DefaultTrust changes

[SplitBirb]

I think if a user made a purchase and seller leaves positive feedback they should have the right to give as many positive feedbacks they want. I’m saying this as an eBay seller. I have repeat customers and I always leave them positive feedback to show appreciation.

If you are not on DT do whatever you want. If you are on DT, and want to remain there, then you have no such right.

I don’t know how scoring works with DT but if a users points don’t increase when on DT whether they do 1 or 100 ratings I think it should be ok as long as they get no advantage. If it does give an advantage of any kind to the users then I think it should not be permitted. Because some users can just pretend to sell to each other to rank up trust points, not saying this is the case but always a possibility. I am new here just sharing what I think from a newcomer perspective.

[1714047254]

1714047254

[1714047254]

1714047254

[1714047254]

1714047254

[asche]

If you are not on DT do whatever you want. If you are on DT, and want to remain there, then you have no such right.

I'm with you on this.

I recently reviewed all my ratings and came to remove some negative and more positive ones that gained much more weight than they should have given my inclusion to DT1.

[Timelord2067]

I think if a user made a purchase and seller leaves positive feedback they should have the right to give as many positive feedbacks they want. I’m saying this as an eBay seller. I have repeat customers and I always leave them positive feedback to show appreciation.

If you are not on DT do whatever you want. If you are on DT, and want to remain there, then you have no such right.

This is why theymos' grand plans for bitcointalk always come unraveled...

[DooMAD]

Use a neutral rating for documentation, don't trust farm with a spam of worthless positive ratings.

Just for the sake of clarity, what difference does it make?  According to suchmoon:

Multiple positives from the same user count as one for the purposes of trust score.

So there's no "farming", as such, if that's the case.

[The Cryptovator]

User kingscrown DT2 added by achow101,
kingscrown have left lots of positive feedback's but he is inactive from September 02, 2016, I think achow101 should reconsider that user. The positive feedback of this user reflecting now.

[Lauda]

Use a neutral rating for documentation, don't trust farm with a spam of worthless positive ratings.

Just for the sake of clarity, what difference does it make?  According to suchmoon:

Multiple positives from the same user count as one for the purposes of trust score.

So there's no "farming", as such, if that's the case.

That is the case, and there is indeed farming. Anyone from DT leaving positive feedback for miniscule amounts is just asking for trouble; we've had more than enough scams from green trusted people. Whilst ultimately multiple ratings from the same person do not increase the overall trust score, it does potray a misleading picture of being "very trusted". Who would a newbie trust: 1) A user with 5 feedback from 5 users. 2) A user with 50 feedback from 3 users. It's trivial really.

User kingscrown DT2 added by achow101,
kingscrown have left lots of positive feedback's but he is inactive from September 02, 2016, I think achow101 should reconsider that user. The positive feedback of this user reflecting now.

Notified him; already removed.

[TECSHARE]

Use a neutral rating for documentation, don't trust farm with a spam of worthless positive ratings.

Just for the sake of clarity, what difference does it make?  According to suchmoon:

Multiple positives from the same user count as one for the purposes of trust score.

So there's no "farming", as such, if that's the case.

That is the case, and there is indeed farming. Anyone from DT leaving positive feedback for miniscule amounts is just asking for trouble; we've had more than enough scams from green trusted people. Whilst ultimately multiple ratings from the same person do not increase the overall trust score, it does potray a misleading picture of being "very trusted". Who would a newbie trust: 1) A user with 5 feedback from 5 users. 2) A user with 50 feedback from 3 users. It's trivial really.

User kingscrown DT2 added by achow101,
kingscrown have left lots of positive feedback's but he is inactive from September 02, 2016, I think achow101 should reconsider that user. The positive feedback of this user reflecting now.

Notified him; already removed.

Here we are once again, with you unilaterally determining actual trade to be irrelevant in a system of trust designed to protect new traders. No one ranks up in your system without your permission right? New users will rank up starting with small trades. That is just how it works. You don't have psychic powers to tell you who is who, you are just mass hitting people pretending you don't punish any innocents. Do any of you people have actual lives of your own or is your only method of defining self worth involve obsessive compulsively putting users through daily inquisitions?

[Lauda]

Here we are once again, with you unilaterally determining actual trade to be irrelevant in a system of trust designed to protect new traders. No one ranks up in your system without your permission right? New users will rank up starting with small trades. That is just how it works. You don't have psychic powers to tell you who is who, you are just mass hitting people pretending you don't punish any innocents. Do any of you people have actual lives of your own or is your only method of defining self worth involve obsessive compulsively putting users through daily inquisitions?

I believe I have the following two rights:
1) State my strong opinion on any matter.
2) Exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever.
If you disagree with either one, you are either ignorant or have become delusional in your victim play. Either way, you need to realize that what you say matters to almost nobody here (for a reason). I will state this once more, if one leaves positive ratings for useless nonsense I will exclude them. The same goes for negative ratings.

[KingZee]

---
Notified him; already removed.

Here we are once again, with you unilaterally determining actual trade to be irrelevant in a system of trust designed to protect new traders. No one ranks up in your system without your permission right? New users will rank up starting with small trades. That is just how it works. You don't have psychic powers to tell you who is who, you are just mass hitting people pretending you don't punish any innocents. Do any of you people have actual lives of your own or is your only method of defining self worth involve obsessive compulsively putting users through daily inquisitions?

I re-quote my own message (minus a few typos because I typed it from mobile) :

---

But stop witch hunting people just because you disagree with their list choices. Theres a much better solution : Use your own damn vote to exclude them. If YOU dont agree with what they did, it doesnt mean you have to incite other users to do so too. Thats the goal of trust lists. If you start judging every list on a micro-scale, its 100% bound to be subjective to each members opinion. But if all members agree to include one member (of course without collaborating or working on some mafia trust ring), you can then trust that that member is objectively trusted by the network.

A better way to steer this thread would be to discuss ratings on a much more macro scale. Stop judging every users list, and try to come up with guidelines that will make everyones list more objective and will help create a better network. Of course I say guidelines, because thats what they are. Someone not following them might have his own reasons, but if his own reasons happen to go in the completely opposite direction of everyone then he will quickly see himself excluded from DT.. Thats how networks work.

----

It's honestly scary how some members are already exercising some sort of peer pressure on each other. I'm not going to call out any specific names, but people need to start realising how much power they have and how much power they don't. For anyone that belongs to either DT1 or DT2, stop giving individual opinions too much attention.

When you include or exclude someone, stand by it. If the MAJORITY of the network calls you out on it, then maybe you should reconsider. Actually, even if you don't, everyone else is going to exclude him, proving my next point ->

Regardless of the opinion of the minority, that is what they are, a minority. ALL DT1 nodes are equal in this system, so are all DT2 nodes. When someone calls out some shit on your list, you need to know that they have the exact same influence you have. We're trying to decentralize trust for this exact reason.

Each opinion counts.

If this line somehow changes from "Each", to "5 people and their proxies" (because if you modify your list according to these 5 people, then you're a proxy to their own judgement), then the whole system falls back to what it was before.

A few people really need to re-assess how much influence they think they have, and a lot of other people need to start losing the inferiority complex if they're an active node of the trust list.

[Lauda]

When you include or exclude someone, stand by it. If the MAJORITY of the network calls you out on it, then maybe you should reconsider. Actually, even if you don't, everyone else is going to exclude him, proving my next point ->

Yes, you should wait for 30 people to contact you before correcting something that is objectively wrong and trivially corrected.

-snip-
If this line somehow changes from "Each", to "5 people and their proxies" (because if you modify your list according to these 5 people, then you're a proxy to their own judgement), then the whole system falls back to what it was before.

A few people really need to re-assess how much influence they think they have, and a lot of other people need to start losing the inferiority complex if they're an active node of the trust list.

You really need to re-asses your "I can't be wrong" and "5 people can't agree with an opinion that is right, they must be proxies" bullshit.

[KingZee]

When you include or exclude someone, stand by it. If the MAJORITY of the network calls you out on it, then maybe you should reconsider. Actually, even if you don't, everyone else is going to exclude him, proving my next point ->

Yes, you should wait for 30 people to contact you before correcting something that is objectively wrong and trivially corrected.

-snip-
If this line somehow changes from "Each", to "5 people and their proxies" (because if you modify your list according to these 5 people, then you're a proxy to their own judgement), then the whole system falls back to what it was before.

A few people really need to re-assess how much influence they think they have, and a lot of other people need to start losing the inferiority complex if they're an active node of the trust list.

You really need to re-asses your "I can't be wrong" and "5 people can't agree with an opinion that is right, they must be proxies" bullshit.

Do you even read what you write? You're accusing me of the exact thing you do.

Look, like you said, you're free to say whatever you want. Just as I am.

I'm trying to explain to people how wrong it is for them to listen to every opinion you (and others) write here. You also need to know that you could always be one iteration away from being off the list, in case they all agree that you're more of a nuisance rather than a helpful trust node.

I honestly can't see how you think what you're doing is okay. Just imagine you're a single node of 20 bitcoin nodes and one of them chooses to include or orphan a block, it doesn't matter right? Because the majority won't.

But now look at you forcing 3 more nodes to exclude it, and 2 other nodes doing the same, the whole network basically consists of 2 opinions then. That's exactly how this whole ordeal looks to me. Is it really hard to mind your own business and fix your own list? There's a HUGE difference between "I excluded x user because I think xxxx", and "You can't include x user in your list. Change it."

Not to even mention the pointless spam and post count that "include this and exclude that" creates.

[Lauda]

Look, like you said, you're free to say whatever you want. Just as I am.

And I'm allowed to tell you and everyone else that what you said is objectively bullshit.

I'm trying to explain to people how wrong it is for them to listen to every opinion you (and others) write here. You also need to know that you could always be one iteration away from being off the list, in case they all agree that you're more of a nuisance rather than a helpful trust node.

Good luck with that. Maybe thermos will kick me out, who knows.

But now look at you forcing 3 more nodes to exclude it, and 2 other nodes doing the same, the whole network basically consists of 2 opinions then. That's exactly how this whole ordeal looks to me.
-snip-

I would ask you to refrain from posting lies about me. Thank you.

[TECSHARE]

Here we are once again, with you unilaterally determining actual trade to be irrelevant in a system of trust designed to protect new traders. No one ranks up in your system without your permission right? New users will rank up starting with small trades. That is just how it works. You don't have psychic powers to tell you who is who, you are just mass hitting people pretending you don't punish any innocents. Do any of you people have actual lives of your own or is your only method of defining self worth involve obsessive compulsively putting users through daily inquisitions?

I believe I have the following two rights:
1) State my strong opinion on any matter.
2) Exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever.
If you disagree with either one, you are either ignorant or have become delusional in your victim play. Either way, you need to realize that what you say matters to almost nobody here (for a reason). I will state this once more, if one leaves positive ratings for useless nonsense I will exclude them. The same goes for negative ratings.

Sure, you can do lots of things. That doesn't maker them a good idea.

I see so it is not at all possible you are incorrect in this judgement? Still you wonder why I criticize your behavior when you operate as if your decisions are infallible and every interaction is one focused on an attempt at intimidation. Too bad your sad little jedi mind tricks don't work on me isn't it? It would make things a lot easier for you to push people around without any criticism if I just bought your horse shit that nothing I say matters, and everything you say does, wouldn't it? People like you don't belong in positions of authority.

[Lauda]

-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...

You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is.

[TECSHARE]

-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...

You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is.

Oh look, more veiled threats. I wonder how long it is until you start making straight up threats or trying to dig into my personal affairs? Is everyone watching this dynamic?

[Lauda]

-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...

You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is.

Oh look, more veiled threats. I wonder how long it is until you start making straight up threats or trying to dig into my personal affairs? Is everyone watching this dynamic?

If you see that as a threat, then I suggest you visit a shrink as soon as possible as there is something very wrong with you. Stop playing the delusional victim card, it won't work.

[TECSHARE]

-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...

You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is.

Oh look, more veiled threats. I wonder how long it is until you start making straight up threats or trying to dig into my personal affairs? Is everyone watching this dynamic?

If you see that as a threat, then I suggest you visit a shrink as soon as possible as there is something very wrong with you. Stop playing the delusional victim card, it won't work.

How do you find the time to be a psychologist when you are already a psychic infallible judge jury and executioner all day? No one said anything about being a victim except you. Does it look like your intimidation tactics are effecting me? I am simply pointing out your behavior so others can recognize this pattern that you exhibit literally any time some one tells you some thing you don't like or don't agree with, especially when it comes to questioning your judgement. And noobs are supposed to defend themselves against this? Please.

[Lauda]

-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...

You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is.

Oh look, more veiled threats. I wonder how long it is until you start making straight up threats or trying to dig into my personal affairs? Is everyone watching this dynamic?

If you see that as a threat, then I suggest you visit a shrink as soon as possible as there is something very wrong with you. Stop playing the delusional victim card, it won't work.

How do you find the time to be a psychologist when you are already a psychic infallible judge jury and executioner all day? No one said anything about being a victim except you. Does it look like your intimidation tactics are effecting me? I am simply pointing out your behavior so others can recognize this pattern that you exhibit literally any time some one tells you some thing you don't like or don't agree with, especially when it comes to questioning your judgement.

That is incorrect as what you claim is my behavior is not my behavior. In other words, you are intentionally making up lies about me. Not that this matters much as it happens daily given the amount of butthurt I cause. Go back to Politics & Society; no need for me to repost the 'murica meme again.

* Lauda expects a whiny snowflake response, as TECSHARE is horribly predictable and places him on ignore.

[TECSHARE]

How do you find the time to be a psychologist when you are already a psychic infallible judge jury and executioner all day? No one said anything about being a victim except you. Does it look like your intimidation tactics are effecting me? I am simply pointing out your behavior so others can recognize this pattern that you exhibit literally any time some one tells you some thing you don't like or don't agree with, especially when it comes to questioning your judgement.

That is incorrect as what you claim is my behavior is not my behavior. In other words, you are intentionally making up lies about me. Not that this matters much as it happens daily given the amount of butthurt I cause. Go back to Politics & Society; no need for me to repost the 'murica meme again.

* Lauda expects a whiny snowflake response, as TECSHARE is horribly predictable and places him on ignore.

If only that were the sole example perhaps you would have a point. I wonder what a compilation thread of all the threats you have made to users would look like. Perhaps some one can put one together.

So, you are claiming to be some kind of arbiter for what is right around here but you are proud of "how much butthurt" you cause? Like OgNasty said, this behavior is an embarrassment for this forum at best if these are the kind of people in charge around here. Yeah, you "ignore" me like everyone else around here who "ignores" me and then has something to say to me 30 seconds later. I suspect you will resort to your usual backdoor shadowy games since you know you have no ground to stand on in a public discussion of your behavior.

I would frankly rather be in Politics & Society, and I have no interest in your power struggle games except for the fact that the results are getting seriously destructive. I would really rather be spending my time doing something else. You wouldn't. That is the problem. The only reason this has gone on so long is no one wants to be the one to have to deal with you and risk their years of actual hard earned reputation when you retaliate, and anyone without a reputation is easily dismissed.

[suchmoon]

Sure, you can do lots of things. That doesn't maker them a good idea.

I see so it is not at all possible you are incorrect in this judgement? Still you wonder why I criticize your behavior when you operate as if your decisions are infallible and every interaction is one focused on an attempt at intimidation. Too bad your sad little jedi mind tricks don't work on me isn't it? It would make things a lot easier for you to push people around without any criticism if I just bought your horse shit that nothing I say matters, and everything you say does, wouldn't it? People like you don't belong in positions of authority.

May I suggest to invest in a mirror?