Can we regulate the trust system ?

[mikeywith]

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.

okay you have just summarized the whole issue in a very nice short statement which i couldn't do due to the lack of writing skills .

i do not think anybody will debate over the "clear" red and green cases. but what's up with the gray ?

if you tag someone for being a scammer, not a single DT member will counter it and say " no allow this guy to scam others". it's  pretty obvious !

but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

who can accuse the lemon hater DT member of "abusing" the trust system when there is not a single rule that says "you can't tag someone for using the word lemon?

the tagged person will have his profile painted in red, he won't be able to make any deals with any sort of flexibility, he will be kicked out of any signature campaign even if he gets a counter rating "since most camp mangers clearly say that if you have a negative rating from a DT member you won't get paid".

who will protect say "me" from you giving me a random negative trust because i use this smiley   way too often ?

for all i know no are not breaking any rules for doing so !.

[1714809854]

1714809854

[1714809854]

1714809854

[1714809854]

1714809854

[1714809854]

1714809854

[1714809854]

1714809854

[mdayonliner]

There are a lot of members who've been tagged just for making scammy offers.  Vod, for example, tags a lot of people who ask for loans with no collateral.  I tag account sellers primarily.  Neither of us have been directly scammed by the members we've tagged; it's a warning to others that the tagged member might not be trustworthy.

If I create a brand new account and if my first post is to offer a $100k escrow service or even the 10th or 20th post is to offer a $100k deals then there is something wrong. Since Vod was used for example then I have noticed most of Vod's tags are for a brand new account asking for no collateral loan. I am always saying when the crime is obvious then tag the user.

That's what happened in your case when you offered to escrow that insane amount and got tagged by hilariousandco, and it's not much different than what some DT members have been doing all along.

Like I said before when the crime is not obvious and you can not prove it then leave a warning. Can hilariousandco prove it that I was going to walk away with the 20BTC? S/he can't because the event never happened. A user may make a mistake, give them a chance. Warn for the first time. S/he may not realize the dept of the wrongdoing/wrong-practice. Warn them! If needed then warn them for the 2nd and third too. Leave a neutral feedback as the prove of the warning. Do it for the 2nd and third time too. If they don't listen THAN go for action. If a single tag from DT can destroy someones accounts then DTs should be very careful before tagging an account. A harsh tag is injustice for the member.

So given what I just pointed out, how is it you're now being "bullied"?

- Read some of the reply from AdolfinWolf on the topic. It was like I wanted to trade paypal £ because I know paypal is reversible and I am determined that I will do that once I will get the BTC. It's like he is reading my mind and throwing out even made up shit like paypal still do charge back even after 180 days.

- Another trusted member wanted to sell btc and wanted to have paypal. When I left PM he said nothing personal and he will do deal with only trusted members. Later I found he dealt with few 'member' accounts.

- I used escrow service from one of the very highly trusted member (several times). He wanted to sell BTC for paypal. When I contacted with him he said he will wait for few more offers.

Non of these would not happen if I did not have the highlighted warning....
"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

The warning means I stole or scammed more than a penny! Did I scam a penny from anyone here? I did not and I don't think I will ever.

That's demonstrably untrue--look at how many merits you've gotten.

I said some members think red tagged members should not ranked up. By the way, I do feel the impact. I used to receive merits from the boards which shows trust rating but after getting the red tag I am not receiving much from those boards.

If you're going to be honest with yourself, you never complained about the trust system before you got tagged.

I never did because I never realized the after effect until I had one. I was not wearing their shoes.

Do you think it's any less wrong if posted outside this forum?

I did not promote any ponzi in and outside the forum while I am a member of the forum. I left promoting those business long before joining this forum because I was sick and tired of their terms.

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

I am saying the same thing like the other member that custom trust list is not solving the problem. Feedback from DTs are visible to everyone and forum member's count the DT feedback only.

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

Again since the DTs trusts are countable it's not only affecting to signature stuffs it's effecting when you are going to do any single trade. I never scammed anyone but I had hard time to trade my PP for btc because of the warning I have in my profile.

Warning: click to check user's feedback

May be this is a good idea (not red though, red looks scary, may be some other color) when the tag is not for a proven crime like troll, offering shady service, account selling, asking for no collateral loan from a brand new account etc etc.

For a confirmed crime like loan default, not posting products you paid for, reversing paypal once got the BTC etc etc keep the current warning text "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

[suchmoon]

- Read some of the reply from AdolfinWolf on the topic. It was like I wanted to trade paypal £ because I know paypal is reversible and I am determined that I will do that once I will get the BTC. It's like he is reading my mind and throwing out even made up shit like paypal still do charge back even after 180 days.

Adolf's post is factual. You don't like another user's post and you're trying to make it sound like it's a trust system issue. It's not.

For a confirmed crime like loan default, not posting products you paid for, reversing paypal once got the BTC etc etc keep the current warning text "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

A second DT rating would trigger the stronger message. My suggestion was just a small adjustment to the current positive/negative/red/green/orange/question mark scheme. I don't want to overcomplicate it with subjective details like what is a crime?

[mrcash02]

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.

Maybe, but if a DT feedback's pattern becomes too evident (like several dubious rates applied by a same DT minor group), it will be easier to spot who is acting in cartel, the exposure is higher than supporting partner DT's feedbacks only with words. Higher exposure is good, because it's harder to be omitted and trivialized.

Anyway, even with high exposure, if no one complains and express their opinion, nothing will be done and the abuses will continue.

It's not a definitive solution, but an improvement...

[AdolfinWolf]

Like I said before when the crime is not obvious and you can not prove it then leave a warning. Can hilariousandco prove it that I was going to walk away with the 20BTC? S/he can't because the event never happened. A user may make a mistake, give them a chance. Warn for the first time. S/he may not realize the dept of the wrongdoing/wrong-practice. Warn them! If needed then warn them for the 2nd and third too. Leave a neutral feedback as the prove of the warning. Do it for the 2nd and third time too. If they don't listen THAN go for action. If a single tag from DT can destroy someones accounts then DTs should be very careful before tagging an account. A harsh tag is injustice for the member.

Your reasoning is that of 12 year old... This forum isn't a kindergarten.. You're acting as if DT is getting paid for doing this. They're not. You really think they have the patience to give some 2/3/4 chances? I know i wouldn't..

I personally don't actually see any reason for them to justify their ratings to anyone up to a certain degree. If they're inherently wrong, someone else on DT will probably correct them on it.
 

So given what I just pointed out, how is it you're now being "bullied"?

- Read some of the reply from AdolfinWolf on the topic. It was like I wanted to trade paypal £ because I know paypal is reversible and I am determined that I will do that once I will get the BTC. It's like he is reading my mind and throwing out even made up shit like paypal still do charge back even after 180 days.

- Another trusted member wanted to sell btc and wanted to have paypal. When I left PM he said nothing personal and he will do deal with only trusted members. Later I found he dealt with few 'member' accounts.

- I used escrow service from one of the very highly trusted member (several times). He wanted to sell BTC for paypal. When I contacted with him he said he will wait for few more offers.

Non of these would not happen if I did not have the highlighted warning....
"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

The warning means I stole or scammed more than a penny! Did I scam a penny from anyone here? I did not and I don't think I will ever.

It's not made up. If you do a transaction through your bank(but mostly CC)/credit card on lets say eBay, and you tell your bank/cc provider that you got hacked etc, with sufficient proof, it can infact issue a chargeback.

Depends on your CC provider/Bank, but it's definitely possible.

Non of these would not happen if I did not have the highlighted warning....

I again wouldn't be so quick to blame the red tag for all of your issues. If anyone else was making such a stigma about "leaving the forum", only to then come back to make a deal that doesn't really make sense, well, he probably would've received the same replies, even w/out a red trust.

Do you think it's any less wrong if posted outside this forum?

I did not promote any ponzi in and outside the forum while I am a member of the forum. I left promoting those business long before joining this forum because I was sick and tired of their terms.

And where does Followbitcoin.today fit in then? What's that? You don't classify that as a ponzi? -- Sidenote: You didn't answer his question...  

Anyway, your entire character at this point is becoming an esoteric issue which i can no longer keep up with. Ah well.

[Vod]

Non of these would not happen if I did not have the highlighted warning....
"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

The warning means I stole or scammed more than a penny! Did I scam a penny from anyone here? I did not and I don't think I will ever.

It simply means someone does not trust you - no where does it say you scammed.

Not trusting you for promoting a ponzi is a valid reason to leave negative trust - regardless of when and where it happened.  Such actions show your trustworthiness the same as going out and taking money from a blind person.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction.

I distrust you both for scamming in your auction and your continued bullshit. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

In these cases, the affected user opens a thread, and there is usually a lengthy discussion that either results in:

1 - removal of the red tag
2 - addition of more red tags
3 - countering of the red tag with a positive tag

If a DT member is found to be constantly leaving inappropriate feedback which the rest of the community disagree with, then they will likely be removed from DT before long. In cases like Anduck's and mdayonliner's, don't be fooled in to thinking that they are victims of some "rogue" DT member. Given their continued vocality the majority of DT members are well aware of their situations and have actively chosen to either reinforce the red tag or to not counter it.

theymos also agrees that the DT system is not perfect (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080581.msg48500915#msg48500915), and he is very interested in any ways to improve it. In the short term, I think there is a very strong argument to be made for a handful more DT1 members, and by extension many more DT2 members, to keep things as decentralized as possible.

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

[cryptohunter]

but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

In these cases, the affected user opens a thread, and there is usually a lengthy discussion that either results in:

1 - removal of the red tag
2 - addition of more red tags
3 - countering of the red tag with a positive tag

If a DT member is found to be constantly leaving inappropriate feedback which the rest of the community disagree with, then they will likely be removed from DT before long. In cases like Anduck's and mdayonliner's, don't be fooled in to thinking that they are victims of some "rogue" DT member. Given their continued vocality the majority of DT members are well aware of their situations and have actively chosen to either reinforce the red tag or to not counter it.

theymos also agrees that the DT system is not perfect (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080581.msg48500915#msg48500915), and he is very interested in any ways to improve it. In the short term, I think there is a very strong argument to be made for a handful more DT1 members, and by extension many more DT2 members, to keep things as decentralized as possible.

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

I believe if a system allows to the unfair treatment of 1 individual it needs review and additional measures to fix that that it failed to protect previously.

Some people just take it and do not have the will, capacity or personality to face what it takes to get fair treatment.

Trust is to warn me about getting scammed out of money not about their preference for lemons. Bring the criteria or scrap.
Or maybe change the red message to say " click to find out peoples opinion of lemons"

Scammers get red trust. Others can just keep differences of opinion and petty arguments to themselves.

[Anduck]

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction.

I distrust you both for scamming in your auction and your continued bullshit.  

Haha. You said ("I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy") that you don't see anything untrustworthy in how the auction went. Right after certain private messages on the same day, your opinion 'suddenly' changed. These are publicly verifiable facts, not bullshit. You seem upset that I don't simply forget your wrongdoing.

How about that quote which attribution you faked? How about that blackmailing attempt? You are a true scumbag.

I've not scammed anyone. You're trying to trash my reputation by relying on people not verifying what you claim.

[r1s2g3]

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

Do not worry, whatever the system in place,people will always complain.



Image Source

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?

You are still free to leave -ve and I like LoyceV suggestion that not every account (at least high ranked account) should be destroyed by single -ve or some personal issues with DT member.
It is also ok to leave soft warning as suchmoon suggested but I think it will not solve the purpose because a -ve rating will still be negative, does not matter how it displayed but if first negative rating changed to " ? ? ? " then it might serve as warning and everybody should be cautioned.

My personal belief is that when you are trading with someone then you need to check every feedback (trusted + untrusted) to make up your mind but unfortunately people are just guided by trusted feedback only. DT are human and can err in some case but why everybody is putting a blind eye to that feedback and making a de facto  standard.This is the reason I suggested 3 people cannot be wrong at same time.

Anyways in my belief, when you trade , you are supposed to use escrow and protect yourself and the responsibility to protect you from scam does not lie at DT at all.

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

the problem is indeed with the trust system.

I believe the root cause of the problem is account value. Most of users in bitcointalk set some value of account in their mind based on the ranking of the account. That's why you see thread like if you are legendary/Hero or green trusted account I will go first (completely ignoring escrow) or will not deal with -ve trust account or below Member ranking. Moment you get -ve trust from DT the value of account change to zero and you lose many of the trade/earning opportunities exist in this forum.

[suchmoon]

~ words

You already have at least two lengthy threads on the subject. Derailing another one and hoping for a different result seems quite dumb.

[Anduck]

~ words

You already have at least two lengthy threads on the subject. Derailing another one and hoping for a different result seems quite dumb.

I replied to Vod. Not going to sit silently when Vod (or anyone) continues to spread shit about me (or others), thank you.

[mrcash02]

These threads become worthless too fast with a lot of posts trying to change the focus of the conversation.

Better to make a document with valid points justifying the need for changes, with suggestions about what can be done, with the signature of unsatisfied people and forward to the forum's owner.

[manfredmann]

Well I have nothing to worry about it because I am not gone trading here and will not going to scam other users as well. I have seen that there are many scammers out here so probably the best thing to do is not to trust anyone even to those who act as escrow service might scam one users one day depending on the need of that user. It will come to a time that they will be tempted to do it also.