I believe it has been established the current implementation of the trust system is not working. This in large part can be attributed to the Default Trust changes implemented this past January, but the underlying root cause of the problem is a very small number of people leaving a very large number of controversial ratings.

I believe a lot of these people have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and should be labeled as such. The most appropriate solution, IMO is to blacklist most of these people from being able to ever be in anyone's trust network, unless they are explicitly added to a user's trust list, but I do not believe this will happen.

If memory serves me correctly, the trust score algorithm was changed not long after AMHash stopped honoring their obligations. The algorithm was changed so that negative ratings had much greater weight, and positive ratings had much less weight. The instance of a single negative rating would further lower the weight of positive ratings. I believe this goes too far, and is not appropriate if the administration is unwilling to mediate trust disputes, as appears to be the case for many years now.

To resolve the problems with the trust system, I would propose the following:

Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network:
This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.

As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.

Ability to include someone in your trust list as "Ratings Only":
If someone has left many good ratings, but is not good at maintaining a trust list, it should be possible to only trust the person's ratings, but ignore their trust list. In the above example, if SaltySpitoon refused to remove BAC from his trust list, but has left many good ratings over the years, someone may decide to include him in their trust list as "Ratings only" so that his trust network would see his trust ratings but would completely ignore his trust list. This will mitigate some of the problems and controversy caused by the above.

Removal of Trust Scores:
This is the most drastic, and probably the most controversial change. Forum members will be free to leave comments with their various types of ratings, but this will remove the harm associated with the controversial ratings. If someone leaves a negative rating you do not believe makes the person a scammer, you are free to ignore it. Ratings will be able to be filtered by if they are left by those in your trust network, and further by if the rating is positive, negative or neutral. This will force users to draw their own conclusions as to how trustworthy someone is. Further, this will also mitigate the "this person has good judgment" and "this person helps out" type positive ratings that some people have who lack any real trading history, but show Dark Green trust currently inappropriately.

Modification of when the "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning will be displayed:
Even if trust scores are not displayed, it is still appropriate to give a warning displayed in marketplace posts and in PMs by/from people who are reasonably scammers. The Algorithm to determined if this warning is displayed should be changed. Additional warnings should also be introduced.

No ratings:
If a person does not have any ratings, positive or negative (ignoring neutral), a warning should be displayed saying the person does not have any reported trust ratings within your trust network. 

Ratings, but no "Trade with Extreme Caution" Warning:
If a person will not have a "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning, a message should be displayed encouraging people to review trust ratings, and attempt to evaluate the person's trustworthiness prior to trusting the person.

"Trade with Extreme Caution" warning:
This determination if this warning is displayed should depend on if they have any previous positive ratings, and if they receive any positive ratings after their first negative rating.

If the person does not have any previous negative ratings, nor do they receive any positive ratings subsequent to receiving their first negative rating, they will display the "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning. This is simple and should not be controversial, if a single person believes a person to be a scammer, and no one contests this, the person should display this warning.

If the person has between 1 and 3 positive positive ratings, and no positive ratings after they receive their first negative rating, they need at least 2 negative ratings from unique people to display this warning.

If the person has more than 4 positive ratings, and no positive ratings after they receive their first negative rating, they need at least 3 negative ratings from unique people to display this warning.

If someone leaves a negative rating, subsequently removes the rating, and adds a negative rating back on within a month, the date the original rating was left shall be used to calculate when a person received their first negative rating.

If someone receives at least one positive rating after the first negative rating, their status as a scammer is disputed.

If a person's status as a scammer is disputed, the number of negative ratings (in addition to the numbers listed above) need to be left for a member in order for the warning to be displayed:
y = [(n^2)/3], round up
n = number of unique ratings received after the first negative rating received, unless the member has received at least 4 positive ratings subsequent to their first negative rating, and if this is the case, it will be: the number of positive ratings received subsequent to their first negative rating, plus 20% of positive ratings received after their first negative rating

The above formula will make it difficult to label someone as a scammer if many people disagree with this conclusion. The specifics can be tinkered with around the edges if necessary/deemed appropriate.

---

The selection process for how DT is determined should also be reformed, but that is another topic of discussion.

---

What do you think? Should the above be implemented? Vote above, select "yes" or "no" for each proposal.

I think you should hold yourself accountable and list the names of this small group, and also list what your trust score would be if they were blacklisted. Seems like that is the motivation behind this post. Maybe it's not but sure would seem the case.


I do not like how the trust system is/can be manipulated as it is but I also do not agree that removing ratings all together or making ratings only be seen but a person not get neg trust on their profile due to you not trusting their trust list. I like the idea of a public discussion about a users getting a rating before they are tagged, but who's opinion would matter in this discussion? Would only DT opinions matter or should we only use users such as Thule, MightyDTs, TheOneAboveAll, Quickseller, cryptohunter and others count?

I'm also not a fan of the new DT selection process. The old system IMO was better then the current system but needed tweeked. Inactive DTs needed removed and replaced. With the current system anyone can get in DT as long as they can meet/manipulate the criteria, and many can also be fucked and never be able to get on DT with the current way to manipulate, so I feel like you have some points but not good solutions.

Doesn't matter what changes are made, if the community opinion is you are a scammer it should be seen in BIG BOLD RED. If users do their due diligence and check a persons profile, they can decide whether or not to deal with that user. They also should be using an actual ESCROW from the list of escrows if they are doing a trade. If all users did this, then the scam accusations section would be a lot cleaner.

No matter what changes that would/could be made there will always be a group one way or the other pissed off. No way to make everyone happy period. I keep saying we need a Trust System for users to use when doing trades, and a Reputation system for other tags not dealing with trades. I obviously said no to the 1st 4 options up top, but yes to number 5. I do not believe a person who was tagged for spamming and many other reasons not dealing with trading should have the warning label attached to them.

Sorry for all the editing, thoughts keep popping up and I feel need said.

We already have a problem with most people not understanding the trust system. The majority of users do not have custom trust lists, and even of those who do, many do not really understand the difference between trust ratings and a custom trust list, or how the various depths work. If anything, we should be looking to make the trust system simpler, not more complex, as your proposal does. Adding in extra options of including people for "ratings only", or for their list and ratings, will only be understood by a few and used by even fewer, while making the barrier to setting your own custom trust list for the first time even higher. Similarly, your various scenarios for working out whether or not to display the "Trade with Extreme Caution" warning are unnecessarily complex.

This is already the case. If you don't agree with a rating, ignore it or exclude the person who left it.

What better for new users to use as a guide for who to trade with than an almost completely opaque trust system that nearly no one understands. Brilliant.

IMO Theymos just needs to nut up and take his little tumor of a social experiment he has been running on all of us out behind the barn and shoot it. Get rid of trust lists completely, implement a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative rating, and make trust ratings little more than a comment on the profile once again. Simplify the system and increase accountability for its use and abuse. Or we can just let the forum continue to eat its own face as I warned would happen years ago when these failed "features" were implemented.

That will happen the day Theymos successfully hires precogs to help with the forum moderation and undermine the bad event from happening before it starts.

What you recall here requires a massive work-load !
If alone the standard of evidence of theft was enforced, who shall we give that hammer ?
Theymos ? I think he's overwhelmed with stuffs.
Global mods ?
This would only move the heat from a bunch of seats to a single one.

Who is going to research the applicable laws ? Should the forum hire lawyers ?

The current system has it's flaws, it is not perfect, but what could be the alternatives ?
(Alternatives shouldn't put more workload on the current staff)

As we've see with Cryptios, maybe another company will see the light of day to moderate trust ? I highly doubt so but why not.

inb4 "poll manipulated by gangs!!!"

I would love to see examples of the suggested trust score formula applied to the OP and to some other individuals it appears to be designed for.

I don’t think the current implication is working. This is for many reasons.

My proposal should completely eliminate any trust disputes for controversial reasons. If someone starts leaving inaccurate ratings with inaccurate comments, they can be blacklisted.

It is only possible to exclude someone from your own trust network. This will do nothing to address how others will view trust left by this person. As mentioned, the majority of businesses use the default settings so any rating left by anyone in DT, and if considering doing something such as giving an unsecured loan, looking at these ratings is logical.

Further, it is not possible to exclude an individual rating because all ratings are calculated in trust scores.

The calculation for if a warning is displayed doesn’t need to be done by users and I don’t see any major drawbacks if individuals don’t understand this.

What I am arguing for is inherently SIMPLIFYING the trust system, not complicating it. We don't need more staff intervention. I am telling you the alternatives right now as you do your best to ignore and dismiss them.



You are right. It is super easy to read red and green numbers. The problem is they are often not accurate and based on personal vendettas or retaliation for criticism and not on actual fraudulent behavior. This is what new users will not understand, and this is the issue. Saying that it will be fine after they are around a while is kind of like saying "oh its ok if Timmy plays in traffic, after a while he will learn that it is not a good idea!" Your statement inherently excludes new users, the very users it was intended to protect. This is not logic but the superficial appearance of logic.

I have explained this again and again and again and again and you all feign ignorance over and over pretending as if I have not already responded to your criticisms. This will require LESS staff intervention, will provide a more equitable trust system, prevent large amounts of abuse and fraud, as well as most importantly defuse conflicts BEFORE they happen, not after they are already a clusterfuck.

Yes, I agree with you, the trust system is not perfect and subject to improvement. And yes, we don't need more staff intervention.
I hear your alternatives, but these are my questions about your alternatives, and would like to know how you would address them.

When you say :


How do you see that implemented ? Who would apply this tag to scammers ?
Is it the staff ? Or the tag appears when the trust score would have been -16 ?

How do you verify the violation of applicable laws ?

I am not trying to annoy you, but rather trying to picture how it would work.

---

To be honest, I think that the trust system has flaws, but I also think it is something very difficult to manage and Theymos will always try to do his best to make things better.

Your questions seem perfectly reasonable and intellectually honest. I would again however refer you to the linked posts from my last statement above for review, but in brief....

Q: "How do you see that implemented ? Who would apply this tag to scammers ?"
A: The same people who do it now, only they would need to provide substantiation to their claims rather than it being a subjective free for all as it is currently.

Q: "How do you verify the violation of applicable laws ?"
A: The same way the forum currently addresses scams and fraudulent activity (other than getting out the red paint bucket), via threads in "Scam Accusations" and "Reputation" to submit the evidence for public discussion and review.

IMO the problem is Theymos is simply hesitant to put his ego aside and admit his little social experiment he has been subjecting us all to has been a total failure, and some of the people he has been most critical of are providing legitimate solutions. That is a difficult thing to admit when you are wrong some times, especially when you went out of your way to punish those that tried to warn you for the act of pointing those issues out. I am sure he feels it would degrade his authority, but of course if this place is a giant shit show he is not going to have any authority or respect from anyone anyway. I think he is underestimating the positive impact of meaningful reform, and the resulting support that will come of it and just hoping he will never have to make that hard choice and go through that process.