Suggestion: length limitation to trust ratings

[NeuroticFish]

Example: from the Trust summary for arguelles84.
And yes, that's a single rating for a single user.
~~

Isn't such behavior simply spam? And doesn't spam qualify for .. ban?

semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?

I think that it'll stay. So somehow it has to be limited or maybe somebody should be allowed to edit = shorten that mess, else anybody can create more newbie accounts just to fill the forum with garbage.

[1714685344]

1714685344

[1714685344]

1714685344

[1714685344]

1714685344

[Lauda]

While we are at it, why not limit the number of negative ratings that one user can give to another? Some sane limit e.g. 20 would be sufficient (AFAIK there has been no case where 10 was legitimately hit let alone more).

Instead of limit,  a trust feedback cool down meter can be implemented. You can give only one feedback a day to a specific user. This will help in reducing trust spamming where a user is giving 50 long feedback in a day to a single user.
For length, I like the idea of view more, or fix the length of  trust feedback and user who like to write more can create a post and link to the feedback.

How exactly is this a good idea? Mistakes tend to happen when writing or submitting feedback, thus I sometimes send out a rating to a specific user multiple times in a very small timeframe.

-snip-
Theymos has explicitly said

Trust spam isn't allowed

However there's a lot of spam and very little is being done.

He only acts upon it in very extreme cases.

[Jet Cash]

We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?

[pugman]

We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?

NOPE!  BAD idea, very bad idea.

This place will become into a absolute shithole if that ever happens, because of obvious reasons.

He only acts upon it in very extreme cases.

Didn't he delete some spam-feedback a while ago?

Instead of limit ,  a trust feedback cool down meter can be implemented. You can give only one feedback a day to a specific user. This will help in reducing trust spamming where a user is giving 50 long feedback in a day to a single user.
For length, I like the idea of view more, or fix the length of  trust feedback and user who like to write more can create a post and link to the feedback.

There have been instances where shills log in every day, just to give spam-feedback to those who they despise so badly. So your idea might not really end up working.

semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?

They don't go away, AFAIK.

Isn't such behavior simply spam? And doesn't spam qualify for .. ban?

Nope its different, technically. No one has ever been banned for this, from what I can remember.

semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?

I think that it'll stay. So somehow it has to be limited or maybe somebody should be allowed to edit = shorten that mess, else anybody can create more newbie accounts just to fill the forum with garbage.

I think Lauda's idea to limit the number of feedbacks is more than enough, besides, people can delete and repost their feedbacks anyways. 

[Lauda]

He only acts upon it in very extreme cases.

Didn't he delete some spam-feedback a while ago?

He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.

[cryptohunter]

We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?

NOPE!  BAD idea, very bad idea.

This place will become into a absolute shithole if that ever happens, because of obvious reasons.

Really? why is that?

[pugman]

He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.

Right.  

I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.

Really? why is that?

I see things going two ways:
- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging.  And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.

[Lafu]

Is there something we can do about this user arguelles84 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=298715 ?
He writes now everyday a few feedbacks on everybody !
I dont care about that realy , just wanted to know maybe there is something we or and Admin can do for this obvious abuse !

[cryptohunter]

He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.

Right.  

I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.

Really? why is that?

I see things going two ways:
- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging.  And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.

This is exactly why subjectivity can not be allowed to remain. There needs to be a drill down and down and down until you are left with a list of criteria that decides the action. You can not leave it up to one persons own subjective ideas because whether they like it or not they are prone to moods, and other human emotion that will at times lead them to make unfair and inconsistent judgements.  For grey areas or special circumstances there will always need human intervention but for 99% of clear cases where criteria met/not met can be the deciding factor (which would eliminate most trust abuse and inconsistent action/inaction) then these criteria should be used.

I agree you would need more than 1 trust mod. If they have not done anything wrong then they will not be getting defamed. We need to stick to analysing facts and observable events not groundless hearsay and opinions.

[Lauda]

He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.

Right. 
I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.

My suggestion of 20 was rather generous, yes.

Really? why is that?

I see things going two ways:
- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging.  And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.

I think what cryptohunter really wants is to make me the lead trust moderator of this forum.

[cryptohunter]

He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.

Right.  
I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.

My suggestion of 20 was rather generous, yes.

Really? why is that?

I see things going two ways:
- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging.  And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.

I think what cryptohunter really wants is to make me the lead trust moderator of this forum.

Bring the criteria that enforces fair and honest actions to all, bring the power to remove persons that do not operate within those criteria and anyone can be the trust moderator. I would suggest someone such as myself who is not a proven liar and always takes the fairest actions. One that can be demonstrated over and over in many projects to oppose those  greedy and power hungry. One that can back everything he says with facts and forms opinions only based on sensible analysis of those facts. Failing that then I have a few legends in mind for the job that have demonstrated they are fair in the past.

To be sensible though this criteria can be enforced at a DT level so hardly a need for trust moderator.

[actmyname]

His ratings just got wiped.

[theymos]

OK, new limits:
 - You can't give more than 5 ratings to a single user.
 - Your total sent ratings is limited to three times your activity, but at least 1.
 - The comment length is limited to 600 characters, but each newline counts as 120 characters.

[cryptohunter]

His ratings just got wiped.

Well just the ones that do not conform to the new standards. I suspect he will re apply those in a more sensible/accurate manner soon.

[theymos]

Well just the ones that do not conform to the new standards. I suspect he will re apply those in a more sensible/accurate manner soon.

No, that was a clear case of trust spam. 200+ very similar ratings with many against the same users over and over again. He's banned for 14 days.

These new restrictions are not retroactive.

[EcuaMobi]

OK, new limits:
 - You can't give more than 5 ratings to a single user.
 - Your total sent ratings is limited to three times your activity, but at least 1.
 - The comment length is limited to 600 characters, but each newline counts as 120 characters.

Great. Thanks. It'd be great is someone checks current trust spam. For example the system could find cases where someone left more than 500 or 1k lines of trust to a single profile and check those cases manually.
(Moseas79, Buzzlieve1992, among several others)

[cryptohunter]

Well just the ones that do not conform to the new standards. I suspect he will re apply those in a more sensible/accurate manner soon.

No, that was a clear case of trust spam. 200+ very similar ratings with many against the same users over and over again. He's banned for 14 days.

These new restrictions are not retroactive.

Fair enough.. it was perhaps an extreme way of presenting his objection.

But surely  he will be allowed to replace some of the red trust within the new conditions you have set.

It was the manner/ format and extreme nature of presenting his message that got him banned ... am I correct?

If he was to only leave a max of 5 then he would be allowed to do so?

I have not examined his cased deeply but it seems to me that you can get red trust for anything including enjoying the taste of a lemon or even telling the truth about a person lying previously. So the only possible way to abuse the system at this point seems to be spamming it as you have just said.

Can you consider adding some criteria for red trust that must be met so we can prevent persons who feel they have been treated unfairly being a little to enthusiastic in highlighting their plight?

I mean surely you can understand that if you mention you like lemons or you tell the truth that someone has lied previously (yet they continue to call you a liar over and over and will not provide evidence to demonstrate this) after spending years building an account here just to get a big red flashing sign that you are a scammer it will evoke an extreme reaction?

Imagine further the very people permitted to ruin your account are proven untrustworthy beyond doubt in the first place.

You must see this is not going to work out and will get worse as more and more persons feel (rightly so in many cases) that people proven as liars or to be using sock puppets to sig spam racist trolling are then allowed to cast out punishment on their "suspicions" untrustworthy related behaviour.

Why not introduce some criteria to DT that prevents the entire place going crazy. Bans will not even work against people that feel enraged by injustice. I see it all getting worse.

[Lauda]

OK, new limits:
 - You can't give more than 5 ratings to a single user.

Excellent.

- Your total sent ratings is limited to three times your activity, but at least 1.

Pro: New accounts can't go on insane spam trips.
Con: Could hit rating. ~2100*3 = 6300. I'm at ~4k sent now.

- The comment length is limited to 600 characters, but each newline counts as 120 characters.

I believe that this is going to cause some issues with ratings such as:

Accounts Connected: flight666 (uuid = 1156381), bravia (uuid = 1153507), uzayli (uuid = 1153499), valley365 (uuid = 150593), Askit2 (uuid = 48373), unois (uuid = 90957), dr1980m (uuid = 164392), anu (uuid = 22383), patts30 (uuid = 1321164), KaraSena (uuid = 1174407), ShapeofMyHeart (uuid = 1192057), Dnagelpen (uuid = 1174541), KisacaYatirimUzmani (uuid = 1191764), OggyBesiktas (uuid = 1174279), Kurabiye1132 (uuid = 1192051), LosPollosHermanos (uuid = 1191745), bexdever (uuid = 1321206), gkyldz (uuid = 1320872), differentsituation (uuid = 1321407), Afterweeks (uuid = 1320859), DC Comics (uuid = 1156610), Solarminer (uuid = 146231), silvestar (uuid = 154828), yuzdeyuzmalt (uuid = 1157441), Peacee (uuid = 1158789), HDIMI (uuid = 1157699), r1011 (uuid = 1156515), Devrialemci (uuid = 1174477), ShadowsComeBut (uuid = 1191779), Telzimba (uuid = 1315529), deebtt (uuid = 1321458), thatsfire (uuid = 1321575), grkms (uuid = 999398), saturn90 (uuid = 1321438), spoiled3 (uuid = 1321522), who should follow (uuid = 1321480), Faithh (uuid = 1191728), marsev2lw (uuid = 1361023), r3muhs (uuid = 1360998), platoon5 (uuid = 1321324), ntlah3 (uuid = 1360946), hudutf3 (uuid = 1321361), emptyforever (uuid = 1321300), earless1 (uuid = 1321153), albud4kfahri (uuid = 1320981), Hardlifeand (uuid = 1321128), getscissors (uuid = 1320920), Far01 (uuid = 1320896), JeffHG (uuid = 1315693), Autlook (uuid = 1315641), BliitzCrank (uuid = 1315682), Muradiye (uuid = 1315605), awesome31312 (uuid = 124001), Grankk (uuid = 1315555), Closing (uuid = 1315548), Smoke06 (uuid = 1159509), DeepOcean21 (uuid = 1160161), WillBeOk (uuid = 1159650), ParaHerif (uuid = 1160081), DeepCoin (uuid = 330235), Coffee06 (uuid = 1159484), Kutup Ayisi (uuid = 1153496).
Abusing signature/bounty campaigns.

This is ~1.7k characters. Maybe add another step (e.g. after X rank and Y merit increase limit to 4-5k characters).

[cryptohunter]

OK, new limits:
 - You can't give more than 5 ratings to a single user.

Excellent.

- Your total sent ratings is limited to three times your activity, but at least 1.

Pro: New accounts can't go on insane spam trips.
Con: Could hit rating. ~2100*3 = 6300. I'm at ~4k sent now.

This is a valid point raised by lauda.

Perhaps in  your case best to revise 2100/2101 - theymos can you take care of that for asap in the interest of the entire forum.

Imagine the damage another 2k + red to persons telling the truth about you can do to the forum

[qwk]

Well just the ones that do not conform to the new standards. I suspect he will re apply those in a more sensible/accurate manner soon.

No, that was a clear case of trust spam. 200+ very similar ratings with many against the same users over and over again. He's banned for 14 days.

Fair enough.. it was perhaps an extreme way of presenting his objection.
But surely  he will be allowed to replace some of the red trust within the new conditions you have set.
It was the manner/ format and extreme nature of presenting his message that got him banned ... am I correct?

Being banned for 14 days means just that.
After 14 days, he's welcome to come back and post new negative feedback on my profile.

I wonder if there is some "content" that you could post in a trust rating that would obviously not be allowed.
Death threats come to mind, so that's probably something that will lead to ratings being deleted.
Anything else is probably more or less fine