Suggestion: length limitation to trust ratings

[qwk]

- 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.

That's obviously a real problem.
A limit tied to activity will prevent "youngsters" from becoming spam cops.
I guess theymos should be able to apply a manual override of the limitations when needed, though.

[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.

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

I was not aware this was on your own profile.

However, your latest red trusting of a vip member without proving it is hacked is going to I'm sure result in some tags. That does not look like a clear cut hacked account at all. Neutral should be enough to relay the message you believe it "could" be under new control.

Also the inclusions you have made on DT raises some eyebrows from several members.

Yes of course death threats and clear hate crimes are not allowed. Those things are actually illegal are they not?  the forums rules are the last thing you would worry about if you were posting those threats.

Anyway thanks for answer. The only way to abuse the trust system currently is spamming it or death threats.

I hope we can improve this in the future so that it is more about trust and something people can use as an indication before starting a trade.

I mean it is feasible that theymos wants everyone to have some red so that all traders are terrified of trading and take all possible precautions with every trade regardless of who it is.  That could be a smart move to stop scammers but still it will result in people who feel wronged (rightly so from a moralistic pov) going ballistic when they first spot their red .

[qwk]

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

I was not aware this was on your own profile.

It wasn't. I've complained in this thread that mine was shorter and I somehow felt "less hung"

However, your latest red trusting of a vip member without proving it is hacked
[...]
Also the inclusions you have made on DT raises some eyebrows from several members.

Completely off-topic here.

Yes of course death threats and clear hate crimes are not allowed.
Those things are actually illegal are they not?

I guess that depends upon the jurisdiction of the poster and "postee".

The only way to abuse the trust system currently is spamming it or death threats.

If by "abusing" you mean abuse in a way that's likely to be moderated, yes, that seems to be the case.

I mean it is feasible that theymos wants everyone to have some red so that all traders are terrified of trading and take all possible precautions with every trade regardless of who it is.

I consider that a viable alternative to "trust by default" or "innocent until proven guilty".
We're not talking of hard sanctions here, after all.
Being flagged "red" on an online forum doesn't really do much more than hurt your feelings, so we don't have to apply the same standards as in court.

That could be a smart move to stop scammers but still it will result in people who feel wronged (rightly so from a moralistic pov) going ballistic when they first spot their red .

Weighing the possible alternatives, i.e. more people being scammed or more people "going ballistic", I prefer the latter.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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

If this isn't changed, then simply start a locked thread in archival where you post the list of linked accounts and include a link to relevant post in the feedback.

Anything else is probably more or less fine

There was a guy just a few weeks ago (I forget the name and would have no desire to link to him even if I remembered) who was leaving trust ratings with blatantly NSFW pages as reference links.

[Lafu]

He's banned for 14 days.
These new restrictions are not retroactive.

Thanks for getting on this case.
So if he comes back after the 14 days ban and doing that again he get an perma Ban ?

[Lauda]

- 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.

That's obviously a real problem.
A limit tied to activity will prevent "youngsters" from becoming spam cops.
I guess theymos should be able to apply a manual override of the limitations when needed, though.

I think the limit is fair enough for newcommers (unless of course they are "new" with an alt account). You really won't end up tagging activityInOneYear * 3 users so quickly.

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

If this isn't changed, then simply start a locked thread in archival where you post the list of linked accounts and include a link to relevant post in the feedback.

In my experience describing it in the format that I've quoted is much better. We already link to the reference post or thread; if this remains unchanged then there will be somewhat of a generalization of abuse (e.g. "many alt accounts" for users that used 30 and those that used 60 - which is twice the abuse).

[r1s2g3]

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.

Can "Edit" option also given in trust feedback. Currently it is only "Delete".  If something got missed then no need to delete and rewrite again, just edit it.

[coinlocket$]

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.

Can the three times activity be increased maybe with the rank?

Some people are near to the cap https://bpip.org/r/trustsent.aspx

[theymos]

For feedback longer than the 600 characters, I prefer that you consolidate it into posts somewhere. Even if the comments are good, long comments kind of monopolize the page.

Can the three times activity be increased maybe with the rank?

Some people are near to the cap https://bpip.org/r/trustsent.aspx

If anyone runs into it and thinks that they should be allowed to continue, PM me and I'll think about the issue more. I could whitelist certain individuals, or I could make it expand significantly at higher ranks.

[coinlocket$]

what about spamming the same feedback? 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2156763

[LoyceV]

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

I have a request @theymos: can you allow 600 characters and up to 5 lines (4 newlines)?
I was trying to leave this feedback:

Code:

1KHjCMDrFxXiDpFnkd3wEuG8oeDcFQvQkY
Account KWH will no longer be active. Any activity or email address change will not be the original owner. 01/30/2019
H6cmG+3OorZd6m1LGCuY1Dfkds24IWbzk/yBA77do83JK0zuIHuiMiaw4tnQN9Uhj9A0AseXtluxgKit5DximCQ=
Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108406.0

This was too long. I had already used the "Reference link field" for another link (see here), but couldn't add the last line to my feedback.

And while you're at it: can you make "Comments:" field a lot less high? It now gives the impression you can post 15 lines.

[LoyceV]

Bumping for my request above
I ran into this limitation again today. I have to choose beetween a decent layout, or all the characters I want.