Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

[Lauda]

~snip~

I don't remember the last time I saw a fresh tag for that.

I have notice that as well, I remembered most tags from referral links are now turned neutral if not neutral in the first place and most ref link tags I know came from codes coming from gambling sites. So it just makes me wonder what other DT members think about it, will it be a concern in the future or ref links are now allowed in part of the sig code, because I know that some sig campaigns allow it and some do not.

I don't think that there is an issue with referrals at the moment.

FTFY. TECSHARE has been butthurt about all of this for ages; the same goes for Quickseller. They can't handle their own bias. Everything would be fine and dandy if they were (still) in what they call "positions of power".

Everyone here has his own openion about other and I think TECHSHARE have some valid points in the converstaion and hence was the support.

Outside of his own confirmation bias, he does not, no.

Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently.

There is nothing like a return. I have been away from the  forum many time and every time I login after a long its not necessery to prove a stake address. Still, i have staked one recently due to recover my acccount in case of some lock.

A new address has been staked, without any prior signed message. Quite convenient.

[1714313890]

1714313890

[1714313890]

1714313890

[1714313890]

1714313890

[1714313890]

1714313890

[JusticeForYou]

A new address has been staked, without any prior signed message. Quite convenient.

Yes, it is. And I am already known by theymos and other Donators here.
_{By the way I am using theymos trust list dropped by LoyceV here and I can see your trust rating like this -37: -6 / +27}

[Lauda]

A new address has been staked, without any prior signed message. Quite convenient.

Yes, it is. And I am already known by theymos and other Donators here.

Trust.

By the way I am using theymos trust list and I can see your trust rating like this -37: -6 / +27

Bad lists lead to fake ratings having an effect. It's due to the same clique that you seem to be fond of with your "unpopular opinions". FYI theymos has horrible list maintenance practices, e.g. getting a scammer removed from it takes quite some time. Trivial proof: HostFat and EFS shouldn't be on anyone's list (this is not related to the previous sentence).

[nutildah]

It works both ways buddy.

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't. If they aren't then it is just a meaningless joke of a popularity contest that will only serve as cover for con artists to use perpetually to rip people off because they can just keep buying/hacking accounts.

Your first statement is neither a fact nor an argument. It is at best your opinion. Just more hypothetical waxing poetic about more sky falling rhetoric.

[DooMAD]

Is red tagging people with referral links still a thing? I remembered some members in the forum have been tag by putting up their referral links on their signature code, especially campaigns on gambling site. I know that there is a "no referral code spam" in the forum rules(Rule # 4) so do DT members here consider referral links in the signature code as a spam because everytime you post it is included in the sig code?

As far as I recall, referral links are permitted in the signature area.  I don't think users should be tagged for that.  Perhaps this is something forum staff could clarify? 

Categorically no referral links in the body of posts, but that's arguably something better suited to being dealt with via the 'report to moderator' button.  Trust doesn't really come into it unless the site they're linking to is a ponzi scheme or something else malicious.

[Harlot]

~snip~

As far as I recall, referral links are permitted in the signature area.  I don't think users should be tagged for that.  Perhaps this is something forum staff could clarify? 

Categorically no referral links in the body of posts, but that's arguably something better suited to being dealt with via the 'report to moderator' button.  Trust doesn't really come into it unless the site they're linking to is a ponzi scheme or something else malicious.

Of course ref links of HYIP site whether they are in a post or inside a sig code sure needs to receive a red tag. Most of the previous tags I have seen coming from sig codes of gambling sites comes with a shilling of the website encouraging them to click their sig code which of course contains their referral link. So I think shilling the gambling website also needs to be considered when it comes to tagging them or not.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't.

I mean, right from day one, the trust system was about more than just trading:

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

Without trade there is no risk. Without risk there is no trust.

This just isn't true. This might be your opinion of trust, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. There are plenty of trolls/crazies/scammers/etc on this forum I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, and I don't need a failed trade to take place to know that. Similarly, there are a handful of users who I would trust enough to make a trade without escrow, despite not having positive feedbacks for trading. Trust is based on behavior, integrity, character, principles, etc, as well as a good trading history. If you only want to pay attention to feedback left for trades then that's your prerogative, but many other users find feedback left for other reasons useful, as is evidenced by the current list of DT1 members who were voted in by the community based on the perceived usefulness of their feedback.

[mikeywith]

I mean, right from day one, the trust system was about more than just trading:

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

I think you might have misinterpreted the sentence.

there is a difference between

It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade

and

It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a trade

the second one, would mean theymos think   " it's OK to post a rating about the person" being a troll or having an ugly avatar or uses the word lemon"

while the first "the original" does not mean that.

what I think it means is this ; your rating does not have to be based on a specific trade you personally had with that member you rating, for an example;  if someone proves that someone is a scam, you don't need to be scammed by that person in a trade to give him a negative feedback, same goes for the positive, you do not need to sell something to somebody in order to give them a positive feedback, so the rating does not have to be based on a SPECIFIC trade ,but the trade concept is still there.

of course this would also justify tagging account traders, as by default account switching hand from a real trusted person to an untrusted person represent a threat to the community should anybody TRADE with him.

tagging a ponzi shill could also be justifiable, as he might be the reason for someone trading in a ponzi scheme and then loses money.

but tagging someone for their religion,trolling or any other "funny" reason is a whole different story.

it's strange how theymos avoid touching on this topic, maybe the variety of opinions is what makes the system somehow efficient.  ?

[TECSHARE]

You're starting to sound like you are part of the Quickseller clique with each new post. Wait, I guess this is also harassment.

FTFY. TECSHARE has been butthurt about all of this for ages; the same goes for Quickseller. They can't handle their own bias. Everything would be fine and dandy if they were (still) in what they call "positions of power".
Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently.

Outside of his own confirmation bias, he does not, no.

A new address has been staked, without any prior signed message. Quite convenient.

Notice the standard operating procedure of attacking the person, claims of alts, and making veiled accusations/threats of inquisition rather than addressing the subject matter.  

It works both ways buddy.

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't. If they aren't then it is just a meaningless joke of a popularity contest that will only serve as cover for con artists to use perpetually to rip people off because they can just keep buying/hacking accounts.

Your first statement is neither a fact nor an argument. It is at best your opinion. Just more hypothetical waxing poetic about more sky falling rhetoric.

Not at all the same. The difference is I just explained in detail why this is the case, in addition to oh what, 5 years of history of this to reference since the trust system was implemented? You are pointing to a hypothetical. I am referencing current reality.

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't.

I mean, right from day one, the trust system was about more than just trading:

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

Without trade there is no risk. Without risk there is no trust.

This just isn't true. This might be your opinion of trust, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. There are plenty of trolls/crazies/scammers/etc on this forum I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, and I don't need a failed trade to take place to know that. Similarly, there are a handful of users who I would trust enough to make a trade without escrow, despite not having positive feedbacks for trading. Trust is based on behavior, integrity, character, principles, etc, as well as a good trading history. If you only want to pay attention to feedback left for trades then that's your prerogative, but many other users find feedback left for other reasons useful, as is evidenced by the current list of DT1 members who were voted in by the community based on the perceived usefulness of their feedback.

Notice how they all close ranks around the talking point of "opinions" now that they feel there is a gap in my argument they can exploit to discredit my points.

This is not just an opinion. Either the trust system is for trade or it isn't. It is supposedly a guide for noobs to use as an easy reference. Now you argue that those noobs have the knowledge to determine the difference between some one who has never been trusted with funds and those who have under this ambiguity. Your own arguments are contradictory, not mine. Acting like a track record of handling funds well is equivalent to being popular on the internet in regards to noobs trusting people with funds is asinine and shows a fundamental ignorance of how con artists work.

There is no reason that neutral ratings can not be used for these unconfirmed issues, suspicions, etc, and plenty to lose in terms of harassment, mobs, intimidation, and just general steamrolling behavior because no one is willing to devote the time or resources to check their behavior. There is no one to watch the watchers so to speak, and Theymos has clearly indicated he is not interested in taking up this role. The most logical conclusion is to set up a protocol that minimizes the damages of this scenario by outlining a very strict rubric for acceptable negative ratings.

[nutildah]

Not at all the same. The difference is I just explained in detail why this is the case, in addition to oh what, 5 years of history of this to reference since the trust system was implemented? You are pointing to a hypothetical. I am referencing current reality.

You're just giving an opinion like everybody else. Your interpretation of how trust should be used is pretty narrow, but obviously its just an opinion because people use it for much more, and will continue to use it as they see fit (and how is allowed by the forum) regardless of your opinion.

[TECSHARE]

Not at all the same. The difference is I just explained in detail why this is the case, in addition to oh what, 5 years of history of this to reference since the trust system was implemented? You are pointing to a hypothetical. I am referencing current reality.

You're just giving an opinion like everybody else. Your interpretation of how trust should be used is pretty narrow, but obviously its just an opinion because people use it for much more, and will continue to use it as they see fit (and how is allowed by the forum) regardless of your opinion.

Again, you keep pressing the word opinion as if you can keep on this talking point, people will forget that I just in detail using logic explained why this is more than my opinion. Yes this is the status quo. So what? My argument is it should not be.

[Jet Cash]

Either the trust system is for trade or it isn't.

I'm coming to the conclusion that this statement isn't as simple as it would appear.

Lets take an actual example. I executed a couple of small purchases of Bitcoin with JackG. They were very quick and easy, and I gave him some positive ratings. That is the primary function of the trust system, and is based on actual events. Now lets move on into the world of conjecture, and consider the possibility of JackG selling his account ( not likely in my opinion ). The buyer would probably pay more for an account with positive trust in double figures, and may consider using it for fraudulent purposes. This means that the sale and purchase of accounts has to be drawn into the trust ranking, and is the reason that I believe that account selling should not be allowed.

Now we have to look at signature spamming and cheating on programme managers. If a member is prepared to do that, then he may be prepared to cheat in his trades in an attempt to increase his "earnings". All of this means that "caveat emptor" rules, and you have to consider trust ratings as just a basic guideline, and a resource for further research before you enter into a trade.

My negative trust for a member, who just posted a quote with no further comment, was based on the fact that he was attempting to cheat the activity and merit systems in the forum, and this indicated a person of low moral fibre in my opinion. This could be an indication of willingness to cheat bounty managers and other members in the future.

[TECSHARE]

Either the trust system is for trade or it isn't.

I'm coming to the conclusion that this statement isn't as simple as it would appear.

Lets take an actual example. I executed a couple of small purchases of Bitcoin with JackG. They were very quick and easy, and I gave him some positive ratings. That is the primary function of the trust system, and is based on actual events. Now lets move on into the world of conjecture, and consider the possibility of JackG selling his account ( not likely in my opinion ). The buyer would probably pay more for an account with positive trust in double figures, and may consider using it for fraudulent purposes. This means that the sale and purchase of accounts has to be drawn into the trust ranking, and is the reason that I believe that account selling should not be allowed.

Now we have to look at signature spamming and cheating on programme managers. If a member is prepared to do that, then he may be prepared to cheat in his trades in an attempt to increase his "earnings". All of this means that "caveat emptor" rules, and you have to consider trust ratings as just a basic guideline, and a resource for further research before you enter into a trade.

My negative trust for a member, who just posted a quote with no further comment, was based on the fact that he was attempting to cheat the activity and merit systems in the forum, and this indicated a person of low moral fibre in my opinion. This could be an indication of willingness to cheat bounty managers and other members in the future.

There is absolutely no reason you can not raise awareness of this with neutral ratings and posts in reputation and scam accusations. There is a reason proof is required in court, otherwise anyone could accuse anyone of anything at any time, and there is no decent system for redress of grievances, just the "my way or the highway" beat stick method. This constant environment of arbitrary enforcement is toxic and drives away the decent user base because of all of the resulting drama.

[cabalism13]

My negative trust for a member, who just posted a quote with no further comment, was based on the fact that he was attempting to cheat the activity and merit systems in the forum, and this indicated a person of low moral fibre in my opinion. This could be an indication of willingness to cheat bounty managers and other members in the future.

You may be right about this but still, the fact that the trust system is MUST only be used for transactions we can't further do this things anymore. I'm also against that, plagiarizing has the permanent ban, so we should stick also with tagging these humans that lacks intellectual respect for the forum. Giving such thing on their accounts will give the Reputation Section a lot more use, for they can appeal for their Red Trust just like the other people whining being tagged.


And for the case of giving positive trust, I think if you have done a legit transaction you may give that user only ONE positive trust then after that if you will have another successful transaction you may just give him a neutral trust instead of giving another positive trust.

[suchmoon]

And for the case of giving positive trust, I think if you have done a legit transaction you may give that user only ONE positive trust then after that if you will have another successful transaction you may just give him a neutral trust instead of giving another positive trust.

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

[xtraelv]

I just want to post something Loyce_V and CryptopreneurBrainboss posted in another thread. I think it is very relevant to the discussion about community values.

Let me quote this for attention:

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes.

As I said in the OP, this thread will be updated regularly as new suggestion are been made and here's a reply from theymos that could serve as a possible guidelines towards leaving trust feedbacks on other users account. You should consider reading other response and his replies after this quoted reply (on thread).

Update from theymos

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

[TheNewAnon135246]

I think Theymos has a point about a few things and made me revise some feedback I have left in the past.

[madnessteat]

Guys, who can tell how people involved in escrow find customers if they do not already have a track record? Do they first participate in simple transactions on the forum, receive positive feedback in this way and then offer deposit services?

Offering escrow without a track record

[DooMAD]

Guys, who can tell how people involved in escrow find customers if they do not already have a track record? Do they first participate in simple transactions on the forum, receive positive feedback in this way and then offer deposit services?

Offering escrow without a track record

I haven't dealt with the trust system very much, but I'd personally leave such a rating as neutral feedback.  It allows other users to be aware that they don't have a track record and doesn't negatively impact users looking to get into escrow services.

Obviously, if they defraud anyone, then negative feedback is going to be justified.  But I don't believe trust should be a presumption of 'guilty until proven innocent'.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Guys, who can tell how people involved in escrow find customers if they do not already have a track record? Do they first participate in simple transactions on the forum, receive positive feedback in this way and then offer deposit services?

Offering escrow without a track record

If you want to offer the escrow service, you must first prove you can be trusted by having a track record of successful transaction from previous trade. This doesn't mean if you want to offer escrow service you should go around forum participating in trade just to get positive trust (gain reputation) doing so might attract red tag.

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:
Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"

When it says have good track record here's a possible guess,

You'd have to do other activities that would make you deemed trustworthy by someone. Then that person would approach you to act as an escrow for them. Then if you did a good job for them, they would recommend you to other people. After a while, you would have a good track record and have many to vouch for you. At that point, you can offer it yourself. That's my guess, at least. It kinda has to drop in your lap, at first.

Offering escrow service means you're officially announcing your availability to hold fund for large number of users therefore, if you don't have a positive track record for doing that for one or two users unofficially plus other previous successful trade records don't jump right into offering escrow service.