it will be impossible to monitor , plus i totally disagree with your theory of that the top merited people got their merits from each other "at least this is what i understood" even if that was to be true, this can simply be due to the fact they actually deserved it? also if you look at most DT members merit score, is just an average, except for a few like suchmoon  whom i am totally against his/her way of describing the use of the trust system, i honestly think he/she deserves all the merit it due to the quality of his/her posts.

so please don't take this off-topic. merits are a whole different thing. we are talking only about trust system only here.

1. impossible to monitor does not null what I have demonstrated clearly needs doing or needs scrapping
2. Disagreeing with observable raw data is up to you
3. Deserved it compared to what ? in a subjective system how can you deserve something objectively ? this is fine if it's just a bit of subjective fun but if you start trying to put value to those scores against other peoples scores it is ludicrous.
4. I can not ascribe high value to ludicrous statements and broken logic.


But sure continue with the trust system here. I am certain there is no room for different rules for different people in any system of control at a low or mid level. For grey areas and context only the highest level must have some freedom. This highest level is generally voted in or out my the populace depending on how fair or unfair they perceive them to be.

If sub layers of control (consisting of multiple people the more the worse for subjectivity) have freedom or even no guidelines the entire thing ends up a mess of different individuals getting different treatment depending on the collisions with different "system controllers and those "system controllers" views towards them and their actions at that given moment in time.

a subjective system for trust  is open to abuse.

[suchmoon]

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

In this case at least we can stop/minimize the abuse in which people are tagged for saying "lemon".  I guess 3 people will not be having hatred for lemon simultaneously.

Same goes  for +ve feedback too, where people get +ve for doing a $10-20 trade, at least  you need to be trusted by at least by 3 people to get the +ve rating.

Since many of the DTs are inactive, we need to expand this network but at same time it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.

While I don't agree with this for reasons similar to what TP stated above, this gave me another idea. Most of the complainants seem to be upset by the red "Warning" label. What if the score still turns negative/red on first neg trust but the warning label doesn't appear or has a softer wording (Warning: click to check user's feedback) or is not bright red if there is only one neg.

[S_Therapist]

1 - Who is going to verify that every link is accurate?
2 - So if a scammer just ignores that thread, they can't be tagged?

1. System will check whether both of them have replied in the respective thread. For example, I have created a thread in marketplace for buying something. You as a NON-DT member can only provide feedback if you have replied in that thread. Now, if some random person gave feedback, it will be same as of now. No one gonna care.
2. If a scammer don't create a thread even, or don't make a reply in any thread, how will we even know that he is scammer. Also, DT can provide feedback. And the link will verify the proof.
I just have mentioned that I have observed this system in another forum although there was no DT in that forum, lol.

If someone is offering a ROI of 50% a day or advertising a bitcoin doubler, you don't need a trade to take place to know they are a scammer.

Again, point 2 can handle this. If someone offers such kinda ROI with a thread, feedback can be given easily by DT.

[o_e_l_e_o]

1. System will check whether both of them have replied in the respective thread. For example, I have created a thread in marketplace for buying something. You as a NON-DT member can only provide feedback if you have replied in that thread.

This just wouldn't work unfortunately. The scammer could easily delete his posts, and then the system fails. Or post a scam thread and immediately lock it - then no one can post in the thread and therefore no one could leave feedback.

2. If a scammer don't create a thread even, or don't make a reply in any thread, how will we even know that he is scammer. Also, DT can provide feedback. And the link will verify the proof.

Many scammers try to avoid detection and tagging by sending their scams out in PMs only. Then there are no posts and no links for verification.

I don't mean to be discouraging here, but there are just too many holes in this system for it to work.

[mikeywith]

That's a problem with signature campaigns, not with the trust system.

You seem to be (and your thread title definitely is) confusing trust system with DT, which is just one pseudo-user in the trust system that is put into users' trust lists by default. So if that's your problem you should try to change that instead of messing with the whole system. Petition theymos to remove DT altogether and/or make some sort of push towards widespread use of custom trust lists. Petition to remove DT members who you think abuse the system. Petition signature campaigns to have a different approach to trust ratings.

that signature campaign was an example of how USELESS the custom trust list is .the problem is indeed with the trust system.
and there is no confusion, as everyone seems to have understood the point and disusing it on point.

 it's not a good idea to remove the whole DT altogether as for the most part it is accurate and helpful for all other members, we are not discussing the existence of DT ,but the use case.

as someone who is a DT and their feedback appears by default to every member there has to be a set of rules, if the DT is not happy with the rule and wan't to use the trust system the way they want then they get removed from DT and can still tag people for saying "apple" if they want.

[LoyceV]

First: in general, most of the users who complain about the trust system, are the ones who got tagged. I agree with the large majority of all red DT-tags.
You're talking about the few that are debated. In general, I think the DT system serves a purpose, and some "collateral damage" can't be avoided.

I think every  DT member uses the trust system they way they "see fit"

This goes for all users, not only DT.

you can clearly see in a few cases where DT memebers disagree to one another decision and counter it by giving a positive feedback.

For a while I thought it's a bad thing that DT can't agree on tags, but then I realized it's actually a good thing. It proves DT is not a "gang", but it are individual users with an individual opinion.

There's another thing that got me thinking: the amount of DT-trust is largely based on being a "high profile" user, and not on the amount scammed.
Example: alia is at -2048, but BITMIXCOIN.IO is "only" at -64 after scamming more than 16 BTC.

I personally do not think it is right to give a negative feedback for someone that is not a scammer no matter how much of an a**hole they are, this goes also for giving a positive feedback for someone just because you like them or because they have been "helpful".

I'd say it depends on the situation. I've received some positive trust for being helpful. I don't think that's "worse" than someone who receives positive trust  after a few small trades with DT-members. In fact, it took me many years to get this (and I appreciate the appreciation), while it's quite easy to gain trust by doing a few trades.

This is a very important matter as a feedback from a DT member could be a "life changer" for someone who spent years building a good reputation only to get tagged for disagreeing to some DT member's point of view.

Although I agree with this, I can also see why some users tag them anyway.

here is what i think the trust system is meant to be used for

1- positive > you had a successful trade/trades with this guy, you send them money first, they kept their end of the deal and sent the goods > trustful.
2- negative >  this person scammed you , by either not sending you the money/goods he promised to, or they arrived in bad shape > can't be trusted

I think this is too limited. If you have to wait for a DT-member to be scammed before a scammer can be tagged, many innocent Newbies will be scammed too, while doing a small deal to work on a long con doesn't mean someone can be trusted either.
As an example, look at the red trust I left. Before I was on DT, it was mainly for users who cheated my giveaways, or (the first one) a non-paying faucet). After I was put on DT (around March this year), I've tagged a couple dozen users, and none of them scammed me. Since scams aren't moderated, DT is the only protection this forum has.

If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.

How about opening a board opened to only DT members, or also staff members. And when a member is considering tagging a members (positive or negative), the issue is brought to the board and the entire active DT members can brainstorm and decide if it's what leaving a feedback.

I've tagged several spamming scammers while waiting for them to be nuked. Spam relies on large numbers, and without a quick warning, they will eventually make victims. Delaying those warnings doesn't do the community any good.

If it is going to be "regulated" (which I doubt it is going to happen any time soon), any tag without a reference should be concidered as neutral even if it comes from a DT member or simply any tag must come with reference..

I've only received positive DT-trust without reference link, and about half my "untrusted" feedback doesn't have a link either. Basically, those are opinions, and it's up to the reader to decide whether or not he trusts the source.
I try to always (exception: the very first feedback I left) create a reference link.

~ it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.

I would agree, if this is only valid for high-ranking accounts. A Newbie scammer should be red at first tag because he can and probably will just create another account, a Legendary has much more to lose.

[erikoy]

<snip>

You must be in the list of the unluckiest guy here in bitcointalk.org though there are many users here like you that are being red tag due to a suspected activity that will probably lead to scam. Most of the members here had really matter about the trust rating even in bounty campaigns. We know that it is only a trust and should not be a part of the criteria for bounty hunting. So sad that a negative trust rating is always displays below your name when you make a post or a reply.

[mikeywith]

I think this is too limited. If you have to wait for a DT-member to be scammed before a scammer can be tagged, many innocent Newbies will be scammed too, while doing a small deal to work on a long con doesn't mean someone can be trusted either.
As an example, look at the red trust I left. Before I was on DT, it was mainly for users who cheated my giveaways, or (the first one) a non-paying faucet). After I was put on DT (around March this year), I've tagged a couple dozen users, and none of them scammed me. Since scams aren't moderated, DT is the only protection this forum has.

Maybe i failed to give a proper explanation. the point here is not that a DT member himself has to be scammed, the accusation it self has to be based on a scam action. so if a newbie gets scammed by xyz  and you tag that xyz member for scamming, it is a very valid tag. this goes for all trading related matters, call it scam/cheat/ponzi/rip-off it does not matter. as long as it's not " this guy is stupid/troll , so i gave him a negative trust because i can".

If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.

i discused this with suchmoon but i will explain it again,  the trust custom lists is only good for my own use, it does not reflect how other members view my profile. since you are a DT member then you are on everybody's list by default, if you were to tag me now, even if i would exclude you from my list, everyone else by default will see your tag on my profile.
so the trust custom list does not serve any propose on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------

even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one because he thought that being a troll does not qualify you for a negative trust of which i am sure that 99% of members would agree to that . i am by no means defending the "way" that cryptohunter went about the "gang" and all the exaggerations ,but it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.



  

[KingZee]

---

That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists.

If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.

It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you.

I'd say it depends on the situation. I've received some positive trust for being helpful. I don't think that's "worse" than someone who receives positive trust  after a few small trades with DT-members. In fact, it took me many years to get this (and I appreciate the appreciation), while it's quite easy to gain trust by doing a few trades.

This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns.

Actually, using just 3 variables :
1. Account rank
2. Account current trust
3. Amount risked

I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :



If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady.
If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect.
This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter.

So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust.

This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring?

[LoyceV]

I think this is too limited. If you have to wait for a DT-member to be scammed before a scammer can be tagged, many innocent Newbies will be scammed too, while doing a small deal to work on a long con doesn't mean someone can be trusted either.
As an example, look at the red trust I left. Before I was on DT, it was mainly for users who cheated my giveaways, or (the first one) a non-paying faucet). After I was put on DT (around March this year), I've tagged a couple dozen users, and none of them scammed me. Since scams aren't moderated, DT is the only protection this forum has.

Maybe i failed to give a proper explanation. the point here is not that a DT member himself has to be scammed, the accusation it self has to be based on a scam action. so if a newbie gets scammed by xyz  and you tag that xyz member for scamming, it is a very valid tag. this goes for all trading related matters, call it scam/cheat/ponzi/rip-off it does not matter. as long as it's not " this guy is stupid/troll , so i gave him a negative trust because i can".

This is still missing the point. I'll give an example: I tagged Boplewww for posting this. As far as I know, nobody got scammed by this user. I don't think anybody would doubt this tag, it's just an example of what I consider more useful than waiting for an actual scam to happen.

i discused this with suchmoon but i will explain it again,  the trust custom lists is only good for my own use, it does not reflect how other members view my profile. since you are a DT member then you are on everybody's list by default, if you were to tag me now, even if i would exclude you from my list, everyone else by default will see your tag on my profile.
so the trust custom list does not serve any propose on this matter.

Correct. And that's kinda the point: if a scammer gets tagged, he shouldn't have a say in who gets to see his tag.

even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one

The red tag was countered by actmyname. It was considered by others too, see this example:

LOL, ok that solves my dilemma of whether I should add a counter rating for you. I don't know what else I can do for you when you're so belligerent.

~it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.

Isn't it obvious DT won't always agree? There are clear red and clear green cases, but in between there's going to be differences of opinion at some level.

[suchmoon]

as someone who is a DT and their feedback appears by default to every member there has to be a set of rules, if the DT is not happy with the rule and wan't to use the trust system the way they want then they get removed from DT and can still tag people for saying "apple" if they want.

I'm still not following the logic here, sorry. There are already tools in place to remove people from DT. You can use those to remove specific members if you think they shouldn't be there.

Or if the existing tools are not good enough you can suggest improvements to theymos, who's already considering changes to how DT works.

Either or both of the above make much more sense to me than trying to force everyone into compliance with rigid rules, which would essentially create another hierarchy (mods able to override DT) and lots of new complaints. I mean I would be in favor of it if we could just add a rule "scams are not allowed" and have a feasible way to enforce it with zero-tolerance but we can't and we don't.

even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one because he thought that being a troll does not qualify you for a negative trust of which i am sure that 99% of members would agree to that . i am by no means defending the "way" that cryptohunter went about the "gang" and all the exaggerations ,but it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.

That's already happening and only 1 counter rating is needed (multiple would make the target have "+" trust, which is probably not a good thing). I don't recall any recent incident where a reasonable counter rating was not posted but if you have any examples please bring them up.