[Infographic]: Guide on possible reasons to leave a -ve/+ve trust feedbacks.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

PS: Topic is opened for accessment and corrections. Infograph will be updated constantly as new reasons for leaving or not leaving feedbacks surfaces

What are Trust Feedbacks:
These are feedbacks users leave on other users account to serve as a warning or save sign to trade with that user.

Bitcointalk doesn't have an official rule guiding the leaving of feedbacks but we have numerous guidelines by experience users. If you aren't familiar with the trust system, the below thread will be a great place to start.

[Explained] How DT system works
[Explained] How Trust Score is calculated
[Explained] Importance of Custom Trust List
[Updated]--[Infographic] Leaving Feedback vs Custom Trust List
★Keep your role on Default Trust(DT) selection★

More threads will be uploaded...

Reason for this thread

Additionally, it may be interesting to see all four combinations for trust feedback:
-   Use positive feed back for.
-   Don’t use positive feed back for.
-   Use negative feed back for.
-   Don’t use negative feed back for (OP).

Note: If you can't see the image clearly, CLICK HERE to read the contents in formal text.


Image link: https://i.imgur.com/tQVi7tz.jpg

Terms used explained:
Farming means buying and selling
Swapping means exchanging e.g exchanging of +ve. trusts
[Optional] means debatable reasons

In addition

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

Before you leave a negative feedback,

You should be able to explain why this is true:

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Mdayonliner also has a good discussion thread about this.

If it is your intention to enlighten others on the use of the system, perhaps promote the 3rd option. I personally see Neutral as a tool for notes on the account/users behavior whether positive or negative, but not a scam/trade dispute.

Note: The moment you start leaving negative feedbacks on other users accounts, you'll make enemies and probably get false red tags so you have to read these quotes on how false negative feedback (red tags) can be handled

The best way to handle it is to appeal the red trust with the person who wrote it. However, the only way the person's red tag shows up on the trust numbers for an individual depends on their trust settings. Otherwise, it just shows up under the section "untrusted feedback." Most people have not fiddled with their trust settings, so it is set on default trust with a depth of 2. If you have customized your trust setting and want to see what your score looks like under the default settings, just go to a page with a post of yours in a section that displays the trust scores. Then after the url just add ;dt. If the tag doesn't show up on default trust, I wouldn't be too concerned about it, although these false tags may be more of a concern if there is a big move for people to start to customize their trust lists. For example, on my untrusted feedback I have someone accusing me of spreading a fictitious disease to newbies.  

First thing you need to do - stop worrying about ludicrous retaliatory feedback. It's unavoidable but it has no effect on you and you shouldn't waste time appealing it. Trust is not moderated. You will not get it removed unless the sender agrees to do that (in rare cases extreme trust spam may be removed but don't count on that).

Credits:
OP's of quotes above
xtraelv: Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

[kingpin4321]

There have been so much attention on trust system and feed back lately.
The trust system has specified members that are meant to handle it.
Let me guess we have left the merit discussion era now we now have to deal with constant trust system discussion

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Making an infographic like this makes it look official, which it's not.  If I'm not mistaken, we're still having a discussion about what's acceptable and what's not as far as leaving trust, and I disagree with a couple of the ones on this, like not giving negs for certain rule violations like harassment.  Plus the "unless on rare occasions" qualifier sort of makes that suggestion near meaningless.  I also don't agree that negs should be left for merit issues unless it's particularly egregious and even then it's a judgement call I don't think Theymos approves of.

All in all, this is premature.  You probably want to help and likely are looking for merits, but an infographic of this stuff isn't needed right now.  Just my opinion.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Hello @The Pharmacist this thread was a respond to DdmrDdmr reply on my previous thread.  He asked for a thread that combines all aspect of leaving trust feedbacks. The intention was not to make it sound official but as a guideline. If you check my post history I have been gaining interest in the trust system and asking questions up and down. I thought it'll be nice to produce solutions to the questions I asked so others won't have to ask the same questions. I'm keeping a close eye on the DT discussion and will be updating the infograph as new reasons for leaving negative,positive or not leaving any trust feedbacks are suggested by the experience members like yourself.

I just made it easier through a infograph so other can understand and stop asking the same questions I did when I picked interested in the trust system.

[DdmrDdmr]

Conceptually it is more complete now, and in line with what could eventually be a good idea to have around. The thing is, DT guidelines are difficult to establish right now: There are different currents of thinking (and acting), and that leads to it being premature for them to be written as holy sacred tablets yet.

I suggested adding the four depicted concepts on your original post (see [Guide]: How not to use the negative feedback aka red tag), since it was only showing one leg of the table (“How not to use the negative feedback”), not four.

I did state that:
“The way I see it now, there is no clear official guidelines for leaving feedback (which I think there sort of should), and there are multiple discussion threads trying to determine or establish them. I guess @theymos wants it to be rather community led, but I see quite a lot of confusion still around it all.”

Meta is where all the DT stuff is being cooked, and therefore we need to wait for the chefs to finish the dish for a better grasp of the outcome …

I would rather that the forum itself either created an official set of guidelines, or that it’s members clearly establish a consensus (and not simply by 51%) on them. The former is more appealing to me, as it would be above individual interests and criteria. Since it is all a bit tits-up right now, I would wait until there is some clear consensus; otherwise what you’ve written seems more “official” than a post with an opinion, and is bound to get too bold at this stage.

[Stedsm]

@OP,
I've read the whole infographic, but what I didn't get here is: why should someone get a negative feedback if they take an account as a collateral? It's their choice to lend someone after taking one's account as a collateral (I'm talking about bitcointalk forum account as it does have a value which lender decides at the time of lending) so how can it be considered a practice of account-farming?

Sorry if there's something already decided in Meta and I'm unaware, please draw me towards the fact based on which you've added the said thing in your infographic. I know it's not official, but still I'm curious. 

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

@OP,
I've read the whole infographic, but what I didn't get here is: why should someone get a negative feedback if they take an account as a collateral?

Before I go on to answer your question, first let me make you understand what the forum consider aa a collateral

What is considered collateral?

Collateral is something that can easily be resold to cover the loan value plus interest should the loaner default on the loan.

Therefore if you accept accounts as collateral you're encouraging account farming which the DT members frown at.  Accepting an account as collateral means you're attaching a price to that account which can be sold to cover up your loan value which is considered as account farming and all accounts involved will be red tag.

[Stedsm]

@OP,
I've read the whole infographic, but what I didn't get here is: why should someone get a negative feedback if they take an account as a collateral?

Before I go on to answer your question, first let me make you understand what the forum consider aa a collateral

What is considered collateral?

Collateral is something that can easily be resold to cover the loan value plus interest should the loaner default on the loan.

Therefore if you accept accounts as collateral you're encouraging account farming which the DT members frown at.  Accepting an account as collateral means you're attaching a price to that account which can be sold to cover up your loan value which is considered as account farming and all accounts involved will be red tag.

So? Who says that our accounts are not worth anything? What's wrong if an account (that is long used and not that alt-type account) is given as a collateral not to cover up the loan value but to justify that the person who is giving their all-time dedication and work to that account believes he/she can put his/her account on stake and get a loan for some time? Sorry, I'm literally not supporting account farming, but giving value to anything (be it even BTC that is evaluated based on people's sentiments, or our accounts here) and deciding what to lend and risk with the borrower totally depends on lender's thinking as well as collateral-acceptance standards.

[AdolfinWolf]

@OP,
I've read the whole infographic, but what I didn't get here is: why should someone get a negative feedback if they take an account as a collateral?

Before I go on to answer your question, first let me make you understand what the forum consider aa a collateral

What is considered collateral?

Collateral is something that can easily be resold to cover the loan value plus interest should the loaner default on the loan.

Therefore if you accept accounts as collateral you're encouraging account farming which the DT members frown at.  Accepting an account as collateral means you're attaching a price to that account which can be sold to cover up your loan value which is considered as account farming and all accounts involved will be red tag.

You're making it sound like taking a BTT as collateral will cause you to instantly get red trusted. - Unless you have examples of this - i wouldn't say that this is the case.

Rather if you take an account as collateral, and the user does not pay back, and you then proceed to sell it, that's kind of flawed upon.

I'd say that, especially with high tier accounts, offering account (rather the reputation behind the account) does not instantly =/= Selling the account in the case of them not paying back their loan.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

You're making it sound like taking a BTT as collateral will cause you to instantly get red trusted. - Unless you have examples of this - i wouldn't say that this is the case.

Correct me with a recent example of BTT account used as a collateral and it wasn't red tagged.  I believe just  accepting or giving a BTT account as a collateral can be consider as account farming as the main intention of a collateral is base on the fact of loaner default so you have something to turn to.

Let me explain myself, if a user accepts or give a BTT account as collateral what he's saying is that I'm adding price value to that account and you should sell it if I can't pay back the loan to cover up. Correct me if I'm wrong.

DT members frown at any issues relating to account farming. Although this issues are still been discussed and if adjustment are made I'll update this infograhic. This is just a temporary guide based on current reasons users are leaving trust feedbacks

[Coyster]

Going through this infographic,i came across your statement which says a user can get a red trust for being an escrow without a track record
Is that correct and should that be so,i know it's safer,and we're encourage to use the forum's official escrow service and also reputable members but is it not the decision of those engaged in the transaction to decide who acts as escrow in their transaction whether or not that person has a track record,but is trusted by both of them,and such person should not get red tagged,I think this makes sense, but I stand to be corrected

[r1s2g3]

Correct me with a recent example of BTT account used as a collateral and it wasn't red tagged.  I believe just  accepting or giving a BTT account as a collateral can be consider as account farming as the main intention of a collateral is base on the fact of loaner default so you have something to turn to.

Here is the example for you.

Terms:
1. You must have valid collateral. Altcoin and reputed bitcointalk profiles are only valid collateral to me.

User is Green trusted.
 
It will be zero value collateral for lender but it still it has much value for account owner. Any reputable person will not like to part the account for few dollars.

This should be debatable for which amount of loan and a positive trust should be given. Users are giving/receiving +ve trust for paying petty loan amount ,look like more of trust farming.

Going through this infographic,i came across your statement which says a user can get a red trust for being an escrow without a track record
Is that correct and should that be so,i know it's safer,and we're encourage to use the forum's official escrow service and also reputable members but is it not the decision of those engaged in the transaction to decide who acts as escrow in their transaction whether or not that person has a track record,but is trusted by both of them,and such person should not get red tagged,I think this makes sense, but I stand to be corrected

Then do the private deal (escrow), no need to start your escrow service thread.
You can check the trust of  [ur=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1432468l]mdayonliner[/url] who got -ve trust for jumping in escrow deal of $100K without any experience.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I know it's safer,and we're encourage to use the forum's official escrow service

No this statement is wrong. The forum doesn't have an official escrow. And the reason most account are tagged for offering a escrow without track record is to prevent  scam. You have to prove you can be trusted before applying to be an escrow.

Possible Solution:

OP you mentioned Offering escrow without a track record.
Do you mean no previous escrow track record or no previous deals/trades at all on Bitcointalk?
Theoretically, if a user wanted to become an escrow here, what would he need to do if he doesn't have a track record?

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.

Example of situation users was tagged for trying to sell btt account collected as collateral. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037540.0

[r1s2g3]

Example of situation users was tagged for trying to sell btt account collected as collateral. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037540.0

You still missed the point, User is tagged for trying to sell  the account  that is collected as collateral. User was not tagged for accepting the account as collateral. Only disadvantage is that you can still accept account as collateral but you cannot liquidate it. If borrower is valuing it's own account then definitely borrower will pay the loan.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Here is a reply from someone who has been in the trust system for a very long time and currently a DT member. You can visit my thread on the reputation board for more clarification

No offends guys but I haven't be clarified my questions haven't been answered. If you say an account used for collateral should be tagged for account farming when should the red tag be given? After lone default (to prevent account selling) or immediately it's offered as collateral   and should all accounts involved be tagged for account farming?

Both the lender and the user should be immediately tagged.

[lobcmt2]

Honestly, I think it will be better if you present your contents in formal text, rather than infographics.
The infographics is hard to see, and space-consumed.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Honestly, I think it will be better if you present your contents in formal text, rather than infographics.
The infographics is hard to see, and space-consumed.

It could be because of your mobile phone screen, have you tried zooming the image?  Also you can view image from the direct link or use this code to make image bigger

Code:

[IMG width=200]https://i.imgur.com/tQVi7tz.jpg[/img]

Change 200 to a bigger number when writing a reply and preview then you'll get a bigger image

[Artemis3]

Honestly, I think it will be better if you present your contents in formal text, rather than infographics.
The infographics is hard to see, and space-consumed.

This is simple enough that it could be made with BBcode:

GUIDE ON LEAVING POSITIVE/NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS

LEAVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK     1. For Successful receiver of paid signature allocations. 2. For Successful trade such as escrow, loan, buying/selling of goods & services. 3. To users dedicating their time to fight scam project and fake icos. 4. To users dedicating their time/skills to improve forum. [optional] 5. If you trust users.

DON'T LEAVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK     1. For successful account farming. 2. For successful merit farming/swapping. 3. For successful trust farming/swapping. 4. Based on other users feedbacks, they could be wrong. 5. Without valid evidence. [optional]

LEAVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS     1. For attempted or succesful fraud or theft. 2. For account farming & taking. 3. For merit farming/swapping. 4. For trust farming/swapping. 5. For abuse of bounty/airdrop/giveaways/merit/trust/escrow. 6. For offering escrow without a track record. 7. For providing fake or insufficient collateral & late loan repayments or loan defaults. 8. For trades (Lending or borrowing) to gain "reputation". 10. For shilling/advertising MLM or ponzi. 11. For scam, fake ICOs & other projects. 12. For selling gambling scripts/Spreading malware. 13. For constant fund or merit begging. 14. For leaving fake negative feedbacks. 15. For fake translations and hacked account.

DON'T LEAVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS     1. Based on other users feedbacks, they could be wrong. 2. For posting an unpopular opinion. 3. For owning an alt account. 4. For promoting altcoins or other projects. 5. For criticizing others and religious statements. 6. Without reference or it'll be considered fake or an accusation. 7. For disliking or disagree with user statements. 8. For violation of common forum rules such as Ban evasion, plagiarism, copy and paste, excessive thread bumping, harassment, trolling etc unless on rare occasions. 9. For anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence. Note: Don't turn leaving of negative feedbacks into a job or hobby, only leave one when necessary.

Code:

[center][color=green][size=18pt][b]GUIDE ON LEAVING POSITIVE/NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS[/b][/size][/color][/center]

[table]
 [tr]
  [td]
   [list]
    [center][color=limegreen][b]LEAVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK[/b][/color][/center]
    [li][color=limegreen]1. For Successful receiver of paid signature allocations.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=limegreen]2. For Successful trade such as escrow, loan, buying/selling of goods & services.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=limegreen]3. To users dedicating their time to fight scam project and fake icos.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=limegreen]4. To users dedicating their time/skills to improve forum. [optional][/color][/li]
    [li][color=limegreen]5. If you trust users.[/color][/li]
   [/list]
  [/td]
  [td]
   [list]
    [center][color=blue][b]DON'T LEAVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK[/b][/color][/center]
    [li][color=blue]1. For successful account farming.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=blue]2. For successful merit farming/swapping.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=blue]3. For successful trust farming/swapping.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=blue]4. Based on other users feedbacks, they could be wrong.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=blue]5. Without valid evidence. [optional][/color][/li]
   [/list]
  [/td]
  [td]
   [list]
    [center][color=red][b]LEAVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS[/b][/color][/center]
    [li][color=red]1. For attempted or succesful fraud or theft.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]2. For account farming & taking.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]3. For merit farming/swapping.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]4. For trust farming/swapping.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]5. For abuse of bounty/airdrop/giveaways/merit/trust/escrow.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]6. For offering escrow without a track record.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]7. For providing fake or insufficient collateral & late loan repayments or loan defaults.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]8. For trades (Lending or borrowing) to gain "reputation".[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]10. For shilling/advertising MLM or ponzi.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]11. For scam, fake ICOs & other projects.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]12. For selling gambling scripts/Spreading malware.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]13. For constant fund or merit begging.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]14. For leaving fake negative feedbacks.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=red]15. For fake translations and hacked account.[/color][/li]
   [/list]
  [/td]
  [td]
   [list]
    [center][color=orange][b]DON'T LEAVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS[/b][/color][/center]
    [li][color=orange]1. Based on other users feedbacks, they could be wrong.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]2. For posting an unpopular opinion.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]3. For owning an alt account.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]4. For promoting altcoins or other projects.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]5. For criticizing others and religious statements.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]6. Without reference or it'll be considered fake or an accusation.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]7. For disliking or disagree with user statements.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]8. For violation of common forum rules such as Ban evasion, plagiarism, copy and paste, excessive thread bumping, harassment, trolling etc unless on rare occasions.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]9. For anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence.[/color][/li]
    [li][color=orange]Note: Don't turn leaving of negative feedbacks into a job or hobby, only leave one when necessary.[/color][/li]
   [/list]
  [/td]
 [/tr]
[/table]

[lobcmt2]

Nope. It is not what I meant!
I known the width option,  but it does not helpful in the case.
You can see that Artermis3 made it clearer with BBcode. I think you should use this one rather than your infographics.

It could be because of your mobile phone screen, have you tried zooming the image?  Also you can view image from the direct link or use this code to make image bigger

Code:

[IMG width=200]https://i.imgur.com/tQVi7tz.jpg[/img]

Change 200 to a bigger number when writing a reply and preview then you'll get a bigger image

Only one word, perfect!
You made a good work, Artemis3.
Unfortunately, I have only 0.5 sMerits, and can not send it to you, but I will do it later.

snip

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

You can see that Artermis3 made it clearer with BBcode. I think you should use this one rather than your infographics.

Thanks for your suggestion but as you can see before you,  no one have complained of not seeing the infograph instead they all have been admitting of reading it clearly and airing their views on some reason they disagree with.  I just updated the infograph with this

Note: If you can't see the image clearly, CLICK HERE to read the contents in formal text.

so I believe that possible problem of other users not been able to read the infograph have been solved.

[theyoungmillionaire]

How not to use the negative feedback

[1]Don't red tag a user for ban evasion, plaragism plagiarism etc instead report user to appropriate authority (moderators)

Hi, CryptopreneurBrainboss,

I am guilty on red tagging plagiarism. But, I have my reasons on doing it and of course I reported them.
It is not just because of the change on DT list, I have been helping to fight against those who defies the rules even before these DT stuff going on now. Red tagging plagiarism/plagiarist and reporting them are my way of helping our community, I can’t change the way I help our community – I am comfortable with it.

See my reasons below:

Since more banned users are complaining or in need of the reasons about their ban, I put red trust to a plagiarist just to lessen the work of any staff or any users to find out why (they just need to check the trust history – I am not a DT member, so, they can check “Untrusted feedback”). Some or previous reports about plagiarism have no tags or when I am lazy.

Good luck!

See you around.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I am guilty on red tagging plagiarism. But, I have my reasons on doing it and of course I reported them.

I believe you brought my previous topic in here because I have locked that thread. I don't like having similar threads open that's why I locked that one. sorry for the inconvenience.

Back to reply, The trust system isn't moderated and you're free to not trust someone for whatever reason but when it comes to some offends there are better solutions
e.g

ban evasion is a violation of forum rules so should be reported to moderators. There is no need for red trust for rule violations except perhaps in rare cases, for example someone is spreading malware while moderators are asleep - you might want to put a warning on user's account until they get banned.

I understand your reason, you have experience and I'm sure isn't all defaulter you red tags but selected ones. Although I'm just informing newbies so they don't think it's appropriate to do so.

[asche]

I kindly disagree with some of your rules.

Alt accounts SHOULD be tagged if the owner tries to hide the fact that they are his alts, or uses them for any purpose linked to eachother.

I don't see anything wrong in tagging someone for ban evasion.
If you are convinced it is the case BUT the evidence is not compelling enough for a ban, you should go for it.

I don't consider taking an account as collateral as a good practice myself. However in some rare occasions I don't see why some people shouldn't do it. Not to actually use the collateral (which would imply selling it afterwards) but to still incentivize the repayment. Of course this depends on the size of the loan.

Users dedicating their time to fight scam and fake ICO are nice and all, but this can actually collude with your rule about making transactions to gain trust. These people should be added to the trust list, not given positive feedback.

Also leaving positive feedback for a successful trade is not a MUST. I myself removed some positive feedbacks when becoming DT1 because they gained too much weight and were actually cancelling out another negative feedback, which I never wanted.

Long story short:

Green Trust if you trust the user
Neg Trust if you think the user shouldn't be trusted.

Everything else should go in the reference.

[xtraelv]

Making an infographic like this makes it look official, which it's not.  If I'm not mistaken, we're still having a discussion about what's acceptable and what's not as far as leaving trust, and I disagree with a couple of the ones on this, like not giving negs for certain rule violations like harassment.  Plus the "unless on rare occasions" qualifier sort of makes that suggestion near meaningless.  I also don't agree that negs should be left for merit issues unless it's particularly egregious and even then it's a judgement call I don't think Theymos approves of.

All in all, this is premature.  You probably want to help and likely are looking for merits, but an infographic of this stuff isn't needed right now.  Just my opinion.

I agree with The Pharmacist that the discussion is still ongoing about what is acceptable and what is not.

However it is good that others like yourself are taking an interest in this discussion and bringing the community together to create some agreement about trust.

With this it is important to listen to all sides of the debate. People that have different opinions often have some very valid contributions.

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

You should be able to explain why this is true:

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Mdayonliner also has a good discussion thread about this.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

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.

[nakamura12]

The infographic is fine, it's not bad and using BbCodes is also fine. I know a friend that got red tagged or negative trusted by a forum member ( I won't mention any names/usernames to keep it secret ). He/She red tagged my friend just because of a misunderstanding that two of them arguing to such small matter/problem ( If I remember correctly ) then my friend also give red tagged to the one who give my friend a negative trust. Both of them leave negative feedback to each other and their reference that both of them provided are not the right proof to leave such negative feedback and later on both of them came to a conclusion and decided to remove their negative feedback on both sides, events like what I stated about trust score that if everyone in here can leave negative trust like DT member that can affect the trust score if they leave negative or positive feedback ( their rank are legendary and member ).

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

The infographic is fine, it's not bad and using BbCodes is also fine. I know a friend that got red tagged or negative trusted by a forum member ( I won't mention any names/usernames to keep it secret ). He/She red tagged my friend just because of a misunderstanding that two of them arguing to such small matter/problem.

Glad to hear that from you. About the situation you described above it's normal we're all humans and sometimes our emotions brings out the worst in us, am also glad they settled the issue within themselves and makes it a perfect example on how to handle false negative tags (which is, only the two parties can resolved it).
The trust system is evolving, we aren't there yet but it's manageable.

[Steamtyme]

Firstly, good on you for trying to promote the idea of a healthy use of the feedback/trust system.

My main issue with this is that you completely ignore the "Neutral" rating; which is terribly overlooked IMO. If it is your intention to enlighten others on the use of the system, perhaps promote the 3rd option. I personally see Neutral as a tool for notes on the account/users behavior whether positive or negative, but not a scam/trade dispute. In this category I would include #'s 3,4 from your positive column and #'s 6,8,13,14 from the Negative Column.

#5 from the positive column doesn't necessarily warrant trust, but they should be included in your custom trust list, or could be left as a neutral to "vouch" for the user.

#8 from the negative pile, could again be a neutral rating, because I'm assuming they completed the trade. What this comes down to is members leaving appropriate ratings in their references to signify it was a small trade, or by only leaving them neutral in the first place until.

Then on top of it just remind people that they are free to leave trust as they see fit, but should be willing/able to justify them, and that these are just some guidelines as you've interpreted them. This is just my opinion and how I try to apply the system.

Edit: sorry forgot to explain my reasoning on #6 in the negative column - Everyone has to start somewhere, I'm sure I know the case you are thinking of, and while it was a poor idea from the onset a neutral could have served just fine. Would someone deserve a Neg for trying to build a reputation as an escrow by starting out small?

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

My main issue with this is that you completely ignore the "Neutral" rating; which is terribly overlooked IMO.
I personally see Neutral as a tool for notes on the account/users behavior whether positive or negative, but not a scam/trade dispute.

Thanks for the compliment and great suggestions. My bad I ignored the neutral rating in this post but in my defense this post was as a repond to DdmrDdmr reply on my previous post as qoute above (in OP). Although when you think about it the neutral tag aren't been used that much but I understand clearly when you say "ratings not coming from trade but actions/behavior of user should be rated as neutral not positive feedback. Therefore your reply will be highlighted above (in OP) for better visibility.

[Steamtyme]

Glad you found my input useful. I'm interested to see if people start using the neutrals more frequently. Unfortunately in the few threads I've checked in on some people still want that Red vengeance and can't be convinced otherwise. These tend to be the same people who complain about the system overall, but won't adjust their way of thinking to use it as a tool.

I understand why you had left it out. Here's a bit of constructive criticism. Next time you see the opportunity to create something like this based on a request/comment you see. Take a little bit of time and see if/how you could also expand on the idea. It will help your infographics stand out against the others right from the start.

[Steamtyme]

Thanks for seeking my opinion. For a case of suspected Merit abuse (selling/trading/meriting alts) it's a hard call to make. I would say initially that this would warrant a neutral rating. This is because there are obviously degrees to which this can be seen as abuse and should be dealt with accordingly.

To go along with the neutral rating you would want to reference the investigation/accusation thread. Further feedback whether Negative or Neutral can be based on the outcome of the investigation.

Thinking on that I do realise my previous answer itself was rather narrowly focused. I personally would also consider fraudulent behavior worthy of a negative. These would play out similar to above and require investigations. I wouldn't put a negative without proof, but would leave the neutral on unless I became convinced otherwise. I would also have to check as I believe theymos is opposed to using the trust system in regards to suspected merit abuse. We know he will act if there is a blatant case.


For example - Selling/buying accounts - Possible puppet accounts being used to deceive and/or self promote - Account Sales



I do think all all cases deserve to be looked and and thoughtfully considered before a judgement is  made. People also shouldn't consider feedback to necessarily be permanent, shouldn't we consider a chance of rehabilitation. Good luck with the updating, and feel free to provide me with feedback if you disagree. Everyone will find their own way of doing things, and in the long run I feel the new system will  work out well.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

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
Update from theymos

Forgiveness and de-escalation are key to getting Trust working smoothly:
 - Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
 - De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.