Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2019, 01:52:29 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: What will happen with deceased DT members' feedback?  (Read 534 times)
iasenko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 961


#FreeAssange


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 11:10:10 AM
Last edit: April 09, 2019, 07:45:00 PM by iasenko
Merited by suchmoon (9), Welsh (5), Foxpup (4), dbshck (4), joniboini (3), bones261 (2), LoyceV (2), akamit (1), DdmrDdmr (1)
 #1

It's not the most pleasant subject to talk about but still comes as an issue.

After the sad news that we lost one more valuable member of our community, some of the ratings left from a DT2 member can no longer be changed.

Late example is this thread .

Typical case of a hacked account, the real owner signed a message from his old posted address, some DT members tagged the account and now after the new recovery system is working very well, the account was recovered back to the original owner.

After the recovery all of the negative ratings were removed except one, the one from Zepher (rest in peace buddy).
See here :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=147307

Zepher's trust list > http://loyce.club/trust/2019-04-06_Sat_20.17h/369879.html

I don't think Zepher will ever be able to remove the negative rating. Instead some DT members left a positive ratings to counter the negative one.
Still I don't think this is the best solution. I guess the admins should remove such obvious ratings, as here is no doubt that Zepher would remove it if he could.

What you think people?

1558403549
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558403549

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558403549
Reply with quote  #2

1558403549
Report to moderator
1558403549
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558403549

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558403549
Reply with quote  #2

1558403549
Report to moderator
Crypto Casino Since 2014
Level Up & Get Even More Rewards!
Daily Treasure Chest
& Much More
Roll Hunt
Rakeback
Blackjack
Jackpot
Dice
Slots
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
o_e_l_e_o
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 1906



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:38:12 AM
Merited by dbshck (4), joniboini (2), owlcatz (1)
 #2

It is clear from the link you included to Loyce's site that many users, including many DT1 users, value Zepher's feedback. Just because an account is inactive (for any reason), it does not invalidate all the previous feedback they have left. I think in this case it should simply be a case of an admin deleting that single, no longer accurate feedback.

CryptopreneurBrainboss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 475


Succeeding is all about determination, work harder


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 11:41:00 AM
 #3

I think the best option was the counter positive feedback as this isn't a critical situation that theymos has to step in. Him doing so in such a minor situation might open a reason for more individuals (you know those I'm taking about) to appeal for their negative feedback to be removed too. I think the only time theymos has to step in is when the feedbacks can soiled the users reputation outside forum and it's a false feedback resulting to arrest or government intervention. If a counter positive feedback can do the trick I see no reason why admin has to be involved.

█▀▀█
██▄█
BESTMIXER.IO // BEST BITCOIN MIXER
█▀▀█
██▄█
Coolcryptovator
Copper Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 717


Keeping merit yourself doesn't benefit u. Spend it


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 12:20:37 PM
 #4

On this special case theymos can help, but it look like trust moderation. Perhaps more people's will claim to admin for remove feedback's in near future. So counter feedback's is appropriate in my opinions. I don't think admin should involve with this kind of case. After many case will raise up. I believe this kind of case will found very rare, so it's possible to resolved by counter feedback's.

███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
#1
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
BTC 
  ●
   BTC
  BTC  
.
    ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀
 ▄██▀
███        ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄
▀███▄▄▄▄▀▀▀                 ▀▀▄▄
  ▀▀▀██████████████████████████▀
   ▄█▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
    ▀▀██▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
      ▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
      ▀██▄  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
        ▀█▀██████████████▀▀
         ▀█▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
            █▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀
             ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
     BTC
  BTC   
  ●
  BTC  
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
███████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
███████████
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 3801


Self-made Legendary outside Meta!


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 12:57:04 PM
 #5

I think in this case it should simply be a case of an admin deleting that single, no longer accurate feedback.
Agreed.
Short-term, it would be good if Admin can remove the feedback.
Long-term, and I'm thinking years here, I expect the number of inclusions to drop. Until then, keeping him in their Trust list seems like the least users can do to honour his memory. If Admin can intervene by removing the unwarranted feedback, users can keep him in their Trust lists longer.

Jet Cash
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1643


TEMP and VOM member and monderator.


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 01:07:32 PM
 #6

I added a positive as well. Perhaps we could have an alert if/when these should be removed.

The Jet Cash coffee lounge in the Ivory Tower has had some good relaxing chat recently, just what you would expect.
We need some girls to brighten the conversation though.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 3194


Pedal-powered snitch


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 01:51:51 PM
Merited by bones261 (2)
 #7

I think the best option was the counter positive feedback as this isn't a critical situation that theymos has to step in. Him doing so in such a minor situation might open a reason for more individuals (you know those I'm taking about) to appeal for their negative feedback to be removed too. I think the only time theymos has to step in is when the feedbacks can soiled the users reputation outside forum and it's a false feedback resulting to arrest or government intervention. If a counter positive feedback can do the trick I see no reason why admin has to be involved.

I wouldn't call it minor nor do I think that someone would be able to take advantage of it.

At any rate, I had doubled-up Zepher's ratings a while ago due to Og excluding him from DT2 so even if someone else would successfully appeal Zepher's neg it wouldn't matter and I'm sure other DT members would evaluate the situation as well. I'd say theymos should remove this one.

erikalui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1048


Free Crypto in Stake.com Telegram t.me/StakeCasino


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 03:10:30 PM
 #8

I don't think one-two negative feedback matters so much till some other DT members can give the member a counter positive feedback. It was sad to know one DT member passed away but thinking about his wrong/right feedback doesn't sound good. The admin shouldn't be asked for such small things that don't really make a difference for the user who can trade with the counter feedback freely.

The Pharmacist
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512
Merit: 2905



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 03:18:36 PM
Merited by Welsh (5), Foxpup (2)
 #9

In general I think if a DT member dies, his trust is still valid and I don't see a reason why it should be deleted.  The only exceptions to this are cases where someone might have successfully appealed the neg.  For example, if I suddenly died and one of the members I'd tagged for account selling had somehow turned into an extremely trusted member, then my feedback should be removed.  That's the kind of case which would have resulted in a successful appeal for me to remove it.

What happens when a DT member dies and no one knows about the death?  If it's a DT1 member, the lack of activity would remove the DT1 weight of the feedback, but he'd still be DT2 if I'm not mistaken.  It's a valid issue since a lot of members here don't really know each other and wouldn't really be aware that someone died.  Zepher was an exceptional case because he was active in a tight community like the collectibles one, but for a typical scam-tagging DT member?  It's not very likely someone would become aware of their passing IMO.

Jet Cash
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1643


TEMP and VOM member and monderator.


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 03:24:17 PM
 #10

The death of members is quite a serious problem, and not just for DT issues. My partner uses a Chromebook for emails and watching history, health and cooking videos on You Tube, but she has no idea how to recover my Bitcoin in the event of my death. Maybe we could start a trusted members club to help in these situations.

The Jet Cash coffee lounge in the Ivory Tower has had some good relaxing chat recently, just what you would expect.
We need some girls to brighten the conversation though.
o_e_l_e_o
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 1906



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 03:37:01 PM
Last edit: April 09, 2019, 03:59:55 PM by o_e_l_e_o
Merited by bones261 (2), LoyceV (1)
 #11

If it's a DT1 member, the lack of activity would remove the DT1 weight of the feedback, but he'd still be DT2 if I'm not mistaken.
This is correct. I can think of many reasons, ranging from everything from physical or mental health to various life events or circumstances, which would make an account suddenly become permanently inactive. As you say, if you or I disappeared from the forum tomorrow, it is highly unlikely that any other user would ever know why.

There are three potential solutions which I can see:
1 - All feedbacks are left as is, and the user has to be excluded from DT or have their ratings countered if not appropriate
2 - The community discuss and petition the admin to remove the inappropriate rating, while leaving all the other accurate ratings, as we are doing here
3 - There is a recent active requirement for you to be added to DT2 - much like you must have been active in the previous 3 days to become DT1, perhaps you have to have been active in the last 6 months to appear on DT2. This would not prevent users from adding the user in question to their own personal trust list, just that their ratings would not show up in DT.

Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1559


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 04:16:26 PM
Merited by Welsh (3)
 #12

In general I think if a DT member dies, his trust is still valid and I don't see a reason why it should be deleted.  The only exceptions to this are cases where someone might have successfully appealed the neg.  For example, if I suddenly died and one of the members I'd tagged for account selling had somehow turned into an extremely trusted member, then my feedback should be removed.  That's the kind of case which would have resulted in a successful appeal for me to remove it.

Your trust ratings are based on your judgement of what is deserving of a tag. Your judgment is subject to change over time as you gain additional insight and experience. You may leave a rating today that you would disagree with in the future. There is no universal criterion for what deserves a rating (this is part of a larger problem with the trust system, but that is another discussion).

The question ultimately is who gets to decide if someone’s appeal to have a rating removed is successful? If you are around, then the answer is you, and this is based on your judgment. If you are not here because you passed away, are retired from the forum, or otherwise, then the decision becomes complicated. If someone else, or a group of people gets to decide then those who have you on their trust lists may not trust the judgment of this group of people. If you are alive but are (temporarily) away from the forum, perhaps unexpectedly, you might not agree with the decision of whoever decides the appeal, and if the rating is removed and you disagree then adding it back on would be controversial.

My suggestion would be to treat this as if someone will not remove a particular rating. If this means you take any particular action, or don’t take any particular actions, I would do the same in this case.

NOTBanned from displaying signatures until May 20, 2022, 11:26:45 PM
Don’t Plagiarize, it’s dishonest and you *will* get caught
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1535


My hat is in storage. https://ibb.co/YLkPgXb


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 04:28:50 PM
Merited by o_e_l_e_o (1), DdmrDdmr (1)
 #13

My suggestion would be to treat this as if someone will not remove a particular rating. If this means you take any particular action, or don’t take any particular actions, I would do the same in this case.

In this particular case, Zepher had already made his intentions clear.

Signed messages are valid.



@OP - I have tagged your account with a temporary negative rating until such time as you regain access to it.

Once you do, shoot me a PM from both this account, the hacked account, along with a link to this thread, and I will happily remove the rating.

Cheers

I have already advised the particular member to contact theymos to see if he will remove Zepher's negative rating since the original owner recovered his account. I hope this does come to theymos' attention and the negative trust is removed since Jet Cash's and my counter rating are only patches, and does not help restore the person's account to the trust score that they deserve.

......
.L I V E C O I N . N E T.
.
..PROFITBOX..
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
█████████████▄  ▄████████████
    █████████████████████████
  ██████████▀    ▀█ ▀████████
████  █████▀  ▄▄  ▀█  ▀██████
  ████████▀  ▄██▄  ▀█   ▀████
    ██████   ▀██▀   ██   ████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
██  █████████▄  ▄████████████
  ███████████████████████████
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████████████████▀ ███
█████████████████████▀   ███
    █████████████▀     ████
  █████████████▀   ██    ████
████  █████▀     ██    ████
  ███████▀   ██    ██    ████
    █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████    ██    ██    ████
██  █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████████████████████████
.....
Harlot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 594



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 05:31:48 PM
 #14

On cases like this I think its possible for you to call the attention of theymos. On SwingFirst's case I think we can already confirm that it is in the hands of the owner himself and the only thing left is the negative trust given by Zepher. Manually removing the trust might be more challenging compared to removing Zepher's DT status so SwingFirst really need to ask theymos for assistance on this part.

TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 1286


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 05:34:59 PM
 #15

In my opinion changing ratings for inactive accounts is a rabbit hole we do not want to go down and will inevitably create more avenues for manipulation and abuse. I think that if a user is trusted, they should appeal to other users to leave them positive ratings to counteract the negative rating, specifically noting the situation at hand with a referenced thread. This should rectify the situation to a large degree.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1535


My hat is in storage. https://ibb.co/YLkPgXb


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 05:59:19 PM
Merited by Welsh (6)
 #16

In my opinion changing ratings for inactive accounts is a rabbit hole we do not want to go down and will inevitably create more avenues for manipulation and abuse. I think that if a user is trusted, they should appeal to other users to leave them positive ratings to counteract the negative rating, specifically noting the situation at hand with a referenced thread. This should rectify the situation to a large degree.

Unfortunately, the way that the trust score is tabulated, it is not fair to SwingFirst. He has 3 positive comments, followed by Zepher's negative, followed by Jet Cash's and my counter trust. SwingFast's current score is 1 when it should be 30. This is an exception case; however, since we know Zepher is dead and Zepher made it clear what his intentions were in a post when he left the negative rating.
What makes it worse is that each unique positive rating that SwingFirst receives from now on will only add 1 point to his trust score instead of slowly counting up to 10 points toward his trust score.

If you assume that you have no negative ratings then it is easy. Only ratings from people who are in your trust network are taken into consideration. For each person/account that gives you positive trust you get one trust point (the number on the very left) for each month since that account left you the first positive rating with a maximum of 10 trust points from each person.

The second number is the number of people who have given you negative trust.

The third number is the number of people who have given you positive trust.

If the last rating is your first negative rating then the highest score you can have is three question marks. The number of negative ratings you have, to the power of two is the number of trust points that are removed from your trust score (so if you have two negative ratings then 22 trust points are subtracted from your trust score, and if you have four negative trust ratings then you have 24 trust points removed from your trust score). If you have more unique positive trust ratings then the number of negative trust points that your negative trust removes, then your trust score is the number of unique positive trust ratings since your first negative rating minus the number of negative trust ratings.

I believe the above accurately explains it, however the code is below:

Code:
if there are no negative ratings
score = 0
for each rating, oldest to newest
if this rater has already been counted
continue
score += min(10, round_up(months since rating))
else
score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
if score >= 0
start_time = time of first negative
score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time
if(score < 0)
return ??? (orange)

move score to range [-9999,9999]
return score

This algorithm is

......
.L I V E C O I N . N E T.
.
..PROFITBOX..
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
█████████████▄  ▄████████████
    █████████████████████████
  ██████████▀    ▀█ ▀████████
████  █████▀  ▄▄  ▀█  ▀██████
  ████████▀  ▄██▄  ▀█   ▀████
    ██████   ▀██▀   ██   ████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
██  █████████▄  ▄████████████
  ███████████████████████████
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████████████████▀ ███
█████████████████████▀   ███
    █████████████▀     ████
  █████████████▀   ██    ████
████  █████▀     ██    ████
  ███████▀   ██    ██    ████
    █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████    ██    ██    ████
██  █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████████████████████████
.....
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 1286


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 06:30:18 PM
 #17

In my opinion changing ratings for inactive accounts is a rabbit hole we do not want to go down and will inevitably create more avenues for manipulation and abuse. I think that if a user is trusted, they should appeal to other users to leave them positive ratings to counteract the negative rating, specifically noting the situation at hand with a referenced thread. This should rectify the situation to a large degree.

Unfortunately, the way that the trust score is tabulated, it is not fair to SwingFirst. He has 3 positive comments, followed by Zepher's negative, followed by Jet Cash's and my counter trust. SwingFast's current score is 1 when it should be 30. This is an exception case; however, since we know Zepher is dead and Zepher made it clear what his intentions were in a post when he left the negative rating.
What makes it worse is that each unique positive rating that SwingFirst receives from now on will only add 1 point to his trust score instead of slowly counting up to 10 points toward his trust score.

Not fair according to who? Why is it the entire community now has to suffer a potential exploit because this individual user did not secure their account correctly? Yes it sucks, but if there are not standards then it is a continual never ending slow creep toward abuse. SwingFast made a mistake, they should bear the responsibility for it, not pass it on to the community as a whole.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1559


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 06:31:26 PM
 #18

Quote from: bones261

^^I am not 100% sure that is the most up to date information, although I don’t recall it being any different than what I posted.

The above is why I don’t think it is appropriate to simply add positive ratings to counter the negative. My suggestion is to act as if he will not remove the rating, which technically is true (absent action from theymos).
What specifically should be done when someone leaves up an inaccurate rating is up for debate. However my opinion is they should not be in the DT network and if they have left other good/accurate ratings, then others can review the ratings and echo them if they feel it is appropriate.

This wouldn’t apply in this case, but if they leave additional negative ratings that others deem accurate they can also be echoed.

NOTBanned from displaying signatures until May 20, 2022, 11:26:45 PM
Don’t Plagiarize, it’s dishonest and you *will* get caught
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 1286


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 06:45:00 PM
 #19

Quote from: bones261
However my opinion is they should not be in the DT network and if they have left other good/accurate ratings, then others can review the ratings and echo them if they feel it is appropriate.

This is also a viable solution to this issue without playing the game of moderating trust ratings from the top down.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1535


My hat is in storage. https://ibb.co/YLkPgXb


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 07:53:10 PM
 #20


Not fair according to who? Why is it the entire community now has to suffer a potential exploit because this individual user did not secure their account correctly? Yes it sucks, but if there are not standards then it is a continual never ending slow creep toward abuse. SwingFast made a mistake, they should bear the responsibility for it, not pass it on to the community as a whole.

     If this was a normal case, everyone who had left the negative rating for the account being hacked would have removed the negative rating because it no longer applies. However, Zepher is dead, so that is just not possible at all. Sure SwingFirst's probably made a small mistake, but why should he not be restored to whole while someone else who made similar mistakes gets to get their account made whole. It isn't SwingFirst's fault that Zepher died. SwingFirst's getting restored back to whole as much as possible is the very definition of "fair."
    Personally, I don't have Zepher on my trust list. However, I'm not going to ask 19 DT1 members to remove him either.

......
.L I V E C O I N . N E T.
.
..PROFITBOX..
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
█████████████▄  ▄████████████
    █████████████████████████
  ██████████▀    ▀█ ▀████████
████  █████▀  ▄▄  ▀█  ▀██████
  ████████▀  ▄██▄  ▀█   ▀████
    ██████   ▀██▀   ██   ████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
██  █████████▄  ▄████████████
  ███████████████████████████
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████████████████▀ ███
█████████████████████▀   ███
    █████████████▀     ████
  █████████████▀   ██    ████
████  █████▀     ██    ████
  ███████▀   ██    ██    ████
    █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████    ██    ██    ████
██  █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████████████████████████
.....
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!