Trust System Upgrade

[DireWolfM14]

Set trust depth to 0 and explicitly add all users you want on your trust network.

When the changes happened in January I also thought we might want separate lists for users whose trust scores we want to see, users whom we want in our trust network, users to "vote" for in DT1 election... but that's not the intent of the trust system, is it? We should add users whose judgement we trust and the other stuff is just sugar, mostly to make it easier for newbies to find their way around. More complexity creates more room for manipulation and we definitely need less of that.

That was my dilemma, there are folks who's reviews I would like to see, but not necessarily give them my vote for DT1.

You can add users to an alt account, then add that alt account to your Trust list. This way, you trust them one level less deep.
I haven't used this option yet though.

I agree the current trust system is complicated enough already, if not too complicated. Promoting custom Trust lists is more important now. I've suggested a big banner like the April Fool joke before, that had a lot of response in just one day.

I thought of this solution, and even created an alt for that purpose, but I have not implemented it yet.

[1715081290]

1715081290

[1715081290]

1715081290

[1715081290]

1715081290

[Vod]

Like others have pointed out, the easiest solution is to advertise custom trust lists.

Those that come here and decide to stay can choose who they want to trust.
Don't scare away curious newbies by making them sign waivers, agreements and lawyer up before their first post.

Just like the merit system, those who have screwed over others will not like this system. 

[Quickseller]

Ability to include someone in your trust list as "Ratings Only"

I've thought of this option, and I do think it can be helpful.  It would be nice if we could add a custom depth to each of inclusions, but like o_e_l_e_o mentioned, it would add complexity to an already complex system.  Maybe a custom depth setting can be implemented as an option, and not a requirement.

Well yea, you don't ever need to use any particular feature.

"Trade with Extreme Caution" warning

This is one of the philosophical debates about the current system; is it a "trader" rating or a "trust" rating?  Should it be limited to those who've completed trades with one another, or is more than that?

It's my opinion that the trust system is designed to be more general and broad, and therefore more useful than merely a "trade" rating.  There are many attempted scams that don't necessarily involve a trade of goods or an exchange of currency.  And anyone could simply start trading in rinky-dink transactions that amount to only a few dollars and still earn a high trade rating.  If it was limited to only trades, then every one who dealt with CanaryInTheMine would like a trusted individual.  We know that's not necessarily the case.

My understanding of the intention behind the current implementation of the trust system is it is intended to not be limited to those who you have personally traded with. If trust ratings were limited to trades, a scammer could simply never trade with someone on DT (or never scam someone on DT, but trade with them), and no warning would ever show, which on its face would be a bad thing.

This proposal is trying to solve the problem that a single person can effectively torpedo a person's reputation without any real recourse, even if many others on DT disagree. It effectively takes three people to override a single negative rating, and this number grows exponentially as each additional negative rating is given. There is a small group of people who frequently leave negative ratings together, that effectively cannot be overridden -- when 4 people leave a negative rating, it will take 17 positive ratings for for person to show as having not negative trust, and when 5 people leave a negative rating, 33 people will need to leave a positive rating.

The above group of people tends to leave very controversial ratings with impunity and without consequence, and this results in this group of people collecting additional support from others because they fear themselves being targeted by this group, and do not want to lose their reputation for arbitrary reasons (or for the underlying reason of opposing/pushing back against this group of people).

This particular proposal removes the ability to label someone a scammer for an arbitrary reason. If there is pushback to someone being labeled a scammer, it will take many people labeling the person a scammer, and if there is enough pushback, the person will effectively not be labeled a scammer.

I don't think someone needs to have actually scammed to be labeled a scammer, and it is sometimes appropriate to label someone a scammer if they are showing "red flags", however it is my belief it should be pretty clear cut if someone is being labeled a scammer. In any case, everyone will be free to review the text (and references) of trust ratings and come to their own conclusion if it is safe to trade with someone or not.

-snip-
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.

-snip-

I'm not seeing your example there, isn't that the accountability we are talking about? If BAC leaves controversial ratings, it would reflect poorly on me as me lending my trust in his ratings. As a result, I should remove him from my list, or others will doubt my ability to be a judge of ratings and exclude me. That is a feature we want correct?

Not many people know how to determine who has included who on their trust list.

I am not referring to BAC, but under the old implementation of DT, you had at least one person who not only left many controversial ratings, but also refused to even defend his ratings, and chose to instead troll anyone who tried to defend themselves (which, BTW sent a clear message to others to not even try to defend themselves), and you were in no way held accountable. You were not the only one, Blazed had many people on his trust list who left many controversial ratings, and I am not aware of him being held accountable in any way. Both you and Blazed either ignored the problems, or pretended they didn't exist, and never engaged in any substantial discussion on the ratings of those in question. Going back further, CITM had a trust list that many people found very controversial for many months, if not over a year, and to my knowledge he did not encounter any problems in conducting business, and was only removed from DT1 when he left an indefensible negative rating for Dogie, who was able to concisely defend himself -- I have my doubts that the rating in question would have even mattered had it not been for dogies contributions to the forum.

So no, I don't think having someone on your trust list who leaves controversial ratings will reflect poorly enough on you to resemble anything close to you being held accountable.

As for the ratings only part, if BAC has someone on his trust list that I think is too volatile to be on DT, the process starts again, the individual gets pressured, BAC would get pressured, and then I'd get pressured in that order if nothing is done about it. In that case, I could exclude that person and it'd be settled.

In this example, everyone who has BAC on their trust list would need to exclude the volatile person, which is not ideal because not everyone will notice the problem right away.

A better example of this is probably Blazed, who as mentioned above, had many people on his trust list who had no business being anywhere near DT. I consider him to be generally trustworthy, have successfully trusted him with $x,000 in the past, and would probably be willing to trust him with $xx,000 if we were engaging in a trade that I believed to be mutually beneficial for the both of us. His ratings were similarly good. His trust list was not, nearly his entire list was compromised of people who I don't want in my trust network, and as such I eventually excluded him, knowing how the trust system worked and how to use it.

[TECSHARE]

Ability to include someone in your trust list as "Ratings Only"

I've thought of this option, and I do think it can be helpful.  It would be nice if we could add a custom depth to each of inclusions, but like o_e_l_e_o mentioned, it would add complexity to an already complex system.  Maybe a custom depth setting can be implemented as an option, and not a requirement.

Well yea, you don't ever need to use any particular feature.

"Trade with Extreme Caution" warning

This is one of the philosophical debates about the current system; is it a "trader" rating or a "trust" rating?  Should it be limited to those who've completed trades with one another, or is more than that?

It's my opinion that the trust system is designed to be more general and broad, and therefore more useful than merely a "trade" rating.  There are many attempted scams that don't necessarily involve a trade of goods or an exchange of currency.  And anyone could simply start trading in rinky-dink transactions that amount to only a few dollars and still earn a high trade rating.  If it was limited to only trades, then every one who dealt with CanaryInTheMine would like a trusted individual.  We know that's not necessarily the case.

My understanding of the intention behind the current implementation of the trust system is it is intended to not be limited to those who you have personally traded with. If trust ratings were limited to trades, a scammer could simply never trade with someone on DT (or never scam someone on DT, but trade with them), and no warning would ever show, which on its face would be a bad thing.

This proposal is trying to solve the problem that a single person can effectively torpedo a person's reputation without any real recourse, even if many others on DT disagree. It effectively takes three people to override a single negative rating, and this number grows exponentially as each additional negative rating is given. There is a small group of people who frequently leave negative ratings together, that effectively cannot be overridden -- when 4 people leave a negative rating, it will take 17 positive ratings for for person to show as having not negative trust, and when 5 people leave a negative rating, 33 people will need to leave a positive rating.

The above group of people tends to leave very controversial ratings with impunity and without consequence, and this results in this group of people collecting additional support from others because they fear themselves being targeted by this group, and do not want to lose their reputation for arbitrary reasons (or for the underlying reason of opposing/pushing back against this group of people).

This particular proposal removes the ability to label someone a scammer for an arbitrary reason. If there is pushback to someone being labeled a scammer, it will take many people labeling the person a scammer, and if there is enough pushback, the person will effectively not be labeled a scammer.

I don't think someone needs to have actually scammed to be labeled a scammer, and it is sometimes appropriate to label someone a scammer if they are showing "red flags", however it is my belief it should be pretty clear cut if someone is being labeled a scammer. In any case, everyone will be free to review the text (and references) of trust ratings and come to their own conclusion if it is safe to trade with someone or not.

-snip-
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.

-snip-

I'm not seeing your example there, isn't that the accountability we are talking about? If BAC leaves controversial ratings, it would reflect poorly on me as me lending my trust in his ratings. As a result, I should remove him from my list, or others will doubt my ability to be a judge of ratings and exclude me. That is a feature we want correct?

Not many people know how to determine who has included who on their trust list.

I am not referring to BAC, but under the old implementation of DT, you had at least one person who not only left many controversial ratings, but also refused to even defend his ratings, and chose to instead troll anyone who tried to defend themselves (which, BTW sent a clear message to others to not even try to defend themselves), and you were in no way held accountable. You were not the only one, Blazed had many people on his trust list who left many controversial ratings, and I am not aware of him being held accountable in any way. Both you and Blazed either ignored the problems, or pretended they didn't exist, and never engaged in any substantial discussion on the ratings of those in question. Going back further, CITM had a trust list that many people found very controversial for many months, if not over a year, and to my knowledge he did not encounter any problems in conducting business, and was only removed from DT1 when he left an indefensible negative rating for Dogie, who was able to concisely defend himself -- I have my doubts that the rating in question would have even mattered had it not been for dogies contributions to the forum.

So no, I don't think having someone on your trust list who leaves controversial ratings will reflect poorly enough on you to resemble anything close to you being held accountable.

As for the ratings only part, if BAC has someone on his trust list that I think is too volatile to be on DT, the process starts again, the individual gets pressured, BAC would get pressured, and then I'd get pressured in that order if nothing is done about it. In that case, I could exclude that person and it'd be settled.

In this example, everyone who has BAC on their trust list would need to exclude the volatile person, which is not ideal because not everyone will notice the problem right away.

A better example of this is probably Blazed, who as mentioned above, had many people on his trust list who had no business being anywhere near DT. I consider him to be generally trustworthy, have successfully trusted him with $x,000 in the past, and would probably be willing to trust him with $xx,000 if we were engaging in a trade that I believed to be mutually beneficial for the both of us. His ratings were similarly good. His trust list was not, nearly his entire list was compromised of people who I don't want in my trust network, and as such I eventually excluded him, knowing how the trust system worked and how to use it.

While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.

[minifrij]

My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.

Forgive me if you've already answered this, but should this be implemented what would make people follow these rules? Would someone have to sift through every negative rating left and verify that each one is valid according to them?

[The Cryptovator]

Current system is working fine. Still now most of DT (new) members don't have proper knowledge about trust system. I don't think it should be more complicated. Perhaps we need to observe few more months about current trust system, then may be admin could picked few suggestions those are "good for forum". Likely theymos will not do anything now.

[TECSHARE]

My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.

Forgive me if you've already answered this, but should this be implemented what would make people follow these rules? Would someone have to sift through every negative rating left and verify that each one is valid according to them?

I have, several times. I will however explain again. Just as currently with any normal scam accusation a thread is posted. It is considered a general requirement to have some kind of substantiation when these claims are presented. What I am advocating for is that we follow this model and require AT LEAST a base standard of presenting SOME tangible evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. As is the standard now for scam accusations, the evidence would be submitted for public review. After the prerequisite of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws has been met, a general consensus would be reached much as it is now during public discussion whether negative ratings would be merited, and users would be free to make that decision individually.

Really it is very similar to the way it works now, only the standard of evidence of the objectively predefined offenses would serve not only as a limiting factor for issuing false ratings, it would again mandate accountability on those rating to substantiate their claims using objective standards of evidence. Anyone refusing to follow the standard of presenting evidence under objective standards would then find their own reputation suffering. This would, depending on the system in use result in exclusions, or negative ratings. If Theymos were to mandate this standard of evidence, it would then be a form a "terms of use" agreement, and those violating those terms would then be subject to negative ratings themselves. He nor the staff actually has to enforce anything, the simple act of setting the standard for the terms of use of the trust system would be sufficient, then the rest would be a matter of public review in the appropriate subforums.

[SaltySpitoon]

While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.

standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws just means that people need to be smart enough to not leave certain bits of evidence behind while doing what they are doing. Not being able to leave someone feedback on a technicality doesn't seem fantastic either. In addition, untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective, so who will decide what warrants negative feedback?

If someone leaves a frivolous negative because they believe you are untrustworthy on the grounds that you bought your account for example. A fair number of people might find that significant and would rather it not be covered up because it isn't breaking any laws, agreements, and no theft was involved.

[TECSHARE]

While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.

standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws just means that people need to be smart enough to not leave certain bits of evidence behind while doing what they are doing. Not being able to leave someone feedback on a technicality doesn't seem fantastic either. In addition, untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective, so who will decide what warrants negative feedback?

If someone leaves a frivolous negative because they believe you are untrustworthy on the grounds that you bought your account for example. A fair number of people might find that significant and would rather it not be covered up because it isn't breaking any laws, agreements, and no theft was involved.

What is your point even? If they are smart enough to erase their trail completely then you aren't catching them anyway. Again, what evidence is available would be submitted for public review. Neutral ratings could serve as warnings with the thread referenced. I agree "untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective", which is why I am arguing for an OBJECTIVE standard of evidence before negative rating. Account sellers could again be neutral rated with a reference thread. This is not covering it up. This is defining a very objective line so that the community can focus on fraud, not absolutely everything being perceived as subjectively "untrustworthy". The negative trust factory farmers would just have to find a way to get their dopamine hits elsewhere rather than from dropping negative ratings on people assembly line style and fellating themselves over the moderate amount of authority it gives them.

[minifrij]

...

I get what you mean now, and it's understandable. I do have a few queries regarding it though:

1. Your method only seems to come into effect after the fact, and could miss out some problematic scenarios. For example:

• A new member makes a thread offering to sell $200 gift cards for $50. The thread links to another website where the gift card is for sale, and locks the topic. This user hasn't broken any laws and hasn't necessarily scammed anyone yet, and so there is no solid evidence of any wrongdoing despite several red flags being present.
• A legendary account that has just had it's password and email address changed puts out a loan request for $200, citing it's self (the account) as collateral. The user has been inactive for years before this, and the type of language they use has completely changed. Again, they haven't broken any rules and haven't necessarily scammed anyone, despite there being several red flags present that the account has been hacked.

Do you plan for there to be a kind of natural selection kind of deal happening, where people have to look out for the signs themselves before interacting with others? Since, as nice as this would be, it could land some people in a shit spot should they not recognize the signs of a scam.

2. Your idea for how to moderate this kind of behavior works in theory, but in practice would always need a staff member to babysit it to ensure it's working properly in their subjective opinion. For example, if there is a gang present in the trust system as you seem to believe, would this gang not just work with each other to mitigate any potential punishment for leaving invalid ratings?

[SaltySpitoon]

What is your point even? If they are smart enough to erase their trail completely then you aren't catching them anyway. Again, what evidence is available would be submitted for public review. Neutral ratings could serve as warnings with the thread referenced. I agree "untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective", which is why I am arguing for an OBJECTIVE standard of evidence before negative rating. Account sellers could again be neutral rated with a reference thread. This is not covering it up. This is defining a very objective line so that the community can focus on fraud, not absolutely everything being perceived as subjectively "untrustworthy". The negative trust factory farmers would just have to find a way to get their dopamine hits elsewhere rather than from dropping negative ratings on people assembly line style and fellating themselves over the moderate amount of authority it gives them.

My point is that everyone that uses the internet is used to reading through bias and noise, restricting noise is going to reduce real valuable ratings. The current feedback system already works with public review. Most claims have reference links to a thread in question where a user can read more about the issue themselves. Poor feedback isn't insignificant either, it helps people follow patterns of who they should and shouldn't trust from feedback senders. The proposal here is to change the capability for tens of thousands of users, due to the actions of a half dozen people. They have their side of the story, and everyone else has theirs. Public review can take care of whether their feedback is significant or not.

Setting up rules so that people can't be jackasses just means that they'll find other ways to be jackasses. Let everyone put their worst self forward, and its not an issue.  

[TECSHARE]

...

I get what you mean now, and it's understandable. I do have a few queries regarding it though:

1. Your method only seems to come into effect after the fact, and could miss out some problematic scenarios. For example:

• A new member makes a thread offering to sell $200 gift cards for $50. The thread links to another website where the gift card is for sale, and locks the topic. This user hasn't broken any laws and hasn't necessarily scammed anyone yet, and so there is no solid evidence of any wrongdoing despite several red flags being present.
• A legendary account that has just had it's password and email address changed puts out a loan request for $200, citing it's self (the account) as collateral. The user has been inactive for years before this, and the type of language they use has completely changed. Again, they haven't broken any rules and haven't necessarily scammed anyone, despite there being several red flags present that the account has been hacked.

Do you plan for there to be a kind of natural selection kind of deal happening, where people have to look out for the signs themselves before interacting with others? Since, as nice as this would be, it could land some people in a shit spot should they not recognize the signs of a scam.

2. Your idea for how to moderate this kind of behavior works in theory, but in practice would always need a staff member to babysit it to ensure it's working properly in their subjective opinion. For example, if there is a gang present in the trust system as you seem to believe, would this gang not just work with each other to mitigate any potential punishment for leaving invalid ratings?

1. This could be addressed first of all by making a thread in the "reputation" subforum to discuss the issue and alert others to it. This thread could then be referenced with a neutral rating. This has the additional benefit of training new users to read trust ratings instead of just looking for little red and green flashy bits and moving on. We are already operating under "a kind of natural selection deal." People who are not doing due diligence can not be protected from themselves, and their behavior currently under the existing model already gets them into a "shit spot". Even if by happenstance they get protected once or twice, the cause of the issue is still not being resolved, resulting in the inevitability of their being robbed.

2. This seems to be the constant refrain, that more staff will be needed to do this when in actuality no additional staff intervention would be needed, in fact probably even LESS would be needed than the current system. This theoretical gang would with every retaliatory or baseless rating be subjecting themselves to public scrutiny as there is a standard of evidence and a simple form of due process (requirement of the objective standard). As it is currently, no one has any accountability for their ratings or exclusions, it is just a matter of "I believe XYZ" and I am not even going to bother explaining myself. This objective metric makes this giant loophole for abuse MUCH smaller, and again redirects accountability back to those making the accusation if it is seen to be lacking. They may very well gang up to continue abuse, but now everyone will see exactly what they are doing and it will be MUCH more difficult for them to justify their actions as opposed to the current system we have now where no one is obligated to explain any of these choices or "beliefs".

What is your point even? If they are smart enough to erase their trail completely then you aren't catching them anyway. Again, what evidence is available would be submitted for public review. Neutral ratings could serve as warnings with the thread referenced. I agree "untrustworthy behavior is incredibly subjective", which is why I am arguing for an OBJECTIVE standard of evidence before negative rating. Account sellers could again be neutral rated with a reference thread. This is not covering it up. This is defining a very objective line so that the community can focus on fraud, not absolutely everything being perceived as subjectively "untrustworthy". The negative trust factory farmers would just have to find a way to get their dopamine hits elsewhere rather than from dropping negative ratings on people assembly line style and fellating themselves over the moderate amount of authority it gives them.

My point is that everyone that uses the internet is used to reading through bias and noise, restricting noise is going to reduce real valuable ratings. The current feedback system already works with public review. Most claims have reference links to a thread in question where a user can read more about the issue themselves. Poor feedback isn't insignificant either, it helps people follow patterns of who they should and shouldn't trust from feedback senders. The proposal here is to change the capability for tens of thousands of users, due to the actions of a half dozen people. They have their side of the story, and everyone else has theirs. Public review can take care of whether their feedback is significant or not.

Setting up rules so that people can't be jackasses just means that they'll find other ways to be jackasses. Let everyone put their worst self forward, and its not an issue.  

Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?

[SaltySpitoon]

-snip-
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?

I'm not excluding bad results of subjective ratings, I'm saying that individuals can determine for themselves whats good or bad. Subjective ratings are fair, because everyone is free to voice their opinions and everyone is free to ignore any opinion that they don't agree with. Your definition of abuse is probably different from mine, and my definition is different from user A, user B, etc. Leaving a system wide open so people can make their own judgement is fair, because ultimately no matter the situation its your word versus someone else's. There are an uncountable number of factors that someone might want to know before deciding to trade with someone, we can't tailor rules to allow every single scenario.

The infighting we have now is among a small handful of people. Its a personal problem rather than a systemic problem. I also think its worthwhile, because people can make their own judgement from it. I think its annoying spam, but it has also been useful in deciding who's feedback is worthwhile and who is overly reactionary and not to be trusted. But, each person can form their own opinion on it.

I think a few changes should be made, such as removing any sort of numerical scoring towards the feedback system, but a lot of changes that I've wanted to see are slowly happening anyway.

[TECSHARE]

-snip-
Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings. Now you might want to argue there are things people should be aware of that would not fall under the objective metric of a standard evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, which is a fair point, but like other users you are inherently excluding the bad results of subjective ratings while demanding we only address the good. Anything that does not fall firmly within the objective metric can be handled with a thread in the "Reputation", "Market Discussion" or "Scam Accusation" subforums, along with a neutral rating referencing the thread. Saying that using a system that is wide open to abuse is good because it allows us to see who is abusing it is an asinine argument. Nothing would prevent these kind of judgements based on several other factors. So you are saying you would rather have the cluster fuck of constant infighting we have now because it shows who is abusive, as opposed to an objective metric that cuts out the vast majority of this bullshit before it even starts?

I'm not excluding bad results of subjective ratings, I'm saying that individuals can determine for themselves whats good or bad. Subjective ratings are fair, because everyone is free to voice their opinions and everyone is free to ignore any opinion that they don't agree with. Your definition of abuse is probably different from mine, and my definition is different from user A, user B, etc. Leaving a system wide open so people can make their own judgement is fair, because ultimately no matter the situation its your word versus someone else's. There are an uncountable number of factors that someone might want to know before deciding to trade with someone, we can't tailor rules to allow every single scenario.

The infighting we have now is among a small handful of people. Its a personal problem rather than a systemic problem. I also think its worthwhile, because people can make their own judgement from it. I think its annoying spam, but it has also been useful in deciding who's feedback is worthwhile and who is overly reactionary and not to be trusted. But, each person can form their own opinion on it.

I think a few changes should be made, such as removing any sort of numerical scoring towards the feedback system, but a lot of changes that I've wanted to see are slowly happening anyway.

Yet the trust system is supposed to help new users the most now isn't it? Is not a new user's defining characteristic the fact that they are less able to determine these nuances? On one hand you claim that we need to protect them from themselves by leaving preventative ratings, yet on the other hand they can determine what is good or bad for themselves. Which is it? It seems you just juxtapose whatever fits your narrative at any given time. You are in fact dismissing the negative consequences and determining we should only look at the positives. It is not a matter of being fair, it is a matter of accuracy, efficiency, and signal noise resulting directly in many other issues. I am not asking we tailor a litany of rules. This is another refrain I hear regurgitated from you over and over. Having a simple standard of evidence and accountability for that evidence is not "tailored rules for every scenario", it is a quite general objective metric.

It is a systemic problem, and it has been for years. Most people just walk away and never come back. For every conflict you see there are about ten times more people that just say fuck this place and never come back. People don't want to invest time and resources into a place where ones hard earned reputation can be stripped over arbitrary bullshit at any given time with no due process or recourse whatsoever. It is more than "annoying spam", it is causing the overall community itself to fragment and destroy itself. Furthermore it is way too easy for a bad actor to step in and manufacture this kind of drama purposely and create more and more of these wedges. You go ahead and dismiss my warnings as you always have, one day it will be your turn on the hot seat and I will point and laugh as I reference all your poo pooing quotes.

[Vod]

Noise is by definition invalid. To restrict noise would not restrict valid ratings.

Again, you are jumping to a conclusion based on the wrong information.

Noise is by definition unwanted or unpleasant.

Anything you find unpleasant you judge invalid?  

Example:  A woman posts she wants to have an abortion.  You don't believe that is valid, so you would silence her?

[Quickseller]

While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.

The end user does not need to understand how the calculations are made. The end user only needs to know they should leave a negative rating if they strongly believe the person to be a "scammer" and a positive rating should be left if you have affirmative reason to believe the person to be trustworthy AND you should not leave a positive rating if there is a good reason to believe the person is a scammer (this is a lower threshold than to leave a negative rating, but will prevent a scammer from completing a small number of trades to erase the 'trade with extreme caution' warning. This particular proposal is designed to ensure there is something semi-resembling consensus for any labeling of someone as a scammer.

I don't think the requirement to present evidence of xxx alone is sufficient to prevent frivolous negative ratings. I am following both your and OgNasty's separate disputes with Vod, following what is being posted, it is clear that Vod is in the wrong, yet he continues to have many trust inclusions despite his lies and deception -- I believe this is because he has sufficient allies that he supports and who in turn support him regardless of either being right or wrong, they all simply refuse to criticize eachother no matter how outrageous they behave. I believe if it is required to publicly post evidence of "xxx" to post a negative rating, unless the administration gets involved in trust disputes, which I know theymos does not want to in ~all cases, those who are currently giving frivolous ratings will continue doing so, and will present troll posts as evidence, and others will continue to support these people out of fear of getting tagged themselves, or getting excluded from the trust network.

I also believe that someone displaying (multiple) red flags of being a scammer should be grounds for being labeled as a scammer. A brand new user asking for a loan without collateral is fairly clearly intending on scamming (even though their scam attempt is so transparent that labeling these people a scammer is probably unnecessary). If someone were to explicitly say they intend on stealing money once given the opportunity, I don't believe they would meet your criteria for receiving negative trust, but I believe others should be warned about this person's intentions. marcotheminer is another good example of someone I believes should be tagged as when he recently returned from a long hiatus, he started taking out loans in escalating sizes, and eventually tried taking out a $xx,000 loan, which is constant with someone trying to engage in an exit scam (he was actually tagged by many before this, which was not appropriate). Someone running what is very clearly a ponzi should also be tagged.

Yes, someone displaying a "red flag" of being a scammer is very subjective. My proposal would address this problem by requiring there to be something resembling consensus for someone to be labeled a scammer. If I label someone as a scammer because they are displaying x red flag, and you disagree this red flag means this person will scam in the future, you can counter my negative rating, and others can chime in via their own ratings, and the system will only display a 'trade with extreme caution' warning if there is consensus, while leaning towards not displaying the warning, constant with the principal of the presumption of innocence. 

[Blazed]

I am just amazed at how important this system is to people. I have seen so many posts for so many years now... I think the original system was better than this constantly changing one.

[TECSHARE]

While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.

The end user does not need to understand how the calculations are made. The end user only needs to know they should leave a negative rating if they strongly believe the person to be a "scammer" and a positive rating should be left if you have affirmative reason to believe the person to be trustworthy AND you should not leave a positive rating if there is a good reason to believe the person is a scammer (this is a lower threshold than to leave a negative rating, but will prevent a scammer from completing a small number of trades to erase the 'trade with extreme caution' warning. This particular proposal is designed to ensure there is something semi-resembling consensus for any labeling of someone as a scammer.

I don't think the requirement to present evidence of xxx alone is sufficient to prevent frivolous negative ratings. I am following both your and OgNasty's separate disputes with Vod, following what is being posted, it is clear that Vod is in the wrong, yet he continues to have many trust inclusions despite his lies and deception -- I believe this is because he has sufficient allies that he supports and who in turn support him regardless of either being right or wrong, they all simply refuse to criticize eachother no matter how outrageous they behave. I believe if it is required to publicly post evidence of "xxx" to post a negative rating, unless the administration gets involved in trust disputes, which I know theymos does not want to in ~all cases, those who are currently giving frivolous ratings will continue doing so, and will present troll posts as evidence, and others will continue to support these people out of fear of getting tagged themselves, or getting excluded from the trust network.

I also believe that someone displaying (multiple) red flags of being a scammer should be grounds for being labeled as a scammer. A brand new user asking for a loan without collateral is fairly clearly intending on scamming (even though their scam attempt is so transparent that labeling these people a scammer is probably unnecessary). If someone were to explicitly say they intend on stealing money once given the opportunity, I don't believe they would meet your criteria for receiving negative trust, but I believe others should be warned about this person's intentions. marcotheminer is another good example of someone I believes should be tagged as when he recently returned from a long hiatus, he started taking out loans in escalating sizes, and eventually tried taking out a $xx,000 loan, which is constant with someone trying to engage in an exit scam (he was actually tagged by many before this, which was not appropriate). Someone running what is very clearly a ponzi should also be tagged.

Yes, someone displaying a "red flag" of being a scammer is very subjective. My proposal would address this problem by requiring there to be something resembling consensus for someone to be labeled a scammer. If I label someone as a scammer because they are displaying x red flag, and you disagree this red flag means this person will scam in the future, you can counter my negative rating, and others can chime in via their own ratings, and the system will only display a 'trade with extreme caution' warning if there is consensus, while leaning towards not displaying the warning, constant with the principal of the presumption of innocence.  

I never said the end user needs to know how the calculations are made, however this system is already too complicated and opaque to the point that hardly anyone understands it as it is. Adding more parts to a system creates more opportunities for the system to be broken. Furthermore every time one of these little patches are added it just gets worse and worse. We should be simplifying this cluster fuck, not just duct taping over it.

You are correct in pointing out that my proposal would not solve the issue of people including people in their clique regardless of how extreme their behavior is as well as selectively excluding their opponents. Regardless of this though, they would under my proposal still be required to substantiate using evidence any actual negative ratings and that tool of abuse would largely be removed from them as the barrier of entry of manufacturing false evidence is much higher. Furthermore this again returns accountability back upon an accuser that negative rates without substantiation. This mass shitting of negative ratings all over the user base with zero accountability is the primary tool of retribution and abuse used. As a result they can exclude and include away all day, but the ones leaving the negative rating will be required to substantiate their claims, unlike now where they can just say "I believe XYZ and I don't need to explain myself" regardless if they actually have any evidence or actually believe it.

This will build a clear trail of patterns of behavior people can reference that will be created each and every time they attempt to leave an abusive rating, as opposed to now where they just put on their little clown show and hide in the confusion because they have no obligation (accountability) to take any of it seriously. The difference is my metric is inherently objective in subject matter, whereas currently the metric is totally subjective leaving a 4 lane highway of a loophole for abuse. I want to use the objective metric to turn that highway into a narrow dirt road that leaves mud caked all over them when they take the abusive route. They will continue to abuse, yes, but now they will have to lie to the whole forum over and over and over again about objective facts, which is far more difficult.

There may be situations where people may want to label some one is a scammer when it does not fit firmly within the rubric of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, yes. However nothing is preventing people from simply creating a thread in the appropriate subforum and leaving a neutral rating with the thread referenced. If a user is doing due diligence, this is something they will see. If a user is not doing due diligence, no one is going to save them from themselves as a fool and his money will always be parted. We should be training new users to do due diligence and carefully review ratings, not just look at flashy red and green bits next to the avatar. Additionally the lack of due diligence combined with a squad of pretender police gives a false sense of security that scams are moderated, making users more open to cons when they should instead be doing their own due diligence.

[2double0]

I don't get a few things here -

What is a custom trust list?
Is it something that is for our own good to keep/ remove/ untrust someone in our list with a ~ and will it be seen in those users' trust ratings when I visit their profile? And what about the original DT members? If I exclude them out of my list 'for test issues', will I still see the exact trust ratings in number in their profile or will it change? I will be very thankful to someone to explain me this depth part of DT membership. What is DT1, DT2, DT3 and DT4? Which one of these hold the highest power?

Most important one here -
Why are the questions having biased options with a Yes or No before same statements as an alternative?

[LoyceV]

What is a custom trust list?

Basically, any change you make to your Trust list makes it "custom".
Very short summary: it decentralizes the decision power away from theymos, you can choose who's judgement on others you trust or distrust.

Is it something that is for our own good to keep/ remove/ untrust someone in our list with a ~ and will it be seen in those users' trust ratings when I visit their profile?

Your own Trust list directly influences how you see other users' trust scores.

And what about the original DT members?

That system changed, see DefaultTrust changes.

If I exclude them out of my list 'for test issues', will I still see the exact trust ratings in number in their profile or will it change? I will be very thankful to someone to explain me this depth part of DT membership.

There are some infographs posted in Meta, but if you want to know all details, you'll have some reading to do.

What is DT1, DT2, DT3 and DT4? Which one of these hold the highest power?

DT1 selects DT2 which selects DT3 which selects DT4.

If you're interested, I produced a lot of data on Trust lists.