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

[LoyceV]

Four is okay, but five isn't?

You don't seriously think "those 5" can be compared to "those 4", do you? Why are you focussing on only the negative feedback, and not on the (incorrect) feedback I mentioned?

If that's not enough, let's see what DT1-members think about them. Out of "the 5", only one user is on DT2, with Strength (0). Meanwhile, all of "the 4" are on DT2, with Strengths going from (10) to (20).

[1714561671]

1714561671

[1714561671]

1714561671

[1714561671]

1714561671

[1714561671]

1714561671

[1714561671]

1714561671

[Timelord2067]

Can anyone fill me in on what went down here:



a quick peruse of the reputation & meta boards doesn't seem to turn anything up.

[LoyceV]

Can anyone fill me in on what went down here:

It looks like his username was changed, in my Trust list viewer he still goes by his old name. Thanks for posting this, otherwise my next Trust update would give errors.

[Helena Yu]

Trust list
You should add users who left accurate feedback and have good Trust lists to your Trust list, and you should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback.
This means your Trust list should be based on how you value the users' judgement on others, and it should not be based on whether or not you Trust those users (with money) or traded with them.

Based on my understanding, I think it doesn't wrong to include a scammer or account received a lot negative feedback in trust list as long as they leave appropriate feedback, right?

But why many users are removing yogg from their trust list and some of them are put yogg in their distrust list ? BPIP. It's make yogg's feedback now show as untrusted feedback and users who got negative feedback from yogg already clean now. The good thing those accounts already got banned or inactive, but what if they're active in the future and scam other user? did we need to evaluate each of yogg's feedback? but the problem is usually the reference he used is using his own local language and some of them without any reference.

Below is the list accounts were clean because yogg is removed from DT network (not full):

1. Frenklin
2. Karmegh
3. anavir
4. pharaoh_848
5. Igor76200
6. LIBRAProject
7. aneprof
8. james7702
9. USlimmer
10. 24Bit
11. blazgalo
12. candlicul
13. diotolriasediore
14. Cryptolancer
15. BitMiner713
16. johny1976
17. Cointoli
18. Guiller333
19. Yaplatu

[LoyceV]

Based on my understanding, I think it doesn't wrong to include a scammer or account received a lot negative feedback in trust list as long as they leave appropriate feedback, right?

Correct:

The fact that he turned out to be a scammer doesn't mean the feedback he left in the past, and the Trust list he currently has are suddenly wrong.

But:

For the record: I don't think scammers should stay on DefaultTrust (even though the rules don't mention it), but there's no rush.

But why many users are removing yogg from their trust list and some of them are put yogg in their distrust list ? BPIP. It's make yogg's feedback now show as untrusted feedback and users who got negative feedback from yogg already clean now.

Based on my own Trust list (which doesn't include yogg), I still see yogg's feedback by default. If you believe (after verifying the accuracy of the feedback) that some of it deserves to stay, you can add a negative of your own.

Below is the list accounts were clean because yogg is removed from DT network (not full):

I checked them, and the feedback is for spam, asking loan, shitposting, retaliation feedback for shilling, advertising a "reward", fake project, ponzi spam, illegal stuff, scam, begging loan, shitposting, shitposting, account sales, spam, selling fake, missing coins from flawed script, scam without reference, shilling, being toxic.
I'd say more than half of these feedbacks shouldn't exist in their current form, and less than half of them deserve repeating.

[Helena Yu]

If you believe (after verifying the accuracy of the feedback) that some of it deserves to stay, you can add a negative of your own.

I'd say more than half of these feedbacks shouldn't exist in their current form, and less than half of them deserve repeating.

Now I understand, there's nothing wrong for any users to give more negative feedback to scammer or user who has a risk to lost money, so it would prevent from this case where the account only got 1 negative feedback from DT member.

I think at least 5 negative feedbacks seems to be enough.

[LoyceV]

I think at least 5 negative feedbacks seems to be enough.

Especially in "high profile" cases, such as yogg's, many users add their own negative feedback. That's understandable, but doesn't necessarily relate to the total amount scammed. Either way, it's always good to read feedback and check reference links to apply your own judgement before trusting anyone. That applies to positive feedback as well.

[Gaza13]

thanks @LoyceV for the thread you created. I have found 2 accounts that are suspicious of Merit abuse. Services are provided in Thread Bounty. here are my findings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3473890
Did I break the rules Mr @LoyceV, I immediately executed the account by giving a negative trust. If I break the rules, I ask for guidance in the future, do I have to post it first, then members like Legendary will execute it

https://i.postimg.cc/NFqQnVSv/Screenshot-2023-01-22-01-13-32-83-40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

[LoyceV]

I have found 2 accounts that are suspicious of Merit abuse.

Sending 1 Merit is not a reason for negative feedback. Receiving Merit is something the user can't even prevent.

[Gaza13]

Sending 1 Merit is not a reason for negative feedback. Receiving Merit is something the user can't even prevent.

sorry in advance sir @LoyceV which I read in Thread @dbshck https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818787.0
with the title System Rank, Activity, and Merit

Here I read in a Merit point that says "This Merit System was created to improve the quality of postings on Bitcointalk by requiring users to have a certain number of merit points to be able to rank up. Users can no longer just post large numbers of numbers or do spamming to achieve high rankings .In addition to being active (getting activity), users must also make good quality posts in order to get merit from others and be able to rise to a higher ranking.
Therefore, it is highly recommended to reward only high-quality posts."

what i found out one of the accounts has very high quality posts,
Personally I don't think it's appropriate to give that kind of thing.
I don't think Mr__ZACK abused the Merit given to M__SUFYAN
in one of the bounty campaigns : 🕵🏻‍♂️ [DETECTIVE BOUNTY] 🔵 Masa - 4,000 BUSD REWARD POOL🔵

I'm just upholding the bitcointalk forum rules that apply

[un_rank]

I'm just upholding the bitcointalk forum rules that apply

You are thinking too hard about this and if you wish to pursue all the merit sharing which does not count as high quality, subjectively to you, it would take up a huge chunk of your day.

If you are right that it is merit abuse, they would not have enough to send around that matters as they have to keep generating them.
If you are wrong, you are tagging someone for a random merit transaction they considered worth it

"Therefore, it is highly recommended to reward only high-quality posts."

High-quality is subjective.

- Jay -

[LoyceV]

I'm just upholding the bitcointalk forum rules that apply

No you're not. Mods enforce forum rules, you're not a Mod.

Read this entire topic, you'll find this:

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

And in another topic you'll find this:

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.

I don't get it: did you join Bitcointalk to learn about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, or did you join Bitcointalk for the drama?

[LoyceV]

Bump!

[SeeBiscuit]

I love the trust system this forum uses.

It set's the standard for social media interacting, dare I say. Matter of fact, much of the facilitation of organic human behavior this forum uses is so top notch, I feel other bigger web2 platforms should follow suit.

It's a wonderful way to log people's subjective thinking/stance on someone. The fact it takes the three of positive, neutral, and negative feedback is amazing. I always love to tell people that there are two sides to every since bitcoin. There's a little gray area in between those two sides, however!

[owlcatz]

I love the trust system this forum uses.

It set's the standard for social media interacting, dare I say. Matter of fact, much of the facilitation of organic human behavior this forum uses is so top notch, I feel other bigger web2 platforms should follow suit.

It's a wonderful way to log people's subjective thinking/stance on someone. The fact it takes the three of positive, neutral, and negative feedback is amazing. I always love to tell people that there are two sides to every since bitcoin. There's a little gray area in between those two sides, however!

I really wouldn't go that far... It has it's problems of it's own and it's quite antiquated IMO, even after changes over the years.... FYI This forum software is from 2009 and heavily modified SMF /smack my face hahaha...

The main problem is the current system is used so differently by everyone, depending on parts of the forum etc etc. 

[LoyceV]

I love the trust system this forum uses.

That's great, but unfortunately I can't say you're using it correctly:


Since you're posting this in my topic, this is how I think the Trust system should be used:

Comments
Write a clear description. Keep it as short as possible without leaving things out. If your comment gets too long, create a topic in Reputation or Scam Accusations to refer to.
Try to be objective. If you stick to the facts, people are more likely to take your feedback seriously than if you resort to name calling.

Use Reference links
A Reference link provides more background information about the Feedback. This is very helpful for others to assess whether or not your judgement was correct.
You can use a Webpage archive to preserve evidence when needed for your Reference link.

It's a wonderful way to log people's subjective thinking/stance on someone.

Try to be objective instead of subjective:

Try to be objective. If you stick to the facts, people are more likely to take your feedback seriously

[nutildah]

Congrats LoyceV for usurping theymos for the position of most DT-included Bitcointalk member. I guess it means that you are not only considered trustworthy but that you have a good understanding of the trust system, as well.

And congrats to me for being tied for the #13 position  

[cygan]

short info:
since this very important topic has not been translated into polish yet, i will now take care of it and try to complete a translation for the polish local section and its users in the next few days

edit: done!
Instrukcje dla początkujących dotyczące prawidłowego korzystania z systemu Trust

[Rikafip]

Hey LoyceV, I don't know if you noticed but images in the guide are not showing (at least not for me) so maybe you might wanna check it out.

[LoyceV]

Hey LoyceV, I don't know if you noticed but images in the guide are not showing (at least not for me) so maybe you might wanna check it out.

There's a DDOS on my server, and I've been blocking IPs. I've excluded ip.bitcointalk.org from getting blocked, but somehow it's blocked anyway. If I flush iptables it works again, but quickly gets blocked while I don't find the IP in the blocked list. So I don't get it.
I think it's okay again. I'm slightly in over my head, this is new for me

Pictures now work on and off. That's just the DDOS