DefaultTrust changes

[TECSHARE]

[ignores many reasoned and logical posts, comments on tiny subsection in reply to exactly those same tactics]

I don't keep up with this thread because it is long. I'm sorry that I have not yet read your replies. Do you have a synopsis that I can follow so that I may further educate myself in order to understand the situation? I would be delighted to truly capture the situation and create a well-formed and developed reply that is founded on facts.

Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.

[OgNasty]

You've treated me bad, worse than most people that have ever treated me bad. That's not a blatant lie, that's how I see it and that's how I feel.

... I once won a raffle from you and then another time I got a free 1g nastyfans coin from you. You deliever, yes....

But not to worry, I'll put you on ignore as well and we no longer (hopefully) have to cross paths. Perhaps you could do the same? Would give me peace of mind.

You've treated me far worse than I've ever treated you.  Difference is that I don't go around making threads about it or derailing topics with nonsense whining.  The bottom line is that you didn't understand how the trust system worked, and then got mad at me because you wrongly thought I somehow empowered some user that left you negative trust.  You're mad at me FOR YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING.  Grow up.  Take responsibility.  Stop attacking me, asking me for free stuff, buying my raffle tickets, and spreading lies about me, then we would never have had or ever will have any interaction whatsoever.  Understand?  

[actmyname]

Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.

Cheers. This is a different thread (might have some relation) and roughly going through it I don't see any problem with setting a foundation for negative feedback. In fact, IIRC, there is a thread about ongoing discussion relating to that very issue.

From what I see, this local issue starts from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49511282#msg49511282

Am I correct? If not, where should I start reading on this thread?

[suchmoon]

[plays victim card as you accuse opponent of playing victim card]

I don't feel I'm a victim and I don't mean to imply that I am. Our disagreement doesn't mean anything else to me. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding.

[KingZee]

Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.

Cheers. This is a different thread (might have some relation) and roughly going through it I don't see any problem with setting a foundation for negative feedback. In fact, IIRC, there is a thread about ongoing discussion relating to that very issue.

From what I see, this local issue starts from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49511282#msg49511282

Am I correct? If not, where should I start reading on this thread?

I'm pretty sure people came to this thread with pre-existing judgements and opinions on each other. I tried several times to keep the discussion on topic and discuss DT, and trust related problems, despite the interventions of some members. But at this point, all of them started having a go at each other, and this thread has officially gone to shit.

[OgNasty]

Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.

Cheers. This is a different thread (might have some relation) and roughly going through it I don't see any problem with setting a foundation for negative feedback. In fact, IIRC, there is a thread about ongoing discussion relating to that very issue.

From what I see, this local issue starts from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49511282#msg49511282

Am I correct? If not, where should I start reading on this thread?

That's where the deflection starts because I brought up owlcatz calling me a faggot in his trust feedback, and thought it didn't belong in the DT network.  The issue we're supposed to be discussing is the new DefaultTrust changes, but the new DefaultTrust folks are instead attacking anyone who actually tries to discuss the topic or point out things that shouldn't be there, like owlcatz calling me a faggot in a DefaultTrust negative feedback rating.

[TECSHARE]

I don't feel I'm a victim and I don't mean to imply that I am. Our disagreement doesn't mean anything else to me. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding.

Yes, I am sure your comment about my use of language had nothing to do with casting anyone as a victim.

Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.

Cheers. This is a different thread (might have some relation) and roughly going through it I don't see any problem with setting a foundation for negative feedback. In fact, IIRC, there is a thread about ongoing discussion relating to that very issue.

From what I see, this local issue starts from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49511282#msg49511282

Am I correct? If not, where should I start reading on this thread?

I would call what I linked a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here.

[suchmoon]

That's where the deflection starts because I brought up owlcatz calling me a faggot in his trust feedback, and thought it didn't belong in the DT network.  The issue we're supposed to be discussing is the new DefaultTrust changes, but the new DefaultTrust folks are instead attacking anyone who actually tries to discuss the topic or point out things that shouldn't be there, like owlcatz calling me a faggot in a DefaultTrust negative feedback rating.

Owl's rating is not there anymore. Mission accomplished on that front. Any chance we could expect similar self-reflection from you?

I don't feel I'm a victim and I don't mean to imply that I am. Our disagreement doesn't mean anything else to me. I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding.

Yes, I am sure your comment about my use of language had nothing to do with casting anyone as a victim.

I'm happy to see that we're on the same page with this one.

[actmyname]

I would call that a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here.

Then I'm not sure where we went wrong.

Let's avoid the tirade of drama and talk about improving DefaultTrust as a system. The individuals can come later (or in separate discussions). Agreed?There was a post by someone when explaining negative trust. Paraphrasing here, but I believe this is critical: "Is the negative feedback worth ruining the user's reputation?"

This should be mainly for preventing the degradation of the forum. Scams, egregious abuse of forum systems, etc.

I don't usually send out negative feedback based on dissenting opinions. (if there is feedback that I sent of which you disagree with, please let me know.)
There are some cases in which consistent blatant lying that is not outright scamming (i.e. does not involve any monetary transaction) might deserve a strongly-worded neutral or at worst, a negative.^*

_{*may not have actually occurred yet}

[OgNasty]

That's where the deflection starts because I brought up owlcatz calling me a faggot in his trust feedback, and thought it didn't belong in the DT network.  The issue we're supposed to be discussing is the new DefaultTrust changes, but the new DefaultTrust folks are instead attacking anyone who actually tries to discuss the topic or point out things that shouldn't be there, like owlcatz calling me a faggot in a DefaultTrust negative feedback rating.

Owl's rating is not there anymore. Mission accomplished on that front. Any chance we could expect similar self-reflection from you?

Thank you.  It is a start.  I actually reviewed my sent feedback the other day and didn't see anything incorrect in them (but did remove a couple that I felt were repetitive).  If there is a feedback of mine you don't believe is accurate, feel free to reach out to me in PM.  I try to leave references so they are clear, but in some cases there is too much to list in the small box.  However, I'm usually happy to clarify if I have the time.

[actmyname]

This isn't what I had in mind.

[suchmoon]

Thank you.  It is a start.  I actually reviewed my sent feedback the other day and didn't see anything incorrect in them (but did remove a couple that I felt were repetitive).  If there is a feedback of mine you don't believe is accurate, feel free to reach out to me in PM.  I try to leave references so they are clear, but in some cases there is too much to list in the small box.  However, I'm usually happy to clarify if I have the time.

Don't change anything for my benefit. I believe your ratings offer a beneficial indication of your character and how you use the trust system. If I start PMing you, TECSHARE will have a heart attack screaming about "compliance" and I can't have that on my conscience.

[TECSHARE]

I would call that a fairly accurate summary of what I am advocating for yes. The rest here is just noise from people who don't like the idea that they will no longer be all powerful and above criticism around here.

Then I'm not sure where we went wrong.

Let's avoid the tirade of drama and talk about improving DefaultTrust as a system. The individuals can come later (or in separate discussions). Agreed?There was a post by someone when explaining negative trust. Paraphrasing here, but I believe this is critical: "Is the negative feedback worth ruining the user's reputation?"

This should be mainly for preventing the degradation of the forum. Scams, egregious abuse of forum systems, etc.

I don't usually send out negative feedback based on dissenting opinions. (if there is feedback that I sent of which you disagree with, please let me know.)
There are some cases in which consistent blatant lying that is not outright scamming (i.e. does not involve any monetary transaction) might deserve a strongly-worded neutral or at worst, a negative.^*

_{*may not have actually occurred yet}

I think you will find when addressed rationally and with intellectual honesty I will respond in kind. There are a lot of people who go around here who only speak the language of intimidation, inquisition, and relishing their authority over others over anything else. It is easy to say just lets agree, but the people who will continually derail don't have the principle to even honor that agreement as they have no incentive to. I am not aware of anything you personally have been up to that I object to, I am sorry if it sounded as if I was addressing you personally.

As I stated in previous posts we need this core set of principles because it is what will ultimately achieve those goals of preventing abuse, scams, and general degradation of the forum. It is not rocket science. Look at any society without a rule of law and see how it is controlled. This forum is not quite that chaotic, but operates under systematic arbitrary enforcement.

Arbitrary enforcement results in not only confusion of what the rules are but creates a feedback loop of disregard for the "rule of law" or observing rules on the forum in general. You combine this with a small handful of cliques that have made an industry out of going after scams or manufacturing them to then "bust" them with various levels of complication, and now you have direct incentive for abuse without recourse for those abused. This again breeds disrespect for any authority around here, as well again creates a feedback loop of driving away constructive users who simply didn't understand the arbitrarily enforced patchwork of rules, while actual scammers are back in seconds with a bought account.

There needs to be a standard of evidence for negative ratings of some kind of documentation of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. This would cut out SO MUCH of the bullshit we are seeing right now. The sky will not fall. The forum will continue. There will be less drama, more cooperation, more constructive users, less scamming (because they can't hide in the noise), and most importantly people can enjoy the peace of mind of generally BEING LEFT THE FUCK ALONE if they haven't harmed anyone else as is traditional in this community.

[Thule]

A major point would be restoring normal trust to accounts which haven't done anything wrong and have been falsly tagged as scammers

[peloso]

, like owlcatz calling me a faggot in a DefaultTrust negative feedback rating.

and TMAN calling me crazy it a DefaultTrust negative feedback rating because in my opinion i not agree with him or Lauda, also owlcatz copypasted and from some time deleted text of TMAN rating
all of this shits without proofs

[tranthidung]

I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.

It takes a few months before adjustments on Trust system been made.
By now, around 3 weeks after the activation of new trust algorithm, I saw some things, both positive (in green) and negative (in red):
(1) A new generation of self-made higher ranked members voted into new Trust list
They are inspirational stories that constructive and trustworthy users can play important roles in the forum, no matter what where they come from.
Around one year ago, at the start of merit system, some DT1 members were Members, Junior Members or even Newbies.
Within more than one year, fully contributed to the forum, they got acceptance and trust from forum community.
They deserve for all their dedication to the forum.
I congratulate them for their achievements! [Let's call it achievement]
Case studies: iasenko, Coolcryptovator, ICOEthics, asche.
The new DT1 Trust list (update on 29/1/2019)

(2) There are abusements on Trust votes.
I known that the Distrust mechanism will play a role here for abusement cases.
However, it always takes time to discover abusers. It means that in early hours or days after get new Trusts, those abusers can scam forum users.
In most cases, they often get distrust after found by other DT1 members or forum users.
It is risky for forum users at somewhat extent.
For me, I tend to careful when see someone who got a little bit Trust points. I admit that they are potentially better than me (of course, I don't have Green Trust, LOL), but some of them are potential Trust Abusers.

Let's see how theymos deal with it by next improvements.

[JusticeForYou]

There needs to be a standard of evidence for negative ratings of some kind of documentation of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. This would cut out SO MUCH of the bullshit we are seeing right now. The sky will not fall. The forum will continue. There will be less drama, more cooperation, more constructive users, less scamming (because they can't hide in the noise), and most importantly people can enjoy the peace of mind of generally BEING LEFT THE FUCK ALONE if they haven't harmed anyone else as is traditional in this community.

Yes, every tag should have some standards of evidence, there is no achievement in giving tag based on assumption which further relates to trust abuse. I cannot see any type of decentralization in the judgment as there are no fix rules to run the community or atleast not people with good judgment knowledge to run it.

A community with proper guidelines to what is right or what is wrong makes the things more clear and easy to handle as there is a base of rules to follow. An unguided moderation by DT just make it more worst not only for normal accounts but also for the DT in many cases when they need to explain every action they take. And I think this is obvious from the community to protest as they just don't know what things can lead them to a tag.

I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.

[Lauda]

-snip-
I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.

Which is a lie (neither is there any urgency nor is this place near the state of being a mess of that type); stop pushing false narratives using a hacked account. The end goal is to make account trading non-taggable again, and that is not going to happen. Your lies have really become tiring to read.

[nixon98]

A major point would be restoring normal trust to accounts which haven't done anything wrong and have been falsly tagged as scammers

Did you say you'd promote Quark and get it on the reddit front page? Did that happen?
What work did you acutally do to justify keeping the Quarks sent to you in good faith.

Wouldn't returning the 10,000 Quarks (perhaps 1000 more!) be the right thing to do?

[TECSHARE]

-snip-
I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.

Which is a lie (neither is there any urgency nor is this place near the state of being a mess of that type); stop pushing false narratives using a hacked account. The end goal is to make account trading non-taggable again, and that is not going to happen. Your lies have really become tiring to read.

This is a good demonstration of what I am talking about here. Instead of addressing any of the problems at all, the trust cops only see a sea of potential criminals around them. Some of them are. Most are not. Usually it is just a technique of calling anyone who questions them into question themselves. You have to give us more authority, more control, you must obey because XYZ will happen without us being able to just indiscriminately tag people! You are all missing the point. The fact is even IF all these hero stories of how much you save the forum are true, the negatives in the form of indiscriminately harassing and driving out good users makes it counterproductive. Forum cops want their control fix, and watch out if you get in their way.

Also the fact that you think you are stopping account sales is a joke, and the fact that you think requiring evidence for a tag on one causes a problem is the punch line. This is just pretext to run your own little inquisition and stroke your ego as you lord over all the noobs and pretty much everyone else. There is always some pretext for you needing this authority as if the forum will collapse without indiscriminate ratings, that is not going to happen.