If someone pass away, will their Trust feedback still exist permanently ?

[hd49728]

Admin wrote that admin doesn't moderate trust in the forum (still not find where he posted it); and some guides on Trust feedback.

Anyway, there are many conceivable ways to abuse the system, but if it happens, you can just shoot me a PM and I'll fix it, probably in less than 24 hours. To do it in a way that's non-obvious, where I wouldn't blacklist the accounts, would require tons of time and sMerit, and is unlikely. I'm inclined to let the current criteria go for a while and see if "unknowns" actually start habitually getting into it, in which case changes would be needed.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

I knew Zepher passed away months ago (Zepher Memorial Thread), so this case of Zepher raises a question that:

What will happen if one DT member gave a trust feedback (negative) on another user; then pass away, his / her negative trust feedback will stay forever. Is it fair, if scam accusation solved?
For Zepher case, he left negative Trust feedback on sportsbet.io months ago, before the upgrade of old trust system to Trust and Flag as we have now.
He left negative trust on sportsbet.io on 2017-04-16 (more than two years ago).

Are there solutions for sportsbet.io and others (in the future)?

Admins don't intervene in the trust system unless it's trust spam or advertising in trust walls. To get Zepher's trust deleted/not shown by default, one would have to either hack into his account, or convince the DT1s to exclude Zepher so that they have a net exclusion on DT2.

The special cases, special solutions should be considered. Replacement negative trust to neutral; or remove original negative trust

Trust spam isn't allowed. If I see anyone posting dozens of fake trust ratings (from one account or many alt accounts), I will delete all of their ratings. But Inaba is hiring multiple people to create these ratings. It is impossible for me to determine whether these ratings are "real" or not, so I'm not going to delete them. (Obviously all negative ratings are very likely to be fake, but I'm not going to guess about this.)

I agree that it is a little annoying to see a wall of negative ratings, but this is in the "untrusted" section. The way things are set up currently, untrusted ratings can be easily spammed in a number of ways. That's why those ratings are hidden by default.

I raised the question because people pass away every day, and I do think in some special cases, forum should have unofficial solution for them.
If forum treasure need solution with multi-signature, trust feedback should have special solution on solved cases when trust-feedback-senders pass away.

[cabalism13]

-snipped

AFAIK, there are already cases like that back then, and we can't really tell if the account owners we're dead or not, unless it was publicly announced. In Zepher's case, even if he's still on DT, I don't think that feedbacks from the past should be remove even if the account owner or the account was dead, besides these feedbacks are just meant to be a warning for other users. Especially on cases which had a valid basis, even if it was resolve, some issues can't be denied as long as it happened.

There are many accounts here that are long gone and had left some negative or positive feedback to others, the only different thing was they're not on DT, so they're toothless, their bites are painless.

As for this line:

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

It wasn't a rule to follow. It depends on every person here, so even if the person was dead, the fact that they didn't remove the feedback was because of their own will, thinking and ideals. We should respect what their decision is and not totally enforce the moderation of trust here. Besides, if it happened to you, you'll do the same.

[Vod]

What will happen if one DT member gave a trust feedback (negative) on another user; then pass away, his / her negative trust feedback will stay forever. Is it fair, if scam accusation solved?

Their DT1 invitation will time out, and other DT1 members will no longer include them in DT2.

[Steamtyme]

As time goes on this might become a bigger concern, but for now it's still an isolated incident. With the new system it's probably something that will work itself out as newer members wouldn't have a reason to include Zepher, and might even decide to exclude. You can already see some members leaving counters for that feedback. Flags would be the same as they need to have more people supporting it that countering it.

[YOSHIE]

Talk about trust both positive and negative.
However, in my opinion the trust remains attached to the account profile, even though the person holding the account has died,
So, it cannot be deleted other than the person concerned, the holder.

You remember the history of paraipan, now he is dead.
However, (trust) in the profile still exists.

Well, even though that person died trust still exists.
Unless he has been banned permanently, maybe the admin can delete it.

[Onuohakk]

Trust feedback is like been cursed upon forever. Undoing it requires the person present. That's why its always advice to be good in all your dealings to avoid been marked upon negatively

[o_e_l_e_o]

As you say, trust ratings aren't moderated. There are plenty of examples of far worse trust ratings and trust abuse than an old negative for a now resolved scam accusation, as in your example. Now of these have been moderated. For example:

Feedback sent by game-protect
Feedback sent by Buzzlieve1992

In the case of Zepher, there is even an old negative on a previously hacked account which has now been recovered: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=147307.

Given that theymos has recently tried to decentralize default trust as much as possible, by changing from a hand-picked DT1 to a voting system, I can't see him reversing that by single handedly picking and choosing which trust ratings are allowed and which are not. As Vod has said above, over time accounts which are no longer active will automatically be removed from DT1, and will likely slowly drift out of DT2.

[hilariousetc]

I think these sorts of cases will be very rare, but they will probably work themselves out. As vod said, exclusions can be made for people who are no longer active, but maybe even theymos could step in with the rare cases where someone has died and the issue has been resolved and the feedback can be removed by him if it's silly removing someone just for one feedback, but like I said, it can still be done by current default trust members if the community deems it important enough.

Trust feedback is like when someone is been cursed on whether negative or positive way, it keeps on following them till death. In situation like this, the only person that can undo it, is the person that placed it and nobody else. That's why its always advice to do the right thing at all times to avoid been marked upon negatively

People can be forgiven. DT members are added and removed and that can affect a user positively or negatively.

[AB de Royse777]

I think these sorts of cases will be very rare, but they will probably work themselves out. As vod said, exclusions can be made for people who are no longer active

Not everyone is going to revise their trust list which we are seeing from Zepher's case.

How about this?

- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.

It's one of the criteria of DT1 selection. Theymos can use something like this for someone being in DT2 too. Point is if someone is not active for certain amount of time then despite being in the trust list of DT1, the user will lose their DT2 status.

This way their feedback will not reflect as trusted anymore unless they fill up the criteria again.

[hilariousetc]

I think these sorts of cases will be very rare, but they will probably work themselves out. As vod said, exclusions can be made for people who are no longer active

Not everyone is going to revise their trust list which we are seeing from Zepher's case.

Over time they likely will and it's not been that long in Zepher's case, but there's also the debate of should feedback from trusted users be excluded because they're no longer active or have died? Imagine if you have a lot of feedback from users who have left the forum for whatever reasons. You could go from being pretty trusted to having little no feedback. You could make the argument that any active member would continue to get feedback from others but not always, especially if you don't do that many trades as you used to and that's why admin intervention may be better in certain cases to remove a specific feedback that's causing an issue, but maybe theymos still doesn't want to get involved in that.

How about this?

- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.

It's one of the criteria of DT1 selection. Theymos can use something like this for someone being in DT2 too. Point is if someone is not active for certain amount of time then despite being in the trust list of DT1, the user will lose their DT2 status.

This way their feedback will not reflect as trusted anymore unless they fill up the criteria again.

Maybe make the DT2 one with a longer duration. 30 days is ok for DT1 but 30 days for DT2 would seem a little short in my opinion. It's probably not that uncommon for less active users to leave the forum for a month or so.

[LoyceV]

- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.

It's one of the criteria of DT1 selection. Theymos can use something like this for someone being in DT2 too. Point is if someone is not active for certain amount of time then despite being in the trust list of DT1, the user will lose their DT2 status.

The risk is letting scammers who are only tagged by one person off the hook. Maybe the DT2-requirement should be that a user has been active in the past 6 months or 1 year? On the other hand, it's up to active DT1 members to keep a responsible Trust list.
If anything is going to change, I'd much rather see a requirement of 2 DT1 inclustions instead of 1 to become DT2, that limits the number of "Trust selfscratchers".

[hd49728]

Over time they likely will and it's not been that long in Zepher's case, but there's also the debate of should feedback from trusted users be excluded because they're no longer active or have died? Imagine if you have a lot of feedback from users who have left the forum for whatever reasons. You could go from being pretty trusted to having little no feedback. You could make the argument that any active member would continue to get feedback from others but not always, especially if you don't do that many trades as you used to and that's why admin intervention may be better in certain cases to remove a specific feedback that's causing an issue, but maybe theymos still doesn't want to get involved in that.

I think it is why for rare cases like Zepher, whom passed away, and have solid evidence of death, negative feedback on cases already solved should be manually handled (with replacement of neutral or remove of original negative feedback). Only admin can 'hack' into Zepher account and manually replace his feedback.
If Hal Finney thread edited by admin, it means we always have special cases for manual handlings.
Debate might occur on cases that have not been confirmed as real deaths, not 'fake' ones, like forum treasure hold by paraipan , whom still have not yet confirmed actually passed away or not.

[Strufmbae]

I would like to excuse myself for a moment of time.

I Hereby, Request confirmation if Satoshi Nakamoto is Still Existing Since Hes original account  is not active a long long time ago? i do believe also that theymos is the representative of satoshi's  missing presence.

I raised the question because people pass away every day, and I do think in some special cases, forum should have unofficial solution for them.
If forum treasure need solution with multi-signature, trust feedback should have special solution on solved cases when trust-feedback-senders pass away.

I may sound fool but, Satoshi's existence dead or alive  is quite interesting than any other individual in this forum. (except to the admins)

+100 Trust to Satoshi if i could.

[hd49728]

Please write something on-topic, I don't think you should spam here as one of way to get your post quota.

[ ... ]

Zepher passed away in late of February this year (the Zepher Memorial Thread made on February 25, 2019, around 5 months and a half ago. I think if there are criteria to excludes DT members, 1 or 2, 6 months is a long period enough to activate exclusive criteria.
Additionally, I don't see issues with exclusion for inactive DT members. In most cases, I observe that when one DT members leave negative feedback, there are some other DT members leave on those red tagged accounts too. So, excludes inactive DT members don't cause serious issues, because scammers will still get neg tags from some of other DT members.

Maybe make the DT2 one with a longer duration. 30 days is ok for DT1 but 30 days for DT2 would seem a little short in my opinion. It's probably not that uncommon for less active users to leave the forum for a month or so.

[Findingnemo]

Please write something on-topic, I don't think you should spam here as one of way to get your post quota.

[ ... ]

Zepher passed away in late of February this year (the Zepher Memorial Thread made on February 25, 2019, around 5 months and a half ago. I think if there are criteria to excludes DT members, 1 or 2, 6 months is a long period enough to activate exclusive criteria.
Additionally, I don't see issues with exclusion for inactive DT members. In most cases, I observe that when one DT members leave negative feedback, there are some other DT members leave on those red tagged accounts too. So, excludes inactive DT members don't cause serious issues, because scammers will still get neg tags from some of other DT members.

Maybe make the DT2 one with a longer duration. 30 days is ok for DT1 but 30 days for DT2 would seem a little short in my opinion. It's probably not that uncommon for less active users to leave the forum for a month or so.

But positive feedback will get affected though right? Because it is not possible to trust give positive feedback without knowing that person in deep.

I too agree that some sort of moderation needed when a person in DT network not anymore but theymos already mentioned he is not going to trust anyone.

[hd49728]

But positive feedback will get affected though right? Because it is not possible to trust give positive feedback without knowing that person in deep.

I too agree that some sort of moderation needed when a person in DT network not anymore but theymos already mentioned he is not going to trust anyone.

Therefore, I think manually replace negative feedbacks to neutral ones are good solution for those rare cases.
Remove original feedbacks sounds shady, somehow. A user who had scam accusations / neg tags in the past might potentially do this again; so neutral feedback as slight warning is enough, I think. They don't deserve neg tags if their cases solved, but a pure profile page sounds unfair, somehow.
Negative feedbacks that already solved and confirmed by 'victims' or someone who tagged negatively, or well massively confirmed by community

[Rux]

i got red flag for beeing dumb and joked about selling my account... man that was stupid :/

Zepher gave me red flag, and after his death suchmoon gave me same red flag.

After many convincing, suchmoon removed red flag, bcuse my account was not sold.

But what do in my case, when i got red flag from person who is dead?

Please advise

Rux.

[Lesbian Cow]

i got red flag for beeing dumb and joked about selling my account... man that was stupid :/

Zepher gave me red flag, and after his death suchmoon gave me same red flag.

After many convincing, suchmoon removed red flag, bcuse my account was not sold.

But what do in my case, when i got red flag from person who is dead?

Please advise

Rux.

I just looked thru that thread and it sure does look like your account was sold.  The possibility is there with the posting gap that Zepher pointed out and you did offer it for sale.  Zepher's negative sure looks valid to me, and having known Zepher quite well I believe he would leave the negative if he was still around. 

[LTU_btc]

It's difficult topic. Maybe now it's not a big problem, but eventually it will turn into big issue and solution for it is needed. IMO, distrusting people who passed away to remove them from DT isn't an option - they tagged lot of scammers and abusers and there may be just few feedbacks which are needed to remove. Another thing - trust isn't moderated, so I doubt that theymos want to remove such trust feedbacks manually.

i got red flag for beeing dumb and joked about selling my account... man that was stupid :/

Zepher gave me red flag, and after his death suchmoon gave me same red flag.

After many convincing, suchmoon removed red flag, bcuse my account was not sold.

But what do in my case, when i got red flag from person who is dead?

Please advise

Rux.

Can you at least prove that your account wasn't sold? Maybe you can sign a message from old bitcoin address to prove that you're original owner of account? If not, this trust feedback is still valid.
And FYI, Zepher left you trust feedback, not a trust flag, this is two different things.

[hd49728]

And FYI, Zepher left you trust feedback, not a trust flag, this is two different things.

Trust Flag difference and their meanings are difficult to differentiate for users, like Trust and feedbacks as well as Flags. There are not many users actually understand differences between those terms.

Trust plays as first impression when someone look at others' account, so it always has its role.

For already solved cases, and don't show intention to repeat it again for long period, neg should be removed or replaced as neutral one.