Trust Selfscratchers: how every DT1 user changes their own trust

[EcuaMobi]

Today LoyceV posted a thread about "Trust Selfscratcher": "someone who received positive feedback from a user, and has included said user on his Trust list".

This is especially important when 2 conditions are met:

• The user who makes the inclusions is DT1
• No other DT1 user made the same inclusion

In this cases the DT1 is effectively changing their own trust by making those inclusions, either on purpose or otherwise.

o_e_l_e_o asked LoyceV to publish how DT1 users are really modifying their own trust. I was going to ask the same thing, but I read LoyceV said no.... So, I decided to publish this list myself.

Some important notes:

• I have included every DT1 user on LoyceV's top 40
• I have also considered excluded DT1 users, that is they're here but are not on DT1 because other DT1 users excluded them
• For DT1 users I am comparing their DT trust vs the trust they would have if they weren't DT1
• For excluded DT1 users I am comparing their DT trust vs the trust they would have if they were DT1
• This is done manually. I had to use a new account with DT settings and check everyone's trust. Then I re-checked the trust after excluding that specific DT1 user (or including them if it's an excluded DT1 user)
• I've doubled checked but because this is manual I may have made some mistakes. Let me know if you find anything is wrong

User	DT trust	Trust without their influence*	Difference (unique users)
Dabs	410: -0 / +42	50: -0 / +6	36
greenplastic	437: -0 / +47	370: -0 / +40	7
minerjones	926: -0 / +102	926: -0 / +102	0
BitcoinPenny	379: -0 / +41	369: -0 / +40	1
anonymousminer	167: -0 / +25	73: -0 / +12	13
buckrogers	254: -0 / +26	134: -0 / +14	12
TMAN	238: -0 / +26	238: -0 / +26	0
hedgy73	250: -0 / +25	220: -0 / +22	3
ezeminer	214: -0 / +22	214: -0 / +22	0
Lafu	49: -0 / +6	29: -0 / +4	2
Hhampuz	373: -0 / +47	372: -0 / +46	1
monkeynuts	280: -0 / +28	260: -0 / +26	2
bill gator	0: -1 / +15	0: -1 / +15	0
dazedfool	222: -0 / +28	222: -0 / +28	0
Anduck	3: -1 / +18	3: -1 / +17	1
owlcatz	366: -0 / +39	376: -0 / +40	-1
SebastianJu	253: -0 / +26	220: -0 / +22	4
vizique	242: -0 / +27	242: -0 / +27	0
Lauda	303: -0 / +31	303: -0 / +31	0
LFC_Bitcoin	60: -0 / +10	30: -0 / +6	4
yogg	199: -0 / +25	199: -0 / +25	0
DarkStar_	268: -0 / +32	275: -0 / +33	-1
The Pharmacist	182: -0 / +22	182: -0 / +22	0
qwk	130: -0 / +15	130: -0 / +15	0
Lesbian Cow	331: -0 / +37	331: -0 / +37	0
TheNewAnon135246	258: -0 / +27	258: -0 / +27	0
krogothmanhattan	437: -0 / +53	437: -0 / +53	0
phantastisch	119: -0 / +12	69: -0 / +7	5
hybridsole	192: -0 / +20	192: -0 / +20	0
Ticked	258: -0 / +28	218: -0 / +23	5
gmaxwell	140: -0 / +14	110: -0 / +11	3
Kryptowerk	140: -0 / +24	140: -0 / +24	0
Vod	1: -2 / +27	1: -2 / +26	1
suchmoon	69: -0 / +11	79: -0 / +12	-1
ICOEthics	58: -0 / +14	58: -0 / +14	0
Avirunes	85: -0 / +10	85: -0 / +10	0
EcuaMobi	164: -0 / +17	164: -0 / +17	0
Mitchell	370: -0 / +37	370: -0 / +37	0
lovesmayfamilis	9: -0 / +5	7: -0 / +4	1
philipma1957	208: -0 / +21	188: -0 / +19	2
OgNasty	21: -6 / +64	23: -6 / +73*	9
TECSHARE	284: -0 / +30	356: -0 / +38*	8
willi9974	43: -0 / +5	201: -0 / +21*	16
zazarb	???: -1 / +23	???: -1 / +39*	16
HostFat	0: -0 / +0	40: -0 / +4*	4

*Excluded DT1 users. The third column shows the trust they would have if they weren't excluded.

Edit:
I made a mistake calculating these numbers for excluded DT1 users. Thanks LoyceV for noticing this. This is now fixed by using a second account.


The users who have modified their own trust the most (or would modify their own trust the most if they weren't excluded) are:

Dabs: 36 unique users, up to 360 extra trust points
zazarb: 16 unique users, up to 160 extra trust points
willi9974: 16 unique users, up to 160 extra trust points
anonymousminer: 13 unique users, up to 130 extra trust points
buckrogers: 12 unique users, up to 120 extra trust points
OgNasty: 9 unique users, up to 90 extra trust points
TECSHARE: 8 unique users, up to 80 extra trust points
greenplastic: 7 unique users, up to 70 extra trust points

[1715021642]

1715021642

[1715021642]

1715021642

[1715021642]

1715021642

[1715021642]

1715021642

[1715021642]

1715021642

[TheNewAnon135246]

Seeing some interesting things in your list, thanks for sharing!

[DireWolfM14]

That's not right.  I understand if some users may not get how the trust list is supposed to work, but most of these people have been around long enough to know better.  I already had a couple of these folks excluded, and now I'll be adding a couple more.  It's nothing personal, just that I'm not satisfied with the way they are using their trust list.

[Quickseller]

I don’t think a persons numerical trust score is a very good indicator of ones trustworthiness.

There are a number of people in your list who haven’t been trusted with more than a few hundred dollars of others’ money, if anything at all. I also believe some people haven’t even traded at all around here. Both with many positive ratings.

Re: the concerns in the OP. If you trade or interact with a person, you have the opportunity to gauge their integrity, and ability to act fairly, both of which should be considered when deciding to add someone to your trust list. IMO, having a large number might be a reason to look into the DT1 member further, but is not necessarily automatically a problem.

I also think there are other issues of groups of people all adding a similar group of people to their trust lists, when they are affiliated with each other. 

[LoyceV]

Thanks for continuing the list while I was watching TV

*Excluded DT1 users. The third column shows the trust they would have if they weren't excluded.

You can't "blame" the excluded DT1s (entirely) for this based on my data. Take OgNasty for example: you say he'll have positive feedback from 47 more unique users, but he has only included 39 users who left him positive feedback, so that can't be right.

When you exclude someone to see the difference, you see the differences on DT2.
However, when you include someone, you put him at Depth 0, and you see not only his Depth 1 (which would be DT2 if the user is on DT1), but also his Depth 2 (which would be DT3 if the user is on DT1).
So for the excluded DT1 users, you're effectively comparing their "would be" Trust score to DT3 instead of DT2.

(I made a Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for all users to see the large recursive implications inclusions have.

[EcuaMobi]

When you exclude someone to see the difference, you see the differences on DT2.
However, when you include someone, you put him at Depth 0, and you see not only his Depth 1 (which would be DT2 if the user is on DT1), but also his Depth 2 (which would be DT3 if the user is on DT1).
So for the excluded DT1 users, you're effectively comparing their "would be" Trust score to DT3 instead of DT2.

You're absolutely right. My bad.
What would be the right way to do it? Add the user (i.e. OgNasty) into the trust list on one account and then use a second account to add the first one into the trust list so that OgNasty goes down one level, right?
If I do that I get these numbers for him: 23: -6 / +73

Edit: I've updated OP with this recalculation.

[TECSHARE]

Thanks for continuing the list while I was watching TV

*Excluded DT1 users. The third column shows the trust they would have if they weren't excluded.

You can't "blame" the excluded DT1s (entirely) for this based on my data. Take OgNasty for example: you say he'll have positive feedback from 47 more unique users, but he has only included 39 users who left him positive feedback, so that can't be right.

When you exclude someone to see the difference, you see the differences on DT2.
However, when you include someone, you put him at Depth 0, and you see not only his Depth 1 (which would be DT2 if the user is on DT1), but also his Depth 2 (which would be DT3 if the user is on DT1).
So for the excluded DT1 users, you're effectively comparing their "would be" Trust score to DT3 instead of DT2.

(I made a Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for all users to see the large recursive implications inclusions have.

Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW? Of course Loyce's list didn't include your favorite targets so, you made sure they were included and featured for their crimes.

I am sure none of this has anything to to with people criticizing your exceptionally abusive pals atop the DT list. Of course every one knows after being around almost a decade and being trusted with thousands in value trading with hundreds of users and still ranking below known con artists, abusers, and people I have never even heard of before is clear manipulation on my part

[EcuaMobi]

Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW?

No. You're wrong. Trust list is designed to "List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line" (source).

Of course Loyce's list didn't include your favorite targets so, you made sure they were included and featured for their crimes.

I think this shows potential abuse and/or ignorance on how the list works. I'm not targeting anybody. I've listed the ones who modified the most their own trust, either intentionally or not.

I am sure none of this has anything to to with people criticizing your exceptionally abusive pals atop the DT list

You're delusional. The people you acuse are not my "pals" (we just agree OgNasty and you aren't fit for DT1, among very few other things). I'm not commenting about who is abusive. That discussion is senseless and I prefer to avoid it. Do not interact with me about that. I won't reply to you regarding this anymore.

Of course every one knows after being around almost a decade and being trusted with thousands in value trading with hundreds of users and still ranking below known con artists, abusers, and people I have never even heard of before is clear manipulation on my part

Trust is not the same as trust list. Again, you're wrong and/or delusional. It's really impossible to have a proper conversation with you so I prefer not to.
I'll reply to you only if you post objectively, without sarcasm or attacks.

[TECSHARE]

Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW?

No. You're wrong. Trust list is designed to "List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line" (source).

Of course Loyce's list didn't include your favorite targets so, you made sure they were included and featured for their crimes.

I think this shows potential abuse and/or ignorance on how the list works. I'm not targeting anybody. I've listed the ones who modified the most their own trust, either intentionally or not.

I am sure none of this has anything to to with people criticizing your exceptionally abusive pals atop the DT list

You're delusional. The people you acuse are not my "pals". I'm not commenting about who is abusive. That discussion is senseless and I prefer to avoid it. Do not interact with me about that. I won't reply to you regarding this anymore.

Of course every one knows after being around almost a decade and being trusted with thousands in value trading with hundreds of users and still ranking below known con artists, abusers, and people I have never even heard of before is clear manipulation on my part

Trust is not the same as trust list. Again, you're wrong and/or delusional. It's really impossible to have a proper conversation with you so I prefer not to.
I'll reply to you only if you post objectively, without sarcasm or attacks.

That is what the quote says yes, but who told you you get to define for me by what metric I make that choice? People build trust in all kinds of different ways. I guess only your metrics matter and mine are all wrong.

No, you aren't targeting anyone, especially the ones who would cause you issues right? Don't interact with you regarding that? How convenient you just get to summarily outlaw any kind discussion of VERY related subject matter because you prefer to avoid it. You are really on DT1 when you take that kind of attitude towards conflict? Just ignore it it will go away right? What ever you say your highness.

[EcuaMobi]

That is what the quote says yes, but who told you you get to define for me by what metric I make that choice? People build trust in all kinds of different ways.

I haven't told you anything regarding what metric to use. I listed the users who have modified their own trust the most. The more their own trust is modified, the more likely it is that's a main factor for them for adding a someone as DT2.
As I've said before, a good solution for this would be:

If a DT2 member is added only by one DT1 user and the former left positive trust to the later then it should not appear as trusted on the DT1's profile.

So in practice the DT1's default trust should not be affected by changes made by that DT1 user to their trust list.

No, you aren't targeting anyone, especially the ones who would cause you issues right?

Right. I'm not targeting anybody except those who have modified their own trust the most; mainly Dabs, zazarb, willi9974, anonymousminer and buckrogers. Hopefully they will improve their lists.

Don't interact with you regarding that?

Regarding assumptions mainly. Only discuss with me with facts because you make too many and too wrong assumptions.
If you (again) make a wrong assumption and attack me based on that then don't expect me to reply.

You are really on DT1 when you take that kind of attitude towards conflict? Just ignore it it will go away right?

I only ignore discussions that are useless. For example the latest discussions that have been everywhere have consisted mainly on assumptions, accusations and insults. Why would I get involved?
If somebody (anybody) writes with facts and looks for solutions then I won't have any issues actively discussing, even if we don't agree.

Now, let's get back on topic.

[TECSHARE]

Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW?

No. You're wrong. Trust list is designed to "List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line" (source).

That is what the quote says yes, but who told you you get to define for me by what metric I make that choice? People build trust in all kinds of different ways.

No, you are just assuming values of a metric while not totally understanding the various reasons that metric might be the way it is. My point was this is something that would result as a standard trading marketplace behavior where trust often has to go both ways. Through building that trust, as the system was actually intended to do, you are then more likely to understand the user and their interactions increasing their chances of being trustworthy. But as you put it I am wrong, and by default you are right and your highness is above such discussions of their relations to the actual social dynamics of the forum relating to trust lists. You have fun with your finger wagging.

[EcuaMobi]

No, you are just assuming values of a metric while not totally understanding the various reasons that metric might be the way it is. My point was this is something that would result as a standard trading marketplace behavior where trust often has to go both ways. Through building that trust, as the system was actually intended to do, you are then more likely to understand the user and their interactions increasing their chances of being trustworthy.

When you add somebody to your trust list, it doesn't mean you (just) trust somebody with money. It means you trust they will leave proper feedback and will add the right users to their own trust list.
If you'd trust somebody with money then leave positive trust. I'm just reading what I quoted. It's very clear.
Probably we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

But as you put it I am wrong, and by default you are right and your highness is above such discussions of their relations to the actual social dynamics of the forum relating to trust lists. You have fun with your finger wagging.

This kind of useless words are the ones I ask you to avoid using to interact with me and the ones I tend to ignore. I hope it's clear now.

Edit:
Or this useless rhetorical question:

Critical thinking exercise. If you teamed up with other DT members to manipulate the trust network, would your difference rating be shown here as higher or lower than average?

[OgNasty]

Critical thinking exercise. If you teamed up with other DT members to manipulate the trust network, would your difference rating be shown here as higher or lower than average?

[TECSHARE]

No, you are just assuming values of a metric while not totally understanding the various reasons that metric might be the way it is. My point was this is something that would result as a standard trading marketplace behavior where trust often has to go both ways. Through building that trust, as the system was actually intended to do, you are then more likely to understand the user and their interactions increasing their chances of being trustworthy.

When you add somebody to your trust list, it doesn't mean you (just) trust somebody with money. It means you trust they will leave proper feedback and will add the right users to their own trust list.
If you'd trust somebody with money then leave positive trust. I'm just reading what I quoted. It's very clear.
Probably we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

But as you put it I am wrong, and by default you are right and your highness is above such discussions of their relations to the actual social dynamics of the forum relating to trust lists. You have fun with your finger wagging.

This kind of useless words are the ones I ask you to avoid using to interact with me and the ones I tend to ignore. I hope it's clear now.

Again, you are only interested in your own definitions for what trust is and how it should be decided and totally ignoring the reality that some times (but not always) if some one is reputable in trade, that is to say they do what they say they will do when money is involved, it is representative of their ability to leave honest ratings. By you pretending this is invalid and wrong, yes, you are precisely telling me which metrics I should use to gauge trust and applying moral values to them. Keep wagging that finger your highness.

[EcuaMobi]

Again, you are only interested in your own definitions for what trust is and how it should be decided and totally ignoring the reality that some times (but not always) if some one is reputable in trade, that is to say they do what they say they will do when money is involved, it is representative of their ability to leave honest ratings.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course sometimes (but not always) people who are reputable traders are good at leaving honest ratings too. I'd say most of the times that's the case, but not always.
Now you're wrongly assuming I don't agree on that basic point (or are you blatantly lying to try and make me look irrational? or do we really speak different languages and are unable to communicate?).

The point here is receiving trust from somebody must not be the reason to add somebody to one's trust list, not even being trustworthy is reason enough to add them to the trust list. We must add people to our trust list if we trust they will leave proper feedback. That must be the reason. Of course several times the same person is trustworthy and good at leaving feedback, but not always. And sometimes this trustworthy, good-at-leaving-trust person happened to have left us positive trust, but that's just a coincidence. It must not be the reason to be included in our trust list.

That's why the fact a DT1 user modifies their own trust doesn't necessarily mean they're abusing the trust system, but it could be the case, especially if the number is understandably big as in Dabs' case. It's worth looking in more detail, and that's the purpose of this list.

By you pretending this is invalid and wrong, yes, you are precisely telling me which metrics I should use to gauge trust and applying moral values to them. Keep wagging that finger your highness.

I'm not pretending anything. You're the one making wrong assumptions and attacking based on that, as usual.

[suchmoon]

I'm gonna need an ELI5 on what "-1" means. Am I excluding someone who posted a positive rating for me?

[EcuaMobi]

I'm gonna need an ELI5 on what "-1" means. Am I excluding someone who posted a positive rating for me?

It means when having just "DefaultTrust" you appear with slightly more less trust than when having "DefaultTrust ~suchmoon". I haven't checked it in more detail.
One option is you excluded someone who left you positive trust. However after a quick look this doesn't seem to be the case.
The other option is you included someone who excluded a user who left you positive trust.

Because there's an exclusion in here                  ^^^, it's possible there's an error similar to the one noted by LoyceV. Exclusions and recursion can get things very complicated. I'll need to check to see if I can improve those numbers.

I don't think this "-1" is very meaningful. I just think this list can be used as base to identify DT1 users who have modified their own trust the most in order to further check those accounts.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'm gonna need an ELI5 on what "-1" means. Am I excluding someone who posted a positive rating for me?

Yes - CanaryInTheMine

[LoyceV]

What would be the right way to do it? Add the user (i.e. OgNasty) into the trust list on one account and then use a second account to add the first one into the trust list so that OgNasty goes down one level, right?
If I do that I get these numbers for him: 23: -6 / +73

This gives:
Depth 1: OgNasty (0)
Depth 2: OgNasty (-4)
It looks like 1 custom inclusion (as a dependant from an inclusion on an alt-account) on Depth 1 cancels out 6 DT1 exclusions on the same level. I didn't expect that, but in retrospect it makes sense: all inclusions from DefaultTrust on Depth 1 have voting power (1) or (-1), and not for instance (-6). That makes a custom Trust list more powerful compared to DefaultTrust than I thought until now.

From what I can see, the (-4) on Depth 2 means nothing as long as the user is included on Depth 1. As a test: OgNasty is the only DT1 who included Bees Brothers (Trust: 70: -0 / +7) (31 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP). After including an alt-account that included OgNasty, Bees Brothers' feedback shows up as trusted.
To conclude: I think this is the right way to do it

If you teamed up with other DT members to manipulate the trust network, would your difference rating be shown here as higher or lower than average?

Lower. But I have no reason to believe anyone was planning ahead to get lower on this list before I made it.
This could become a problem if DT2-requirements are changed and require at least 2 DT1 inclusions.

I'm gonna need an ELI5 on what "-1" means. Am I excluding someone who posted a positive rating for me?

Yes - CanaryInTheMine

So suchmoon and owlcatz are Selfstabbers

[suchmoon]

I'm gonna need an ELI5 on what "-1" means. Am I excluding someone who posted a positive rating for me?

Yes - CanaryInTheMine

I didn't realize CITM is in DT. And seems to have 4:3 exclusions vs inclusions right now so it's either a glitch or somebody added an exclusion since the OP.

As for the "top" users on the list... I think DT2 criteria needs to be revised based on this and some other data that surfaced recently. E.g.: no ban, +2 DT1 inclusions, and active in the last 90 days.