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.

[decodx]

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.
<...>

It seems he won't be replying in this thread anymore. He realized his suggestion was stupid and the only reason for posting those DT names was to stir up some shit. If he had any evidence for his claims, we would have seen it by now.

[GazetaBitcoin]

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.

Am I the one you were thinking about? Just curious

[doggywin]

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.
<...>

It seems he won't be replying in this thread anymore. He realized his suggestion was stupid and the only reason for posting those DT names was to stir up some shit. If he had any evidence for his claims, we would have seen it by now.

Missed me?

I was banned for 3 days for this:

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.

This system is sh!t

If you are a man, show your manhood

Find your own gay porn

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.

Your name was added after I saw this trust feedback on your profile from Kazkaz27: "Holydarkness has been caught red-handed being ethically unjust. Trusting him fiscally or for his word would be irresponsible. I strongly recommend members fact-check those deemed ‘trusted’ or DT1. A few bad apples exist. ~ Holydarkness in trust settings to save a lot of unsuspecting people." "Holy was caught red handed abusing the trust system to spite his competitors/enemy. His actions consequently are shady. He should not be DT1. — He said he would remove himself from DT1. He has not."

I skimmed through the posts in the reference link. I wasn't able to decide if Kazkaz27 is correct or not.

I am searching for patterns of abuse from the data independently.

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.

Agreed, two different skills. But that's not how it works in practice. DT feedback shows up under someone's name on every post, with a red number or a trade with caution warning. A newbie opens a project thread, sees red and thinks scam. That's it. So the people picked for their judgment are basically handing out scam verdicts, whether they mean to or not. Your theymos example works because it's theymos. Try it with the rest of DT. Most users couldn't even name them.

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.

That's how it's supposed to work. It's not how it works. Feedback stopped being just about trades a long time ago. People get tagged over arguments, disagreements, or "this feels like a scam" with no evidence. If feedback was just information, fine. But it says Trust, and most people reading it don't know how any of this works. It's not information, its a label.

A wrong red tag can kill someone's income and months of work. That's a lot of power, it's handed out way too easily, and nobody's responsible for it. Most of the backlash DT gets is because someone misused it.

I got negative feedback as a newbie just for entering a giveaway, from a DT2 I'd never heard of. For a giveaway. Why?

My DT2 account hasn't been logged into for a long time, the trust list is outdated, and there's no recent feedback from it. What value does that add to DT? Why is an inactive account still in DT2?

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.

Abusing this system is cheap. Merits are easy to get (observe and copy how the top merit earners get it I don't need to explain). Getting into DT2 and rotating into DT1 costs nothing but time. Stay friendly with DT and mods, tag obvious scams, vouch your own scam accounts, distrust and red-tag them after the scam.

It looks like normal activity.



The trust system was built for what this forum was more than a decade ago, when people here were mostly trading with each other and using Bitcoin to buy and sell stuff peer to peer. A red tag meant "this guy didn't pay" or "this guy didn't deliver." That's not what this forum is now. Update this sh!t system for once and make the entry to DT1 harder.

[nutildah]

I was banned for 3 days for this:

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.

That is not the reason you were banned. It was most likely because you kept doing something annoying like PMing people repeatedly or making several posts in a row.

I got negative feedback as a newbie just for entering a giveaway, from a DT2 I'd never heard of. For a giveaway. Why?

How many accounts do you have? Maybe that has something to do with it.

My DT2 account hasn't been logged into for a long time, the trust list is outdated, and there's no recent feedback from it. What value does that add to DT? Why is an inactive account still in DT2?

Without proof, there's no reason to believe you own a DT2 account. But hypothetically speaking, there's no problem with inactive accounts being on DT so long as their tags are still valid.

[doggywin]

I was banned for 3 days for this:

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.

That is not the reason you were banned. It was most likely because you kept doing something annoying like PMing people repeatedly or making several posts in a row.

I don't think so. Reason provided was PM. I had sent one PM to DT1 who had AHOYBRAUSE in their trust list and one PM to AHOYBRAUSE about whether he endorses doxxing of Scoras. After he replied to that, I replied, and he replied to that.
I didn't break any forum rules.

I have read complaints about your power abuse too.

there's no problem with inactive accounts being on DT so long as their tags are still valid.

There's problem. The tags of inactive accounts who don't follow the developments are outdated. Their trust list is outdated. Their trust feedbacks are outdated. Why should their outdated trust feedbacks and tags be trusted by default?

[nutildah]

Why should their outdated trust feedbacks and tags be trusted by default?

The primary reason is because the people including them continue to find their feedback valuable even after they left the forum.

There are occasional problems from time to time regarding outdated feedback left by inactive members, but its rare.

I understand you're mad about your tag. But if you think about it logically, it doesn't actually prevent you from doing anything you were already doing. If AHOYBRAUSE continues to leave tags like yours, you can bet the problem will eventually resolve itself. Don't crash out before then.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Why should their outdated trust feedbacks and tags be trusted by default?

The primary reason is because the people including them continue to find their feedback valuable even after they left the forum.

There are occasional problems from time to time regarding outdated feedback left by inactive members, but its rare.

I understand you're mad about your tag. But if you think about it logically, it doesn't actually prevent you from doing anything you were already doing. If AHOYBRAUSE continues to leave tags like yours, you can bet the problem will eventually resolve itself. Don't crash out before then.

You understand he is mad about the tag?? You do know he tagged me 3 times already, right?
This was the first time I was forced to leave a tag like this. But since you rather take the side of a notorious harassment spammer, that's all there is to say. By the way, despite him calling you out:

"I have read complaints about your power abuse too."

Hilarious take thinking such behavior this person is showing should be acceptable. 

[doggywin]

Why should their outdated trust feedbacks and tags be trusted by default?

The primary reason is because the people including them continue to find their feedback valuable even after they left the forum.

There are occasional problems from time to time regarding outdated feedback left by inactive members, but its rare.

The reason is that the system is sloppily designed. There are accounts that are in DT2 that have not done anything for 10 or more years.

There is no justification to keeping such accounts in DT2.

[yahoo62278]

Why should their outdated trust feedbacks and tags be trusted by default?

The primary reason is because the people including them continue to find their feedback valuable even after they left the forum.

There are occasional problems from time to time regarding outdated feedback left by inactive members, but its rare.

The reason is that the system is sloppily designed. There are accounts that are in DT2 that have not done anything for 10 or more years.

There is no justification to keeping such accounts in DT2.

That's not the system though, that's the users who have not updated their trust list and kept inactive accounts on their trust list. Like me for instance, I have a guy that has passed on in my trust list. Haven't felt the need to remove him to this point but might be something I need to do in the future.

The forum could maybe make it where accounts inactive for x amount of time are automatically removed from DT but not sure how much work that might be.

[doggywin]

Why should their outdated trust feedbacks and tags be trusted by default?

The primary reason is because the people including them continue to find their feedback valuable even after they left the forum.

There are occasional problems from time to time regarding outdated feedback left by inactive members, but its rare.

The reason is that the system is sloppily designed. There are accounts that are in DT2 that have not done anything for 10 or more years.

There is no justification to keeping such accounts in DT2.

That's not the system though, that's the users who have not updated their trust list and kept inactive accounts on their trust list. Like me for instance, I have a guy that has passed on in my trust list. Haven't felt the need to remove him to this point but might be something I need to do in the future.

The forum could maybe make it where accounts inactive for x amount of time are automatically removed from DT but not sure how much work that might be.

Agreed. In my opinion, the trust system should automatically remove accounts, whether active or inactive, that haven't sent any trust feedback or made any changes to their trust list within a set period, such as three years, or five years or one year. These accounts would then be added back automatically as soon as they send new feedback or update their trust list.

A smaller, high-quality trust list is better than a bloated one of mixed quality.

[AakZaki]

-snip-

The forum could maybe make it where accounts inactive for x amount of time are automatically removed from DT but not sure how much work that might be.

I don't think it's necessary, because if inactive DT members are automatically removed from DT, then the tags they gave to scammers' accounts may no longer be visible.
Which means that the scammer account will be roaming around again, unless someone is willing to record the name of the inactive DT and then the other DT members verify all the tags that have been given.

When the tag is valid, only then will other DT members add another tag to the scammer account, after which the inactive DT members can be considered for removal from DT.