Should trust be moderated? (Poll)

[seoincorporation]

We know how important is trust in this forum. A red tag could make us look as bad guys. And the problem is jerks like this one:

If people can tag us with red trust and cero justification, then we have a bug in the trust system because isn't fair or real.

I take another one from Lauda trust summary:

So, as we can see people abuses from the trust system and not only I want that part regulated. Hope you can assign some mods for this task, and I would like to propose all the DT1 as trust mods.

[JeromeTash]

This could put a lot more work on the Mods.
I would really like the trust system to be moderated though with the help of the community. it's one of the most important aspects of the forum since a number of trades are carried out here too.

A ''report to moderator'' button beside each trust summary comment would ease the work of the mods to either delete it if it's very inappropriate or even get the user banned if it's extreme.

Am really sick of seeing stupid abusive trust feedbacks with no reference

[yogg]

The feedback is one thing, but what is disturbing me the most with the following feedback is the Reference link :



It points to Pornhub and there is no easy way to mention NSFW to people who may click on it.
I'm not sure if mods should or shouldn't do something about it, but still, it's disturbing.

[hilariousetc]

The trust system is meant to be there as a guide. Most people aren't going to take a feedback that says FUCK YOU or attempts to suck his own dick in bright red caps seriously. Sure, there are certain feedbacks that could or should probably be removed but having mods remove them will likely just lead to more issues and complaints from people why did you remove x but not y etc.

The feedback is one thing, but what is disturbing me the most with the following feedback is the Reference link :



It points to Pornhub and there is no easy way to mention NSFW to people who may click on it.
I'm not sure if mods should or shouldn't do something about it, but still, it's disturbing.

Ones like this though are probably crossing the line and you should probably PM an admin about those (as they are removed in some instances). I think source links should probably have to link to a bitcointalk thread as well because I've seen a few in the past with ref links and other suspicious dodgy sites put there.

[bones261]

Ones like this though are probably crossing the line and you should probably PM an admin about those (as they are removed in some instances). I think source links should probably have to link to a bitcointalk thread as well because I've seen a few in the past with ref links and other suspicious dodgy sites put there.

Many source links are offsite, though, to archive sites. If you limit the links to just within Bitcointalk, the scammer could just delete all the incriminating posts.

[DdmrDdmr]

I don’t know about it being moderated, but I think the system could easily do with some Unofficial Official guidelines both for positive feedback and negative feedback. There are a couple of threads building trying to create subsets of the sort, but I have not yet stumbled upon some clear enough guidelines that are above factions of one kind or another.

Perhaps the idea is to let the ball roll for a while and see how the community tries to self-regulate a kind of consensus on the matter, but since leaving feedback is a feature that could imply just about anybody (although DT’s role is of a larger importance), guidelines should be accessible to the regular forum user just as the Unofficial Official rules are.

Red trust now seems to be easier to roll around, simply because there are many more DTs and quite a few wearing a learner’s sticker. Criteria is therefore more diverse, as was likely the intent, but common guidelines could help to establish a certain compass that would not need to be debated too much if forum endorsed.

That said from someone who has not sent a single feedback in a year, although I always thought it was rather commerce related, and that is an area I have not ventured to embark on the forum (therefore being totally uninterested in Trust so far).

[TMAN]

I got a dodgy porn link on one of mine, amusing - but could of been horrible if I clicked infront of one of my kids. I agree it should be a forum link only

[o_e_l_e_o]

I agree it should be a forum link only

As pointed out by bones261, I make a point of making all my reference links an archived forum page via archive.today or archive.org. There's no point the reference being to an incriminating post or thread when the user in question can just delete the evidence. Clearly NSFW links should be deleted, though, and the user who left them should receive a ban in my opinion - there's no excuse for that kind of abuse of the system.

[Harlot]

The good thing about untrusted feedback is there is no bearing into what they are saying not until a DT member swoops in and support their claims with a feedback on their own. The example feedbacks shown in the thread only shows the hate of a member to you clearly their is no relation to their claim whatsoever with regards to any transaction done in the forum. So in the end untrusted feedbacks really has no bearing in the forum the only downside is it just blemishes your trust record with their hate speech on red colored font.

[The Cryptovator]

I think source links should probably have to link to a bitcointalk thread as well because I've seen a few in the past with ref links and other suspicious dodgy sites put there.

Agree with that, but there will be few problem. Bitcointalk thread could be deleted or edit so we need to use archive link. It would be better if allow archived link and Bitcointalk link.

I am not sure OP mention about which feedback. But I don't think its by any DT members. So untrusted feedback's have no value. There will be huge problem is trust system want to moderate. Then moderators will face same problem and peoples will blame them again for power abuse. 

[DireWolfM14]

I got a dodgy porn link on one of mine, amusing - but could of been horrible if I clicked infront of one of my kids. I agree it should be a forum link only

I disagree that it should be limited to forum links.  When a scammer is called out on the forum he could simply delete the post that proves his transgression, and linking to an off-site archive is more practical in those cases.

Even though I've joked about that review on your trust page, I totally agree that it is an issue.  Perhaps there can be a warning when a reference is pointing to an off-site link.  That would give us pause before we click on it.

As for moderating trust; I'm against it.  Moderators are human and can have ulterior motives.  

[yogg]

I disagree that it should be limited to forum links.  When a scammer is called out on the forum he could simply delete the post that proves his transgression, and linking to an off-site archive is more practical in those cases.

Even though I've joked about that review on your trust page, I totally agree that it is an issue.  Perhaps there can be a warning when a reference is pointing to an off-site link.  That would give us pause before we click on it.

As for moderating trust; I'm against it.  Moderators are human and can have ulterior motives.  

I have the same opinion : this shouldn't be limited to forum links.
I'm not sure how the proxy thing for the pictures work, but isn't it possible to do something similar : whitelist or blacklist certain sites ?

Whitelist would be the forum, the archive website, and ...?
Blacklist would be anything that has "porn" in it ?

Or maybe an extra step when the Ref link is off forum, something like :

"You will visit the following URL : <URL>"

And the buttons to continue or go back.

[Kopyleft]

People who leave such baseless and obscene feedback are very likely not on any level of DT and there feedback does not reflect on your trust score. Also most one is going to take such a feedback seriously.

Tust feedback is there to serve as a guide, moderating it would be holding the forum accountable and it would then become a 'trading advise', to be cautious or let down your guard.

[TalkStar]

We know how important is trust in this forum. A red tag could make us look as bad guys. And the problem is jerks like this one:

Absolutely these red tag make us look as bad guys. When a newbie member visit our trust area it makes him/her scared. When anyone of us reveal any scam project or fraudlent activities of a member as a result those guys put red tag easily on us where its completely false. In my opinion this option should be used with exact reason.

[hilariousetc]

Ones like this though are probably crossing the line and you should probably PM an admin about those (as they are removed in some instances). I think source links should probably have to link to a bitcointalk thread as well because I've seen a few in the past with ref links and other suspicious dodgy sites put there.

Many source links are offsite, though, to archive sites. If you limit the links to just within Bitcointalk, the scammer could just delete all the incriminating posts.

People probably shouldn't be linking solely to the posts of the scammer as many would just try get rid of the evidence if they can, but external links could also be manipulated or go down. A simple solution would be to just make sure all the evidence is presented in a scam accusation thread with quotes, screenshots and archives etc. At least all the relevant info can be presented in a readable fashion. Often just linking to an archive doesn't give the whole picture.

I agree it should be a forum link only

As pointed out by bones261, I make a point of making all my reference links an archived forum page via archive.today or archive.org. There's no point the reference being to an incriminating post or thread when the user in question can just delete the evidence. Clearly NSFW links should be deleted, though, and the user who left them should receive a ban in my opinion - there's no excuse for that kind of abuse of the system.

Stick the archive link in a scam accusations thread and link to that instead. Problem solved.

[Pmalek]

I think that it shouldn't be possible to leave a trust, positive or negative (especially negative) without a reference. Be it a reference from this forum or an outside source. Also, it should be possible to appeal those without a reference link and those that are clearly retaliatory should be removed. Off course this should be done on forum, completely transparent and public so that everyone can see who is appealing what and see for themselves that the right decision is made.

[jackg]

Trust is moderated by admins. Admins that are allowed to do this appears to extend to global mods.

I should add that only obvious abuse will be removed. If trust was better moderated, retaliatory trust would be unnecessary too as the badly given trust would then be removed.

[bones261]

There are some feedback like these example, so give moderator power to delete trust is necessary.

But it only waste moderator's time time unless the abused feedback is left by DT-1 or DT-2. I doubt people look for un-trusted feedback anyway

I find myself looking in untrusted feedback quite a bit. It's like going to yelp. Yes, there is a lot of junk feedback in there. However, some of it may be quite helpful.

[TheUltraElite]

Looking from both sides of the coin you will soon realize that trust being moderated is similar to turning the DT to a hub of scammers with nobody to speak against those colluding or those protecting the scammers. There needs to be people who call out the possible darksided members as well with proper evidence obviously.

What can be done is a modification like reduction in the weight-age of trust ratings left by people who are long gone from the site. This is based on the idea that these red trusted throwaway accounts wont ever come back when making more drama. In a few years the "effect" (if you "feel" it has any) would degrade.

In the meantime you should put these sockpuppets in your ignore list.

[mikeywith]

I got a dodgy porn link on one of mine

what is the link ? asking for a friend.