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

[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.

[1713874752]

1713874752

[1713874752]

1713874752

[1713874752]

1713874752

[1713874752]

1713874752

[1713874752]

1713874752

[1713874752]

1713874752

[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.