DefaultTrust changes

[doggywin]

The merit system is a disaster. It's easy to game. On its own that's not a huge problem The issue is that it helps people game the DT system.

If additional safeguards are not added, a DT1 member could put their own disposable alts or a few buddies in DT2 and use that trust to scam.

DT1 requires tighter rules. This is really a weak system. I am not joking.

[AakZaki]

The merit system is a disaster. It's easy to game. On its own that's not a huge problem The issue is that it helps people game the DT system.

If additional safeguards are not added, a DT1 member could put their own disposable alts or a few buddies in DT2 and use that trust to scam.

DT1 requires tighter rules. This is really a weak system. I am not joking.

Actually, I'm surprised you're shouting that the DT system isn't perfect, but when you're asked to show evidence of that imperfection, you're actually saying you don't want to provoke a dozen people.

If you are a man, show your manhood with the claims you accuse the DT system. Unless you are the type of person who talks a lot but does not dare to prove it, go ahead and use a mini skirt. Lol
You should be consistent with what you said before.

[Jostern]

The merit system is a disaster. It's easy to game. On its own that's not a huge problem The issue is that it helps people game the DT system.

If additional safeguards are not added, a DT1 member could put their own disposable alts or a few buddies in DT2 and use that trust to scam.

DT1 requires tighter rules. This is really a weak system. I am not joking.

Permit me to ask, are you in disguise?, you seems to know so much which is why I’m surprised, and you literally said you’re not joking.

I absolutely have no idea of how anything like that happens, but I’m completely sure that merit system in this forum is always going to bring different perspectives and opinions.

Before making accusations you need to have your facts and evidence.

[Free Market Capitalist]

HAHA!

Look, just look at how this dummy now introduces the merit system in the equation.

The merit system is a disaster. It's easy to game. On its own that's not a huge problem The issue is that it helps people game the DT system.

So, if it's easy to game how come you don't have many merits?

It's a disaster but it's not a huge problem? That's really contradictory. It helps game the DT system? Your post deserves to be in this thread:

Wall of fame / shame. Shit posts so bad that they are actually funny

You're nothing but a fool who's determined to keep going over the same argument again and again—one you're not going to win.

[joker_josue]

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?

I think you're mixing things up.

If I negotiate with user XPTO and get scammed, logically I will give negative feedback (which is easily seen by all users) and I will negatively affect their trust list. If I only put negative feedback on my trust list, most other users probably wouldn't notice. That's why I'm leaving negative feedback.

On the other hand, I may never have traded with user ABCD, but based on his behavior I trust his judgment on the forum. So, I'm adding them to my list of trusted users without needing to write feedback.

Can you understand the purpose of both tools?
One is for you to leave information publicly available, with details about a specific user. This can be something positive, informative, or negative.
Another option is for you to personally value or disregard a user's opinion about something on the forum.

One is public, the other, while not entirely private, is more difficult for other users to see.

Can it be manipulated? Yes, but that would require dozens of users to trust each other, in collusion, with only a few other users outside the group distrusting them.


Does this conspiracy group exist? If it does, I've never been invited, which makes me feel excluded and undervalued. 

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

I never considered any private message I received to be harassment. I agree with some and disagree with others. Logically, if someone abuses this, it can be unpleasant. But harassment? No! Fortunately, I think for myself and have my own opinions. I may be wrong, and if someone gives me logical advice, I know how to admit it and adjust. Otherwise, my list is based on my opinion. I don't know, nor do I want to know, what others have on their list.

Complain to the people who trust them/Convince people to distrust them - I don't understand how this can be blackmail. What kind of blackmail is this person going to use against me? Are they going to write nasty things about me here on the forum? Are they going to put me on their list of people you don't want to see? Let him do it. My actions are proof of who I am, not what others say. There's a lot that others can say about me that I may not even have realized. I don't know if they're saying good things or bad things.

This is an internet forum, things shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'll probably never meet 99% of the people I talk to here in person. Therefore, they can only bother me to the extent that I allow them to.

[jokers10]

If additional safeguards are not added, a DT1 member could put their own disposable alts or a few buddies in DT2 and use that trust to scam.

Your proposal changes nothing to the potential abusers of the system, because the same buddies can leave as many positive tags as needed. If I add someone to my trust list and think they could be good as DT members, I can easily write a positive tag of why do I suppose they to be respected users, and if I don't do so is just because I don't think it is really needed at the moment, so less spam in tags. So you propose to change the system just to change the system, because your proposal doesn't solve the possible (not yet proved) problem that you mention. The decision for that possible problem is to name the abusers, to prove they abuse the system and let the DT system to exclude them and to work as it expected.

You didn't convince anyone yet, as I see. So right:

Am I the only person who find this fundamentally flawed?

Looks like you are the only one.

[decodx]

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?

What do you mean, who does that? We all do. 

Let me give you an example. Almost all forum members trust theymos's judgment, and many include him in their DT lists. This is because he is a very well-known figure here, as well as because of his past behavior and the judgment he has demonstrated in his feedback. Would I entrust him with my money? Maybe, maybe not. Probably yes, depending on the amount. But what does this have to do with the initial point? And do I have to leave positive feedback on his profile, even though I've never had any direct dealings with him, just so I can add him to my DT list? That doesn't seem right to me.

The same applies in reverse. I might trust someone with my money. for instance, the official representative of a business I actively deal with. But does that automatically mean I must also trust their judgment regarding other forum members? Absolutely not. They might have subjective motives to protect their business in certain situations, or something similar. Do you see where your misconception lies?

[holydarkness]

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?
[...]

My name was initially on the post you made of these questionable DT, before you edited it and removed me from your list, why is that? Pure curiosity.

That said, to address above, you're actually almost grasp how the entire system of our forum works. You're selected to be DT by performing to others that your judgment can be trusted and competent enough, by leaving tags and interact with others, and thus you're being on other's trustlist, and thus DT2.

Now, the part you made in bold, that's the essence of tag, flag, and rotating DT system that theymos made.

Following the birth of flag and rotating DT lottery, "tags" are now better called with their full name [I can only recall someone who always use the full name of it]: marketplace tag. The purpose of tag are to inform others about one's ability and trustworthiness in dealing with monetary-related matters, most useful in marketplace board [hence the name]. While more whole board are covered by DT and flag system.

Just for illustration: I don't neccessarily need to trust you as I have never deal in monetary-related matter with you, I can't be sure of how risky is it to interact with you when money is in the same room. BUT, you have a good track record, you tagged a lot of scammers, you behave in ways that show you utilize better-judgment, thus, I add you on my TrustList but not neccessarily give you positive tag.