Can we regulate the trust system ?

[mikeywith]

 
 looking at the amount of complaints from users on both Meta and Reputation boards, you get to see that many people are not happy with how the trust system or specially how DT members use it.

 I have randomly checked a few examples of how DT members use the trust system and to be honest for the most part of it, the tag had a valid reason behind it "scam", but on the other side i see a few cases where DT members give a negative trust for someone for the silliest reasons.

 The issue here is mainly because we have no obvious and clear set of rules that regulates the use of trust system.

 also given the fact that a negative trust from a DT member means no more signature campaigns and most likely no more trading activities, so ti does carry a lot of weight.

while I totally do not agree with @cryptohunter that there is an organized "gang" that abuses the trust system for own personal benefits  " or at least this is what i understood from his multiple posts"  , I do not think that there is any sort of gang what so ever, but I think every  DT member uses the trust system they way they "see fit" which in many case could be the "wrong"  even to other DT members, and you can clearly see in a few cases where DT memebers disagree to one another decision and counter it by giving a positive feedback.

and of course the same thing goes for positive feedback, i see some DT members giving positive feedback also for "silly" reasons too, and no body will ever admit that they way they use the trust system is wrong.

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".

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 disagree with the most part of cryptohunter theory, but he has a valid point here

The fact even Legends are scared to speak out when they want to then that tells me there is a big problem because their fear did not come from admin level actions. Mods act on clear mandates and by criteria that can be appealed against. Red trust you can get for saying you did not like LEMONS?? I mean that comes from a DT member that is actually a nice enough person and not a gang member.

while i doubt it is as bad as he describes it, but it remains  valid as long as the use of the trust system is simply defined by everyone's own view.


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
3- neutral > they sent you the money first , you sent them the goods > ( they had no chance to scam you ) but this does not mean they are "trustful" thus a neutral represent that the person has done a successful trade without being in a position of gaining trust hence " ability to scam".

I am sure Theymos can confirm that this is the initial propose of the trust system. you see people with negative trust  " Warning: Trade with extreme caution! ". it does not say  "Warning: Interact with extreme caution!

if the trust system was meant to be the way the you think, then why theymos doesn't have it show across all parts of the forum? it is a pretty plain simple answer.

however,since people started to use the trust system as another way of measuring other members it started to sound normal for something tagging someone else for their ugly avatar.
 
as long as  there are no clear rules on how MUST the trust system be used for, then everybody will have their own "way" of using it.

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

so why don't we enforce some rules on the trust system to solve all this mess and live happily ever after ?

[1713506909]

1713506909

[1713506909]

1713506909

[1713506909]

1713506909

[1713506909]

1713506909

[1713506909]

1713506909

[1713506909]

1713506909

[mdayonliner]

My trust rating:

From hilariousandco

Offering to be an escrow for a $100k+ deal despite having little to no trading history here and not meeting the criteria required by the op. Also seems to have been involved in ponizs going by the following thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4221113.0

From marlboroza

Ponzi promoter(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4221113.msg38397225#msg38397225), wants to escrow $100K with little to no trading history here http://archive.is/lsVsA. Also begging for merit http://archive.is/xpUJT#selection-5495.132-5495.133 and editing post when caught http://archive.is/73fqS#selection-4289.0-4289.5

In practical, in my forum life I never scammed anyone. No one can claim with valid evidence that I owe them a penny. Then how is this relevant?

Warning: Trade with extreme caution!


Other day I wanted to buy some BTC using my paypal and because of that red warning I was bullied by members.  Some of them even gone extra mile...

Sorry but i don't buy this.

For those thinking about doing this, if he is getting his paypal funds from a bank account/credit card, it might very well be possible that he'll be able to chargeback after 180 days as well.

Thanks to jackg that I was able to trade with him (using some special condition though).

[Upgrade00]

I agree that an unofficial guideline could be drawn out to govern the trust system.
The issue I think arises from the text associated with trust feedbacks; Warning! Trade with extreme caution. It makes it seem like it only concerns trades. But I believe it roughly covers interactions with other users.

If a user is known for giving false facts about bitcoin, this is not an offense worthy of a ban. But it could be misleading to other members. And could be worthy of a red tag.

I agree it should not be used against users who disagree with your opinion or are expressing themselves, in however eccentric a manner.

[cryptohunter]

Even though you do not wish to be. I am starting to see you more of supporter of what I would like to see happen...

I want free speech and equality for recognition of value for every single person on this board. That is all I want NOTHING MORE. Forget using me or the gang as examples that is not needed. We just want ....what I just said. If you can attain that then gangs are going to happen.

I am completely happy to leave myself and gangs out of this discussion.

I 100% agree with some criteria for RED trust from DT and removal if abused. Any system of control needs clear rules.

However, what you do not see right now...but I am hoping that you will after a while is.

Merit is more damaging and cancerous than trust. It actually a more powerful control tool than Trust even because you can not see negative merit and complain or mention abuse. You simply do not get merit given to you and since it is totally subjective there is no proof of abuse (unless gross giving 50 merits each to your alts)

Ignore my gang assertion.

Please tell me how you find fault with my example backed by observable events  that merit is a control tool. I feel it is impossible to deny. The only way to deny it is to say nobody here wants to be PAID2POST or cares about their rates of PAID2POST. I do not accept that is even plausible.

Also why would you not think my suggestions for merit improvements are ...well big improvements for stopping abuse and making things fairer for all?

If I could get rid of trust or merit I would get rid of merit or uncouple it from rank after full member.

Anyway sorry to derail you but you did mention me and my theories so I just wanted to say I support your post here 100% but I hope you can join me on helping develop fairer systems for all and not even allowing a system to control speech to remain here.

Forget my detest of those I felt were trying to attack me (if you do not want to believe me on that point then I can drop that entirely) and just work for what I really want - no oppression of free speech  and fair recognition for effort given from everyone.

[Hivalley]

There can never be a system that will be absolutely favorable to all and sundry,and that's applicable in this situation,most times you could disagree with a DT trust rating while some other users may not,the more reason why I'll have to agree with you that there be a specific reason for handing out negative trusts.

Since it's designed to brandish scammers, it's best to leave it that way,as I do not see any reason why I should trade with caution with an individual that's simply a troll and not a scammer,definitely I cannot come to bad over his or her useless trolls

Giving negative trusts for trivial issues such as that kinda makes its purpose laughable and one not to bad taken seriously,and if negative trusts are still given for matters such as trolls or simply cos you don't agree with such users,soon in the future users would go ahead and trade with red trusted scammers as they would not be quite sure what the red trust was for in the first place or if it was deserved

[suchmoon]

so why don't we enforce some rules on the trust system to solve all this mess and live happily ever after ?

Enforce how? Moderators are not going to touch it, that's pretty much the founding principle of the trust system. Because if that happens then moderators are in control of the system, and if you think current complaints are bad - it would be orders of magnitude worse if trust gets moderated.

So that leaves users themselves in control of it... which can be done, and yes, even the counter-ratings that you mention are an essential part of it. You can't expect everyone to have the exact same opinion. There are other tools too, like exclusions.

That's not to say that the trust system couldn't benefit from some changes. I'd prefer more push for users to build their own trust lists. Keep in mind, complaints target mainly DT (Default Trust), which is just one branch of the trust system.

[burakike]

This aint a gang its called oligarchy,theymos said by himself he is not happy with the current trust system.
He is not a fool not to know these DT members are somehow abusing it,look at the positive feedbacks were given for some absurd reasons

Only those DT members are powerful here,even theymos words arent that much powerful.
Theymos said trust should not be given to pure spam,nor merit abuse because there are no such thing as merit abuse..why would he say distribute the merits to those posts which deserves it? there are different perspective with each people,different standards which is why trust system should be taken down or atleast re-arrange DT members.We need to vote or elect each one of them so that these trust abusers wont be in their positions for too long.

[Lauda]

While the trust system is far from perfect, there isn't a significant amount of abuse on any level. Any system gets misused to some extent. As long as the amount of misuse is insignificant, it is acceptable.

....because there are no such thing as merit abuse..

Stuff like this is precisely why almost all threads complaining about the trust system are pure bullshit. Alts of busted people start pitching in in hopes that their accounts will return to non-negative levels.

[mdayonliner]

That's not to say that the trust system couldn't benefit from some changes. I'd prefer more push for users to build their own trust lists. Keep in mind, complaints target mainly DT (Default Trust), which is just one branch of the trust system.

- When I want to trade, the forum members are not considering their own trust list
- When I am trying to join a signature campaign, the bounty manager is looking for someone who do not have red trust from the DT

If everyone is here to build their own trust list then why do everyone takes DTs trust in consideration? A wrong red from DT can completely ruin an account. Who has time to read all those pages after pages against the red trusted member to see if s/he really was justified?

[Findingnemo]

Even theymos is not happy with the current trust system,but this is what we have to save the fellow members from falling into scam.So we can't change the current trust list to be changed it may wakeup lot of scammers accounts to be legit.

Someone suggested to make the defualt trust list too often like in one month period but that will leave heavy work behind the admins,so I don't think it will be regulated now but in the new forum software theymos might have some other feature to find the scammers more easily.

[Lafu]

######

That says the right one!
The other users red tagged due to guessing!
Just as you scream into the forest, so it comes back!

[burakike]

While the trust system is far from perfect, there isn't a significant amount of abuse on any level. Any system gets misused to some extent. As long as the amount of misuse is insignificant, it is acceptable.

....because there are no such thing as merit abuse..

Stuff like this is precisely why almost all threads complaining about the trust system are pure bullshit. Alts of busted people start pitching in in hopes that their accounts will return to non-negative levels.

Did you mean staff like you is precisely why the trust system is fcked up big time?do you mean you are still in hope that you will get your position back?
sorry to be honest there are less people here cares about your opinion a hypocrite pretending like you arent one of those abusers,heh.no hard feelings i might receive a red from your friends.

[kingpin4321]

  The idea behind the trust system is a very helpful one it can be used to alert others about a suspicious and faulting member of the forum well.

I think the forum has done well by establishing DT to dish out trust to members I don't have anything against the forum idea but the issue is that a DT should be a very neutral member that don't constantly get into and issue with other member with the immense power a DT has at there disposal it would be wrong that a DT fall on members that has high temper he/she might constantly abuse there power.

And again before any trust can be given to any member it should at least have the approval of more than one DT Thai would help in making decisions less bias

[mdayonliner]

######

That says the right one!
The other users red tagged due to guessing!
Just as you scream into the forest, so it comes back!

So you are saying my trust feedback was to shut me down (was planed) because I was investigating some merit abusing in the past?

Anyway, who cares about a non DT trust. When a non DT leaves a red or black - it does not reflect your trust score. We are talking about Default Trust system which reflects the trust rating. An irresponsible, a personally biased one can ruin an account. Tag me if I owe you a single Penney and I deny to give it back. Otherwise how it's relevant?

"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

[Anduck]

While the trust system is far from perfect, there isn't a significant amount of abuse on any level. Any system gets misused to some extent. As long as the amount of misuse is insignificant, it is acceptable.

DT misuse is not insignificant and not acceptable. Even if it was insignificant, it wouldn't be acceptable. DT should be removed.

[cryptohunter]

While the trust system is far from perfect, there isn't a significant amount of abuse on any level. Any system gets misused to some extent. As long as the amount of misuse is insignificant, it is acceptable.

DT misuse is not insignificant and not acceptable. Even if it was insignificant, it wouldn't be acceptable. DT should be removed.

I agree, there should be NO ROOM for abuse in a system that controls the behaviour of others.

Remove the opportunity to abuse or may huge efforts to do so or remove the system of control.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

looking at the amount of complaints from users on both Meta and Reputation boards, you get to see that many people are not happy with how the trust system or specially how DT members use it.

Yeah, mostly it's a bunch of blowhards who got tagged by some member of DT and you can't expect those members to be happy with the trust system--having said that, I've always said it was broken from the beginning and still do. 

Funny how people whine hard about the trust system and what they see as unfair trust by DT members who likely are doing their best to keep the forum clean, and yet they don't whine about the simple fact that Theymos allows scammers to use this forum however they like.  It's not against the rules to scam someone here, in case anyone here hasn't noticed.  If there wasn't a system whereby some trust feedbacks counted for more than others, how could anyone get a reliable warning about a scammer? 

As broken as it is, I have yet to hear anyone come up with a better alternative to the trust system we're stuck with except to create your own.  And just because incorrect feedbacks are sometimes wrongly given by DT members, that's no reason to scream that the DT system should be scrapped.  There have been miscarriages of justice all throughout history, but if there wasn't a justice system there would only be anarchy.

This is all up to Theymos, however.  He did mention that he's thinking about making some changes to the trust system, but I'm hoping what results from that doesn't resemble anything most of the whiners are suggesting.

As long as the amount of misuse is insignificant, it is acceptable.

And I'd also point out that if a DT member is thought to be abusing the trust system, he'll get removed from DT.  That's happened numerous times (you got removed, but there was never a reason given that I saw).  The DT list is not set in stone and I've already been removed once, then reinstated.  Other DT members have been removed for scamming as well.  I don't know if there are any members right now who are using their DT status for their own gain, despite accusations being made.  Mistakes?  Sure?  But everyone makes mistakes and mistakes don't mean a bad feedback is abuse.

[KingZee]

Do these threads ever result in any tangible outcome? The merit system has been added in less than a year now and it already looks like its mechanics are set in stone. Do you think attacking the Trust system after so many years is going to yield any results after it's been here for almost as long as the forum has existed?

I'm not saying this to deny or disagree with you, I definitely saw a few times how the trust system was abused or how it defines some people as trustworthy whereas they might not be as much as people would think, but I can't help feel like you guys are beating on a dead rock.

 
As broken as it is, I have yet to hear anyone come up with a better alternative to the trust system we're stuck with except to create your own.  And just because incorrect feedbacks are sometimes wrongly given by DT members, that's no reason to scream that the DT system should be scrapped.  There have been miscarriages of justice all throughout history, but if there wasn't a justice system there would only be anarchy.

This is all up to Theymos, however.  He did mention that he's thinking about making some changes to the trust system, but I'm hoping what results from that doesn't resemble anything most of the whiners are suggesting.

Assuming we just brainstormed better alternatives right here and now, will they actually be implemented? This forum is genuinely just test grounds for the forum admins, users get little to no say, and our feedback is completely disregarded concerning any aspect of the forum features, that it makes me feel sad if the people who write these kinds of post do it for any other reason than to vent/rant.

[Kopyleft]

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.
This can be limited to only 'non scam' scenarios, to reduce the workload. If a user is proven to be involved in a scam or rip-off there is no issue to deliberate on.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Assuming we just brainstormed better alternatives right here and now, will they actually be implemented?

There's no way of knowing, because it's up to Theymos.  I'm pretty sure he reads threads like these and knows what people are expressing, but if or how he's going to respond will remain a mystery right up until the time he changes something.

Back in January, actmyname and I were tagging shitposters because the problem had gotten so out of hand that it seemed like there was nothing else a DT member (or anyone else) could do--and no, it wasn't a good use of the trust system and I had to delete all those feedbacks eventually.  Then Theymos introduced the merit system essentially out of nowhere.  I certainly didn't see it coming.  So my guess is that Theymos has some ideas of his own in mind, and the changes that get made might be a fusion of those plus what everyone else has suggested.  But who knows? 

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.

That would take too much time, coordination, and effort to get DT members to come to a consensus about something as simple as a feedback.  DT members don't get paid for tagging people, you know.  I think most DT2 members are either inactive accounts now or don't actively tag scammers.  There's only a handful of DT2 members who actually try to bust scams and various other forms of untrustworthiness, and there have been many disagreements among them.  Personally I don't have the time to waste on participating in a referendum for each feedback that's up for consideration.