LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

[LoyceV]

In this case I think I have a good reason to give him positive feedback but maybe I will have to change it because it is not well explained. And if you see it as given lightly, surely others do too.

Rewriting it could indeed avoid confusion.

If I can trust that he is going to do a job for free, won't it be logical to trust him also if we make a previous economic deal?

I wouldn't necessarily expect that, because of this:

As the saying goes: "the opportunity makes the thief".

I really appreciate it when a person who doesn't know me at all offers to do work for me for free. And if tomorrow, let's say I have a website and I want him to design the cover. He tells me he's going to charge me $100.

If he did the job when he didn't know me at all and for free, I won't trust him to do it for me if I pay him?

Somehow "doing a job" to me feels less likely to turn into a scam than "doing an exchange". If someone is good at designing covers, it may take him a few hours, and a few hours isn't worth destroying a reputation. But if it's a trade, and someone earns $1 per hour in his normal day job, they might be tempted to run off.

As you go up in quantity, no matter who you make deals with, it is wise to take security measures. I could probably get a non-collateralized loan for $200 on the forum, but if I ask for $20,000, I will likely be asked to leave some kind of collateral such as a shitcoin as collateral, no matter how good a reputation I may have.

I'd be comfortable asking a $200 loan too I prefer to stay far away from any amount that would raise eyebrows.

Another doubt I have is regarding neutral feedbacks, I have seen that people leave neutral feedback, even when there has been monetary exchange and you also mentioned something about it in another post. I don't quite understand it, isn't trust feedback supposed to be precisely for that? If you make exchanges with money involved, and they go well, I understand that the feedback should be positive.

Say we make a trade: You send me $200 in Bitcoin, and after that I send you $200 on the Lightning Network. You trusted me, I didn't scam you. I didn't have to trust you, so you couldn't have scammed me. Does that mean I'd trust you if I'd send first? Maybe, but not based on this deal. So based on this hypothetical trade, I don't think you'd deserve positive feedback.

Something else: I've seen my updated trust list in Loyce.club and 1miau still distrust my list but I think he distrusted it when my dog deleted all people that was in my previous list. People like 1miau are supposed to review this? Or maybe if I see it's been a while I can send him a PM to see if he wants to check the new list?

You were excluded by miau in the week you made your first Trust list, not when you wiped it (2 weeks later). It's up to them whether or not to review their exclusions, I usually don't bother to PM users about their exclusions.

[1715020443]

1715020443

[1715020443]

1715020443

[1715020443]

1715020443

[1715020443]

1715020443

[1715020443]

1715020443

[1715020443]

1715020443

[Rikafip]

Another doubt I have is regarding neutral feedbacks, I have seen that people leave neutral feedback, even when there has been monetary exchange and you also mentioned something about it in another post. I don't quite understand it, isn't trust feedback supposed to be precisely for that? If you make exchanges with money involved, and they go well, I understand that the feedback should be positive.

Another way to see neutral feedback is as sort of "protection" against trust farm. I am sure that scammers would gladly take few hundreds of dollars loan in exchange for a positive feedback from well respected lenders so I am not surprised that they tend to give neutral instead positive feedback.

Call me paranoid, but to me bunch of those little loans look more like a trust farm attempts rather than a real need.

[Poker Player]

-snip

Hi LoyceV. This is just to say that I'm so grateful, I am learning so much thanks to your posts and also to your detailed answers to my questions that I think that I am becoming a better forum member every day partly thanks to you. I think it all started when you helped me to rank up, which gave me a boost in my self-esteem.

From now on I think I will think a lot about leaving positive feedback if it's not for a trade. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on how others leave their feedbacks and follow up on them.

Call me paranoid, but to me bunch of those little loans look more like a trust farm attempts rather than a real need.

I guess it is a strategy they are trying but do you think people with experience, for example DarkStar, are going to fall into that trap?

[Rikafip]

I guess it is a strategy they are trying but do you think people with experience, for example DarkStar, are going to fall into that trap?

I guess not, hence neutral feedback for those small loans makes sense, but that doesn't mean some won't try to do that. There are smart scammers around that are willing to play long game, not all are imbeciles.

[icopress]

Hi LoyceV. This is just to say that I'm so grateful, I am learning so much thanks to your posts and also to your detailed answers to my questions that I think that I am becoming a better forum member every day partly thanks to you. I think it all started when you helped me to rank up, which gave me a boost in my self-esteem. [...] From now on I think I will think a lot about leaving positive feedback if it's not for a trade. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on how others leave their feedbacks and follow up on them.

Believe it or not, before becoming a role model, Mr. Robot himself was an inquisitive newbie trying to understand the intricacies of the t'system, (since then machine learning technologies have taken a big step forward). Besides, being an inveterate skeptic, even I almost believed he was human when I reread one of his threads.

I kinda want to leave red trust in response, but [...]

I guess it is a strategy they are trying but do you think people with experience, for example DarkStar, are going to fall into that trap?

This issue has been raised many times, but there are still a lot of those, ^{[even among high-ranking forum participants]} who continue to leave positive reviews without risking anything. But one thing I can say for sure, DS_ was one of the first to understand what was happening and since then he has not changed his position (if you look at the history of his feedback, you will see that he leaves positive credit tags when it comes to large amounts).

[LoyceV]

before becoming a role model, Mr. Robot himself was an inquisitive newbie trying to understand the intricacies of the t'system

Lol. It was a learning curve indeed

I kinda want to leave red trust in response, but [...]

Let's add a bit more context from my reputation thread:

I kinda want to leave red trust in response, but it doesn't feel right to (ab)use DT-powers to do so. On the other hand, I obviously don't trust someone who leaves me random red trust without any reference link.
So, I'll leave this question for the community: what to do? This question has been answered ("do nothing"), thanks!

This (partially) helped me come to this recommendation:

Be the bigger man!
With great power comes great responsibility (source unknown). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.
If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

This also made me respond to Trust abuse with neutral instead of negative feedback. To throw in another cliche: Be the change you wish to see in the world..

[icopress]

Since we have touched on the subtleties of the trust system, I would like to discuss a small dilemma. I'm looking for a quick tip, plus I don't feel like creating a new thread over trifles. It's about the unusual activity of one of the guys in the collectibles section.

The crux of the matter is this:

Does it seem strange to me alone? Otherwise, how can you explain that just yesterday the starting price of the lot was 0.029 bitcoin, and somehow magically 5 seconds before you lowered the price, realediston edited his message by reducing his bid from 0.029 bitcoins to 0.022. Apparently, either he can predict the future, or you are cheating on your same auction .... bumping the price through your alt account.

Your response clearly shows a desperate attempt to move from defense to attack, but I still suggest not changing the topic. It’s not at all that you have lowered the price; it’s about trust. Using alt accounts in auctions is a very bad practice, (it doesn't matter if you lower/increase the value of the coin being sold in this way, or just create the appearance of an active auction). This practice makes you an unreliable seller and makes the auctions you run risky. And I wrote in this and your previous threads, primarily because of interest and not because I wanted to attack you (in the end, I don't even know who you are and I absolutely do not care).

Not sharing any screenshot! And will close the auction. Do whatever you want to do! You are very bad person with your sarcastic comments.

There were a lot of discussion posts in the thread, but it all boiled down to tmow that in the end this switch to insults and refused to provide evidence that he did not use an alt account in his auction (he ultimately edited his post). I am a little confused because I feel that on the one hand, the red tag is fully deserved, on the other hand, after this discussion, as a gesture of goodwill, it covered the escrow costs for future sales.

[LoyceV]

I'm looking for a quick tip

When in doubt, don't do anything. No tags needed, just let it be.

on the one hand, the red tag is fully deserved, on the other hand

On the one hand I see doubt, and on the other hand I see it too

This doesn't look totally impossible:

We just asked them that we will reduce the start price to 0.22BTC to get more bids (as we changed to auction rather than buy). They agreed. May be, they just edited before we did. If any thing price is reduced.

[Timelord2067]

"Duck season!"



"Wabbit Season!"

[Suzuki Matt]

Thank you for explaining this so thoroughly. I was confused as a newer member. I really appreciate you breaking it down so a dummy like me could understand 

[Poker Player]

Hi LoyceV, I have a question to ask you and anyone else who wants to comment on the thread.

I have seen that you and two other forum members have left a neutral tag for merit abuse to naim027.

The comment from lovesmayfamilis is the harshest:

Abuse of merit with your alternate account.
This account is a liar. Don't trust!

I would say it is a neutral tag of negative spirit.

So, the doubt I have is that I included naim027 in my trust list because I saw that he had included me in his and when I checked both his trust list and his distrust list I saw that they were very similar to mine. Besides I read the feedbacks that he had left, which if I remember correctly were 4 and I saw them correct. So the decision was easy to include him in my trust list.

So, I understand that these neutral tags should not affect that inclusion, especially because it seems that it was a one-time thing in the past that does not happen today and the tags are neutral.

What do you think about this?

And going further, let's imagine that in the future I find a similar case but in this case is someone that I have in my trust list but has bought merits to rank up faster, so he gets negative tags.

If his trust list is still similar to mine and his feedback is correct, should I reconsider removing him from my trust list? Part of me says yes, because if you don't trust someone you don't trust them in general, and another part of me says they are two separate things.

I would also like to know your opinion on this second, more hypothetical aspect.

[naim027]

I am not supposed to respond here because I shouldn't be advocating for myself. Let's put someone else shoe's on mine.

And going further, let's imagine that in the future I find a similar case but in this case is someone that I have in my trust list but has bought merits to rank up faster, so he gets negative tags.

About negative tags for abusing merit, It's not a forum rule. It's about ethics. Theymos once said:

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

If his trust list is still similar to mine and his feedback is correct, should I reconsider removing him from my trust list? Part of me says yes, because if you don't trust someone you don't trust them in general, and another part of me says they are two separate things.

I would say it's up to you. It's all about Judgment. If you trust someone's Judgment, Include him on your trust list. If you don't trust someone's Judgment, Distrust him. Don't mix up Trust Feedback and Trust Network. Those two features are used for different purposes. The feedback system has nothing to do with your trust network system. Feedback system should be used for trading trust purposes.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.

There are many members with negative trust, and many DT Members distrusted them.

Take OgNasty For example. He has 6 Negative feedback from DT members. Even having a Donator badge doesn't mean he is unlikely to scam. Let's say those six negative are legit—still, theymos trust his Judgment.

OgNasty's judgement is Trusted by:
1. theymos (Trust: +30 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (58) 8535 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

[LoyceV]

I have seen that you and two other forum members have left a neutral tag for merit abuse to naim027.

I left that neutral tag because I didn't agree with lovesmayfamilis' negative tag, and because I hoped this would stop others from adding more negative tags for something this small. After this, lovesmayfamilis changed their tag to neutral (and removed me from their Trust list).

I would say it is a neutral tag of negative spirit.

I think so too. But I also think it's better than a negative tag with the same spirit.

I included naim027 in my trust list because I saw that he had included me in his

This isn't a good reason to include anyone. I took this part out of context to make a point for anyone who reads this.

I checked both his trust list and his distrust list I saw that they were very similar to mine. Besides I read the feedbacks that he had left, which if I remember correctly were 4 and I saw them correct. So the decision was easy to include him in my trust list.

This makes more sense.

What do you think about this?

I wouldn't worry about it.

Part of me says yes, because if you don't trust someone you don't trust them in general, and another part of me says they are two separate things.

I think it really depends on the case. Some people with negative feedback still have good Sent feedback. And some go full retaliation by tagging anyone who left them a (valid) negative tag.
For now, I wouldn't worry about hypothetical problems

[lovesmayfamilis]

Okay, I'll explain too. I don't think that 10 merit is already a member's level, an insignificant thing. Thus, as I wrote earlier, it is possible to advise everyone to distribute their merits to their alternatives. What's more, a lot of accounts have been downvoted for this behavior, and I've also seen a lot of accounts that lie very beautifully. I'm starting from how acted before.
Why then tag anyone at all with negative or other tags if they are more preferred for trading?
But yes, I looked at the history of naim027's account, and just as he nobly apologized for his mistake earlier today, I also want to say that I overreacted with my assessment, and I apologize.

[Poker Player]

I included naim027 in my trust list because I saw that he had included me in his

This isn't a good reason to include anyone.

Just to clarify that of course if we take that sentence isolated from the context it would not be a good reason to include anyone.

What I meant to say is that what motivated me to look at his trust lists and feedbacks is to see that he had included me.

[LoyceV]

What I meant to say is that what motivated me to look at his trust lists and feedbacks is to see that he had included me.

No worries, I got that. I wanted to highlight it though, since that's kinda the point of this topic. I'll add that I took that part slightly out of context.

[icopress]

What's more, a lot of accounts have been downvoted for this behavior, and I've also seen a lot of accounts that lie very beautifully. I'm starting from how acted before. Why then tag anyone at all with negative or other tags if they are more preferred for trading? [...]

It's really up to you to decide, as LoyceV's notes on the first page of this thread and Theymos quoted post are only recommendations. Therefore, only you can personally determine the degree of this or that slander or lie that comes from the user, especially since there is a law in the US law that criminalizes malicious slander. but as far as I know, it only applies in cases where a malicious lie has caused you personal financial damage (or may cause it in the future).

[Apocollapse]

Hi @LoyceV,

Upon reading your thread and understand it correctly how to use of trust feedback and trust system, I have a question regarding the use of positive feedback. You wrote "If you believe someone can be trusted, even when you didn't trade with him, that too deserves positive feedback." I don't know what's the reason why we need to leave positive feedback when there's no money or trade involved? Even I see many people also giving you positive feedback without money or trade involved. I won't mention those names, but I will re write what does I feel it isn't a correct way to leave positive feedback (not only on your trust list).

"This user is really valuable and wrote many high quality posts, it's an asset in this forum"
"This user fighting against scammer, good scam buster"
"This user is a good guy, useful, and active in x board"
"This user is trusted with his valuable posts"
"This user is really smart about Bitcoin"

I feel those above positive feedback isn't correct, since there's nothing about money or trade involved. Why does a smart person which created many high quality posts can be trusted? it's just like trusting a hacker which know how to hack a website and stole the funds. Now talking about scam buster, a respectable person who help the forum, why we should leaving positive feedback a respectable person? I think adding his name on trust list is already enough since they're mostly leaving a negative and neutral feedback, also support or opposite a flag (forum stuffs). Someone who willing to help about forum stuffs are different with someone who willing to help in money oriented e.g. refund back the money. Moreover trusting someone because he active in x board, knowing each other or join on a same gang/activities e.g. active in their local board are just subjective judgement and shouldn't given a positive feedback.

I didn't mean to make a conflict nor I envy didn't have any single positive feedback, but I wanted to learn more deeply and if I'm correct I would be happy to make the use of trust feedback more correctly. I know there's many more not correct use of trust feedback and trust list e.g. well known drama V vs O, but it's really complicated and I feel it's impossible to each other would revise his feedback/trust list. But for those feedback I mentioned above are still possible to be revised since these users aren't taking a feedback too seriously.

tl;dr trust feedback is used for money oriented, trust list is used for a user who leaving a correct trust feedback.

[LoyceV]

I don't know what's the reason why we need to leave positive feedback when there's no money or trade involved?

The forum's recommendation is this:

Code:

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

That can very well apply to long-term community members. I think a reputation of being good with thousands of hours spend on this forum means someone isn't likely to throw that all away for a quick buck.
It is much easier to get positive trust by buying something on the Collectibles board, and selling it again. Even better if you pay some of the usual escrows there, you may get 2 positive ratings for only one trade.
It's up to every forum member to decide for themselves how they value this.

Even I see many people also giving you positive feedback without money or trade involved.

Or the other way around: some of the largest amounts I've handled for others didn't result in any feedback. Not that it matters much, because it's usually with Newbies who's feedback is "Untrusted" by default.

"This user is really valuable and wrote many high quality posts, it's an asset in this forum"

That would be really hard to fake.

"This user fighting against scammer, good scam buster"

I've seen this go wrong several times: users quickly gaining a reputation and positive feedback as "scam buster", and eventually scamming when they see an opportunity.

"This user is a good guy, useful, and active in x board"

I think this mainly happens on local boards.

"This user is trusted with his valuable posts"

This could apply to technical posts: it's good to know who's posts are generally correct, especially if a Newbie were to ask a question and gets opposing answers.

"This user is really smart about Bitcoin"

Lol. This requires a very convincing Reference link.

The good thing about feedback is that you can read it and decide on your own if it means something to you. If someone had the chance to steal $10,000 and didn't scam, I'd say he isn't likely to steal $1000 when he gets the chance. But if someone's posts on a local board are highly valued by his fellow countrymen, that doesn't tell me if he'd run off with the $1000 once given the chance.

I feel those above positive feedback isn't correct, since there's nothing about money or trade involved.

If that's how you feel: exclude the users who left that feedback from your Trust list.

Why does a smart person which created many high quality posts can be trusted?

It depends: I wouldn't necessarily trust them. In fact, there are only a few users here who I'd trust with any significant amount without thinking about it.
But think about what someone has to lose. I recently received a PM from a Newbie saying he doesn't want to be conned, and I'd be an idiot to do it because my reputation is worth more. He's right. That's what gives a reputation value.

it's just like trusting a hacker which know how to hack a website and stole the funds.

I wouldn't trust a hacker who steals. But a hacker who informs you about a vulnerability can be worth $50 000.

Now talking about scam buster, a respectable person who help the forum, why we should leaving positive feedback a respectable person?

I wouldn't do it. But some users do.

~someone who willing to help in money oriented e.g. refund back the money.

I don't think that user deserves 10 positive feedbacks for this, half of which is from DT. He got one from theymos, and in my opinion that should have been enough.

Moreover trusting someone because he active in x board, knowing each other or join on a same gang/activities e.g. active in their local board are just subjective judgement and shouldn't given a positive feedback.

Agreed. This is one of the reasons why many local board members have so many Trust exclusions. So the "voting" system works.

tl;dr trust feedback is used for money oriented

Read this again:

Code:

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

Positive feedback can be based on your opinion. And it's up to others to decide whether or not they value your opinion.
Remember the forum's mission:

the forum's mission to be as free as possible.

[Apocollapse]

That can very well apply to long-term community members. I think a reputation of being good with thousands of hours spend on this forum means someone isn't likely to throw that all away for a quick buck.

I understand, however it depends on the users itself. If I trade with a chipmixer's participant, I wouldn't think twice before send my funds to him since they're got $300/week. He wouldn't scam only for $1000, that's amount might be a peanut by him. Can a bounty hunter especially never earn any single merit and spend a lot of times to shitpost deserve a positive feedback? jk.

It is much easier to get positive trust by buying something on the Collectibles board, and selling it again. Even better if you pay some of the usual escrows there, you may get 2 positive ratings for only one trade. It's up to every forum member to decide for themselves how they value this.

Yeah I also noticed that, however a reputable user wouldn't easily give a positive feedback even you've done multiply trade with him. Personally I would think when the user leave a positive feedback for low amount trade it's not really correct isn't? especially for a brand new newbie, some people might think he's safe to trade without an escrow.

If that's how you feel: exclude the users who left that feedback from your Trust list.

To be honest this is the another problem for me.
Those users who left a wrong feedback also left so many correct feedback, it would be unfair if I just looking his single mistake but I didn't care with so many contribution he do for this forum. If he got excluded from DT network, his negative feedback to scammer will be shown in untrusted feedback. If the scammer only got a negative feedback from this user, anyone wouldn't know this scammer is a scammer since his trust will be neutral +0 / =0 / -0.

Also excluding an user isn't something easy to do, I've seen many members had a conflict because of this. Distrusting someone doesn't mean I don't like your post, I won't merit your post or I hate you, but I just don't like perspective of giving a feedback due to personal interest. Usually when A distrust B, B will distrust A too and B will search anything wrong have been done from A e.g. cheating with multiple alts, plagiarism etc.

I don't think that user deserves 10 positive feedbacks for this, half of which is from DT. He got one from theymos, and in my opinion that should have been enough.

Agreed, a feedback from theymos have a good weight.