DefaultTrust changes

[doggywin]

Why is this not a condition for DT1?

Why not add this condition for DT1 eligibility:

You must have a trust score of at least 5.

Although I don't necessarily agree with the red trust left on your account, I think the DT system generally works as intended, through a loose system of checks and balances. It is by no means perfect. You are of course free to participate in this system and update your trust list / feedbacks accordingly. Everybody gets 1 vote, why not make the most of it.

It always seems right to the people leaving the trust feedback. When a group gangs up on a person or a business, nobody is going to believe the other side, and no matter what happens, the accusers will stay convinced they were right.

I'm confident some of them don't bother to read or check anything before leaving feedback. I remember joining a giveaway and receiving negative trust from a DT member just because he "thought" there was a risk. I had it removed.

Since we can't make basic critical thinking a requirement, why not at least require a trust score of 5 to be in DT1?

Interesting. As it stands, a person must be DT trusted by TEN users to qualify for the lottery chosen randomly each month.

Yes, but the merit distribution is flawed, and the DT system is built on that and on personal connections.

If power has to be concentrated in the hands of a few, it should at least come with a reasonable trust score check.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Why is this not a condition for DT1?

Why not add this condition for DT1 eligibility:

You must have a trust score of at least 5.

Because the trust score is mainly based on whether you've made transactions or the trading risk of a person, while the DT system is based on your ability to create a good Trust List and leave good feedback. It was created separately for a specific reason—something that you, with your single brain cell, are incapable of understanding.

[doggywin]

Why is this not a condition for DT1?

Why not add this condition for DT1 eligibility:

You must have a trust score of at least 5.

Because the trust score is mainly based on whether you've made transactions or the trading risk of a person, while the DT system is based on your ability to create a good Trust List and leave good feedback. It was created separately for a specific reason—something that you, with your single brain cell, are incapable of understanding.

Should someone with no transactions of their own really be policing those who do? Trust in the DT should come from people who have actually put something at stake.

Is a system solid when a group of scammers with negative trust and merit can add each other and walk straight into DT1? A minimum trust score would close that loophole at almost no cost.

Look at some of the profiles currently in the DT. They neither maintain a good trust list nor leave meaningful feedback. And whenever I ask why a particular person was added, you don't give an answer. If the system were as well designed as you claim, those questions would be easy to answer.

[LoyceV]

~ yet he continued and even messaged people that "trust my judgement"

I don't want to read too much drama, so I'll cherry-pick these comments only. From the OP, I take it requesting people to adjust their Trust list is acceptable:

In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

while even in this message insulted me personally.

"Feeling insulted" is a choice. If you choose to let someone on the internet hurt your feelings, that's not a reason for negative feedback.

Also:

Be the bigger man!
With great power comes great responsibility (source unknown). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.
If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

~ yet he continued and even messaged people that "trust my judgement"

I don't want to read too much drama, so I'll cherry-pick these comments only. From the OP, I take it requesting people to adjust their Trust list is acceptable:

In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

while even in this message insulted me personally.

"Feeling insulted" is a choice. If you choose to let someone on the internet hurt your feelings, that's not a reason for negative feedback.

Also:

Be the bigger man!
With great power comes great responsibility (source unknown). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.
If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

You seem to miss the point where I waited a long time to make this feedback, while he already gave me one and still proceeded to post more nonsense. He told him several times to stop and let’s avoid each other, just got him to continue. I mean who in their right mind opens 2 different thread and spread hate and misinformation in another 2? And not to forget the message to the members that have me on their trust list this:



And about tagging (which he did, then deleted) he wrote:



Anyway, don’t care anymore and my mind is set.
I don’t have to let him drag my name through the dirt over and over again in now 4 different threads. This case was over for me a long time ago before he kept going and going. Sending messages to other members made me draw the line, and this line has solid reasons to be there. There is of course a feeling of being insulted when insulting words are being used, he even mentioned my girlfriend (now wife), which is also a no go.

Anyway, I appreciate your input, as always.

[doggywin]

On the recent dispute: I'm moving past this disagreement. Instead of rehashing the details, I'd encourage anyone interested to review the full conversation and public records for context in the correct order, to form their opinion.

On the DT system: I suspect the current system is being gamed.

I'd like to propose a concrete solution:

Suggested change for DT1 eligibility:
Add a minimum trust score requirement of at least 5.

I am looking for a logical discussion that deserves to belong to this thread.

A strengthened default trust system should strengthen this community. This proposal is the simplest solution, unless you have better ideas.

[yahoo62278]

On the recent dispute: I'm moving past this disagreement. Instead of rehashing the details, I'd encourage anyone interested to review the full conversation and public records for context in the correct order, to form their opinion.

On the DT system: I suspect the current system is being gamed.

I'd like to propose a concrete solution:

Suggested change for DT1 eligibility:
Add a minimum trust score requirement of at least 5.

I am looking for a logical discussion that deserves to belong to this thread.

What exactly do you think a minimum trust score of 5 will do? You believe the current system is being gamed, do you not think those gaming the system cannot get a +5 score? It's good to have suggestions and try to improve the system, but making a minimum score is not going to change anything.

I am not sure there is a perfect system, so we just gotta make the current system work as best we can. If you see real corruption and not just hurt feelings, report it. If it's a real concern the community will act.

[doggywin]

On the recent dispute: I'm moving past this disagreement. Instead of rehashing the details, I'd encourage anyone interested to review the full conversation and public records for context in the correct order, to form their opinion.

On the DT system: I suspect the current system is being gamed.

I'd like to propose a concrete solution:

Suggested change for DT1 eligibility:
Add a minimum trust score requirement of at least 5.

I am looking for a logical discussion that deserves to belong to this thread.

What exactly do you think a minimum trust score of 5 will do? You believe the current system is being gamed, do you not think those gaming the system cannot get a +5 score? It's good to have suggestions and try to improve the system, but making a minimum score is not going to change anything.

I am not sure there is a perfect system, so we just gotta make the current system work as best we can. If you see real corruption and not just hurt feelings, report it. If it's a real concern the community will act.

The trust feedbacks are easy to audit. Bad actors can eventually earn a +5, but it requires obvious collusion. Suspicious patterns can get flagged. Anybody will be able to see the trusted feedbacks with a click.

Current abusers have to start over in DT2. Their chain in DT2 is out of the system.

People without reputation shouldn't decide others' reputation. It's like hiring cops without background checks. Don't you think so?

[yahoo62278]

On the recent dispute: I'm moving past this disagreement. Instead of rehashing the details, I'd encourage anyone interested to review the full conversation and public records for context in the correct order, to form their opinion.

On the DT system: I suspect the current system is being gamed.

I'd like to propose a concrete solution:

Suggested change for DT1 eligibility:
Add a minimum trust score requirement of at least 5.

I am looking for a logical discussion that deserves to belong to this thread.

What exactly do you think a minimum trust score of 5 will do? You believe the current system is being gamed, do you not think those gaming the system cannot get a +5 score? It's good to have suggestions and try to improve the system, but making a minimum score is not going to change anything.

I am not sure there is a perfect system, so we just gotta make the current system work as best we can. If you see real corruption and not just hurt feelings, report it. If it's a real concern the community will act.

The trust feedbacks are easy to audit. Bad actors can eventually earn a +5, but it requires obvious collusion. Suspicious patterns can get flagged. Anybody will be able to see the trusted feedbacks with a click.

Current abusers have to start over in DT2. Rebuilding a +5 score takes months.

People without reputation shouldn't decide others' reputation. It's like hiring cops without background checks. Don't you think so?

I think you are incorrect. A person could hang out in collectibles section and make a few purchases and have a chance to inflate their trust score. No collusion required, just spend some money.

This is just 1 example of how a person can try to inflate their score. Building a + trust score does not mean you should be on DT though IMO. Plenty of people with a + trust score who are still clueless about how to use DT or what it actually means to be DT. Proving you are a responsible and sensible level headed user who is trustworthy should be where we start.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

It's so cute how he speaks about trust and what not yet he was the one give me a red trust instantly after harassing me.

He was even stupid enough to post something like this publicly (now deleted but thankfully someone quoted him):



Yet now he wants to play forum police, saying everything is wrong, while admitting he would abuse the system if he had the "opportunity" to do so. Mind you he posted this AFTER he already gave me a red trust and deleted it right after, just like many of his posts.

2 days in a row posting hypocritical nonsense.  

[jokers10]

It's like hiring cops without background checks. Don't you think so?

DT system works like self cleaning system. The one should have a control over a bigger part of the forum to be able to control the DT system. Because we can as trust as distrust users in our Trust Lists. So if you see someone abusing the DT system, share it. If others agree with you, many of DT participants will distrust the abusers and they will leave the DT system, with all their multiple accounts. This is how the "background checks" are working at the moment.

If you think that the system is corrupted already, then no additional things can be done with DT system rights will work, because the same way we can distrust users we can leave more trusted tags.

[doggywin]

On the recent dispute: I'm moving past this disagreement. Instead of rehashing the details, I'd encourage anyone interested to review the full conversation and public records for context in the correct order, to form their opinion.

On the DT system: I suspect the current system is being gamed.

I'd like to propose a concrete solution:

Suggested change for DT1 eligibility:
Add a minimum trust score requirement of at least 5.

I am looking for a logical discussion that deserves to belong to this thread.

What exactly do you think a minimum trust score of 5 will do? You believe the current system is being gamed, do you not think those gaming the system cannot get a +5 score? It's good to have suggestions and try to improve the system, but making a minimum score is not going to change anything.

I am not sure there is a perfect system, so we just gotta make the current system work as best we can. If you see real corruption and not just hurt feelings, report it. If it's a real concern the community will act.

The trust feedbacks are easy to audit. Bad actors can eventually earn a +5, but it requires obvious collusion. Suspicious patterns can get flagged. Anybody will be able to see the trusted feedbacks with a click.

Current abusers have to start over in DT2. Rebuilding a +5 score takes months.

People without reputation shouldn't decide others' reputation. It's like hiring cops without background checks. Don't you think so?

I think you are incorrect. A person could hang out in collectibles section and make a few purchases and have a chance to inflate their trust score. No collusion required, just spend some money.

This is just 1 example of how a person can try to inflate their score. Building a + trust score does not mean you should be on DT though IMO. Plenty of people with a + trust score who are still clueless about how to use DT or what it actually means to be DT. Proving you are a responsible and sensible level headed user who is trustworthy should be where we start.

I agree, that's actually the core of the problem.

The issue is that we're asking for proof of trustworthiness, but the system doesn't enforce it. Right now, someone with a -999 reputation score has the same DT eligibility as theymos himself. That doesn't make sense.

Even a minimal threshold say, +1 would close a major gap.

It isn't just bad actors getting in, bad actors add other bad actors. Someone with a poor reputation can add unvetted people to their DT2 network, who earn merits, and go up to DT1 in a few months

Proving someone is responsible and level headed is a good cop requirement. You follow that, but nobody has to follow that.

It is not perfect, but somebody having a few collectibles trade, is better than someone with none.

It's like hiring cops without background checks. Don't you think so?

DT system works like self cleaning system. The one should have a control over a bigger part of the forum to be able to control the DT system. Because we can as trust as distrust users in our Trust Lists. So if you see someone abusing the DT system, share it. If others agree with you, many of DT participants will distrust the abusers and they will leave the DT system, with all their multiple accounts. This is how the "background checks" are working at the moment.

If you think that the system is corrupted already, then no additional things can be done with DT system rights will work, because the same way we can distrust users we can leave more trusted tags.

After spending two hours going through this, I'd say there's probably 5-10% corruption in DT1, and honestly, DT2 no idea could be 20% or worse given how huge the list is.

[jokers10]

After spending two hours going through this, I'd say there's probably 5-10% corruption in DT1, and honestly, DT2 no idea could be 20% or worse given how huge the list is.

Show it with proofs and we'll see. If it is correct, it can be solved without additional changes of the system. If we disagree, then no changes will work, because it is really easy to leave as many positive tags as needed. So better to rely on the decentralized nature of the DT system.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

The trust feedbacks are easy to audit. Bad actors can eventually earn a +5, but it requires obvious collusion. Suspicious patterns can get flagged. Anybody will be able to see the trusted feedbacks with a click.

Current abusers have to start over in DT2. Their chain in DT2 is out of the system.

People without reputation shouldn't decide others' reputation. It's like hiring cops without background checks. Don't you think so?

The red tag on your profile would still be there even if AHOYBRAUSE were in DT2 instead of DT1. In fact, because of the monthly lottert, he might be in DT2 next month and the red tag will still be there (unless he deletes it first). So all this fuss you’re making based on your own specific case would be completely pointless.

Over the years I’ve seen loads of suggestions for changing the DT system, and the administrator hasn’t changed a thing for a long time. I very much doubt he’ll do anything you’re suggesting, given how little you know about the system,the fact that what you’re proposing stems from a specific situation of yours and that what you are proposing is rather banal.

[doggywin]

Theymos probably held back on implementing a trust score requirement as a safeguard against political infighting within the DT system. But now that things seem stable, adding one could be worthwhile.

After spending two hours going through this, I'd say there's probably 5-10% corruption in DT1, and honestly, DT2 no idea could be 20% or worse given how huge the list is.

Show it with proofs and we'll see. If it is correct, it can be solved without additional changes of the system. If we disagree, then no changes will work, because it is really easy to leave as many positive tags as needed. So better to rely on the decentralized nature of the DT system.

I'm not going to waste more time documenting this just to antagonize a dozen people. The case isn't strong enough yet to take them on. Yet.

The red tag on your profile would still be there even if AHOYBRAUSE were in DT2 instead of DT1. In fact, because of the monthly lottert, he might be in DT2 next month and the red tag will still be there (unless he deletes it first). So all this fuss you’re making based on your own specific case would be completely pointless.

Over the years I’ve seen loads of suggestions for changing the DT system, and the administrator hasn’t changed a thing for a long time. I very much doubt he’ll do anything you’re suggesting, given how little you know about the system,the fact that what you’re proposing stems from a specific situation of yours and that what you are proposing is rather banal.

I know.

I understand the DT system quite well.

I am smart enough to know that I don't personally benefit from this. It is going to cost me about $200, 20-30 hours, and negative trusts. I follow my principles and follow through. The trust system needs an overhaul.

What were any good but easy to implement suggestions? This thread is like 150 pages

[AHOYBRAUSE]

100% the red trust will stay there, so that everybody can see what a fake person this guy is. Gave me a red first, then deleted it , then messaged other members why they would trust me while calling me a jerk in the process. And now he is seriously crying?
Also pretending being an OG member, but when he was asked which account he never replies. Lying his way through the forum, only posting scam accusations or in giveaway threads.

This guy deserves 10 red tags actually. All this fake babbling about the trust system is his desperate attempt to get rid of the trust, even though, as other people also have pointed out, he was basically begging for it with all the shit he has done yesterday. Absolute worst kind of person that deserves no attention whatsoever.

[Stalker22]

Theymos probably held back on implementing a trust score requirement as a safeguard against political infighting within the DT system. But now that things seem stable, adding one could be worthwhile.

But there is already a "trust score" requirement; you just want to replace it with a different one.

After spending two hours going through this, I'd say there's probably 5-10% corruption in DT1, and honestly, DT2 no idea could be 20% or worse given how huge the list is.

Show it with proofs and we'll see. If it is correct, it can be solved without additional changes of the system. If we disagree, then no changes will work, because it is really easy to leave as many positive tags as needed. So better to rely on the decentralized nature of the DT system.

I'm not going to waste more time documenting this just to antagonize a dozen people. The case isn't strong enough yet to take them on. Yet.

No?  So, instead, you are just going to throw out wild "conspiracy theory" claims and baseless accusations about "trust abusers" to antagonize a dozen people?

I understand the DT system quite well.

Clearly, you do not.  There is a reason those two systems are kept separate in the first place.  DefaultTrust and trust feedback do completely different things, and admin already explained this pretty clearly.  Want me to break it down for you?

The trust system needs an overhaul.

Why?  Because you are butt-hurt over a negative rating on your profile?  That is not a valid reason.

To quote theymos:

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the person who made the rating.
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.
 - Try to convince people to ~distrust the person who made the rating.
 - You can affect how DT1 is constructed by adding names to your trust list. Your trust list is empty, so you are failing to vote here at all.

[nutildah]

I understand the DT system quite well.

Well, then you'd know that having a lot of positive trust and having a lot of trust list inclusions aren't the same thing. Someone can be extremely trustworthy and competent when it comes to business transactions, but have terrible judgment when it comes to including/excluding people in their trust list. These are two separate things, which is why trust score isn't a criteria for DT.

I am smart enough to know that I don't personally benefit from this. It is going to cost me about $200, 20-30 hours, and negative trusts. I follow my principles and follow through. The trust system needs an overhaul.

Please bro, do not spend AI credits on this. It will not be a worthy endeavor. I'm saying that with all sincerity.

I am currently reading through your SCORAS scam accusation and will comment in your other thread.

[doggywin]

I understand the DT system quite well.

Well, then you'd know that having a lot of positive trust and having a lot of trust list inclusions aren't the same thing. Someone can be extremely trustworthy and competent when it comes to business transactions, but have terrible judgment when it comes to including/excluding people in their trust list. These are two separate things, which is why trust score isn't a criteria for DT.

Yes, but how is being trustworthy and competent not a criteria when selecting for those who have good judgement?

I won't trust you with my money, but I will trust your judgement about who to trust and not to trust with my money, and you can give the same authority to a number of people who can also pass judgements about who to trust and not to trust? Who does that?

Am I the only person who find this fundamentally flawed?

Theymos probably held back on implementing a trust score requirement as a safeguard against political infighting within the DT system. But now that things seem stable, adding one could be worthwhile.

But there is already a "trust score" requirement; you just want to replace it with a different one.

Where?

Why?  Because you are butt-hurt over a negative rating on your profile?  That is not a valid reason.

To quote theymos:

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the person who made the rating.
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.
 - Try to convince people to ~distrust the person who made the rating.
 - You can affect how DT1 is constructed by adding names to your trust list. Your trust list is empty, so you are failing to vote here at all.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the trust rating itself. I'm pointing to it as evidence of a bigger issue.

The problem is that same DT members have already ruled out the remedies you listed:

• Complain to the person who made the rating → An "unsolicited" PM to a DT1 member gets called harassment
• Complain to the people who trust them → This gets called blackmail
• Convince people to distrust them → Also called blackmail

So users are told to raise concerns to the same little group.

Looking through DT1, some members leave no meaningful feedbacks and add little to none through their trust lists. At best, their position comes from popularity and gathering merits, not from doing the work DT exists for. The small group is just protecting themselves.

This is a problem with how the system is built, not with any single rating. Fixing cases one at a time won't solve it. You know that.

The system does not check how many are doing the job. Nor do you. It is just a merit popularity game.

So much resistance for a small change suggestion, I wonder why. The trust system cannot be perfect, and so we should not try to improve it. I want to see how low you guys can go.

To Stalker22 and the crybaby ahoybrause - If you have think this system is so perfect, make a newbie account and act like yourself. You will either get banned or negged in a week. You can receive some of the DT sadistic behavior for yourself.

The trust system needs to be overhauled. There are some in DT2 that all of us know should be in DT1. Why rotate those who are doing a great job with those who contribute nothing themselves and have redundant trust lists?

[Stalker22]

Theymos probably held back on implementing a trust score requirement as a safeguard against political infighting within the DT system. But now that things seem stable, adding one could be worthwhile.

But there is already a "trust score" requirement; you just want to replace it with a different one.

Where?

- You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the trust rating itself. I'm pointing to it as evidence of a bigger issue.

The problem is that same DT members have already ruled out the remedies you listed:

• Complain to the person who made the rating → An "unsolicited" PM to a DT1 member gets called harassment
• Complain to the people who trust them → This gets called blackmail
• Convince people to distrust them → Also called blackmail

So users are told to raise concerns to the same little group.

I did not see those PMs, so I can not be the judge of that.  Depends on the context I guess.  But to be honest, you are throwin around words like harassment, blackmail, and doxxing pretty loosely too.  And thats just not what those words mean (imho).  People are allowed to have their opinions and express them, just like you are.

The system does not check how many are doing the job. Nor do you. It is just a merit popularity game.

No. The system is designed to be as democratic as possible. There are some limitations, of course, but ultimately, your trust list is your personal responsibility.

So much resistance for a small change suggestion, I wonder why. The trust system cannot be perfect, and so we should not try to improve it. I want to see how low you guys can go.

To Stalker22 and the crybaby ahoybrause - If you have think this system is so perfect, make a newbie account and act like yourself. You will either get banned or negged in a week. You can receive some of the DT sadistic behavior for yourself.

No one said the system is perfect.  People are resisting your "small change" because it shows you dont actually understand how or why it was built this way in the first place.  As for me, you called me out directly.  I asked you point-blank what you are actually accusing me of, and you completely dodged the question.  If you actually have a problem with my trust ratings or who is on my trust list, we can have that conversation.  But take it to a separate thread - it doesnt belong here.

And dont forget the fact that I was a newbie once, too.  Perhaps a bit more naive, given that it was a few years back, but as far as I know, I always acted like myself.  That is literally how I got to where I am now.

The trust system needs to be overhauled. There are some in DT2 that all of us know should be in DT1. Why rotate those who are doing a great job with those who contribute nothing themselves and have redundant trust lists?

Name the members you think should be in DT1, and I will review their trust ratings and add them to my trust list if I deem them worthy.  I bet some other DT members will do the same and the problem will be solved before you know it.