Are we giving Red trust feedback too easy?

[dkbit98]

I know that trust feedback system is created with good intentions,
but sadly I must say that it has become reason of ridiculous time wasting member arguments.

I think we are all giving red trust feedback to easy without double checking, investigating or talking with other members.

We all make mistakes, and we don't want to listen other side at all.

Please guys, let's not create enemies and clans here.


What options we have:
- Give neutral feedback
- Talk with other member
- Ask advice and consult other members before giving red trust

[TryNinja]

Hard to say when you don't even put an example of what you are talking about.

[kawetsriyanto]

don't even put an example

Yes, it should be better if there are some examples. Maybe OP can enclose pictures or links of some cases "too easy give red-trust".

I think we are all giving red trust feedback to easy without double checking, investigating or talking with other members.

We?? Can you mention some of them?  
I am not one of the people who give red-trust too easy. You can check my trust summary. Even, no single person I gave a red-trust so far. But surely, I will give it someday if I think it deserves. For DT, I think investigating, double-checking, or other procedures must be done already. So, you are no need to think they are careless. Don't worry, they are not random people. 

[YOSHIE]

I'm not sure your efforts will be carried out by many members here,
You do the same thing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1410401



red, not moderation, people do on the basis of very strong evidence, generally committed to members, cheating on campaigns, fraud, ponzi, selling accounts etc, maybe you better know all that.
I don't know what got into you today, Usually, you immediately give participants who break the rules in this bitcointalk Forum, red trust.

[malevolent]

Negative Trust ratings themselves don't mean as much after the system has been revamped and flags introduced, so some might be giving out red Trust more liberally than previously. You can always distrust these people, or talk with those who have added them on their Trust lists to remove or distrust them. You can also start a relevant topic in Reputation.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Thought the topic would had pointed out, red tagging isn't that common or rampant anymore unlike before, there are some things, you can easier get away with this days but it would had ruined your account if such offense were committed before. So instead I would say the community aren't giving feedback too easier anymore.

The issue now is how those affected appeal their cases, most DT members are reasonable and are willing to reason with you to give you a chance to defend yourself although those affected let anger bring out the worst in them which turns the whole appeal attempt into something else.

[rhomelmabini]

I think we are all giving red trust feedback to easy without double checking, investigating or talking with other members.

I guess the title should have been "too easy" and not "to easy" just want to correct it though as well as the above sentence.

We all make mistakes

Well, you have a rebuttal, that's enough. Let's make love not war.


If you have enough evidence that proves them they do a certain unpleasant thing then it's better to put a red trust on that user and if ever he opposes about that trust and clearly explains the issue then you may remove that trust or put it on neutral if you do like. If both parties want to present a case that's the use of the Reputation or Scam Accusation board wherever it suits between the two.

[Upgrade00]

What options we have:
- Give neutral feedback
- Talk with another member
- Ask advice and consult other members before giving red trust

I do not believe in giving neutral rating for positive or negative feedback, it should rather be used as a note when you are undecided, for example when a new user has a username similar to that of an older member, it's not a clear scan attempt, but it is worthy of note.

Also, trust flags are now mainly used for scam attempts, and feedback for overall trustworthiness and attitude of a user which should be monitored and recorded over a period of time before giving out feedback; positive or negative. I agree that there may have been some bad calls by DTs in the past but it's much fewer not with the new trust system.

[Daniel91]

I had experience to receive negative trust simple because I was member in some signature campaign or because of some issues long time ago, before 7-8 years and not connected with this forum,  trade or crypto at all.
So,  negative trust can be abused by forum members and there is no way to prevent it.
Yes,  I started topic in reputation,  sent messages and everything already suggested here without any result.
Negative trust,  specially from DT members,  are like "death sentence" on this forum and nobody can protect you or help you.

[Rikafip]

I just wanna point out few things from  LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system that i think people should keep in mind more often. In general I think that more people should read this guide , even more times if it is needed.

• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

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.

If this is used more often imho forum would be a better place. Ignore button is mostly neglected I think, as i see people constantly getting involved in endless discussions with same trolls. But then again, it is not a surprise as here you actually have incentive to engage in pointless discussions through signature campaigns.

Just to add that I don't know how good or bad previous system was, but from what i see here, seems like this was the move in right direction. With that being said, it doesn't mean it can't be used in a better way.

[AicecreaME]

We all make mistakes, and we don't want to listen other side at all.

That is why we have rules here that is being implemented to all of the users here in this forum, if you committed a mistake that is needed to be punish according of what rules you have been broken, you must also accept the consequence about your mistake.

We have rules in this forum, it is our job to read it and agree with it, and I am sure that those who committed mistakes that got their punishments also knows about the rules, yet they went against the rules.

[LoyceV]

I've always been (or at least tried to be) conservative in leaving (negative) feedback, so from my perspective, many others are indeed too "trigger happy" when it comes to tagging accounts.

I'll quote myself because I'm lazy this morning:

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

I just wanna point out few things from  LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system that i think people should keep in mind more often. In general I think that more people should read this guide , even more times if it is needed.

• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

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.

Thanks, I wanted to post the same thing

[dkbit98]

Hard to say when you don't even put an example of what you are talking about.

You must be spending time under the rock, and not on the forum.

High ranked members fight each other in weird red trust fights.
I will not continue this silly duels by naming them here.

We?? Can you mention some of them? 

I was one of them.
I will not mention others, but it's easy to locate them if you are active forum member.

You do the same thing

Yes I did.
That does not mean that I can't change any of my given red trust feedback if proven wrong

I guess the title should have been "too easy" and not "to easy" just want to correct it though as well as the above sentence.

Thanks. Corrected.
I wrote this a bit late

So,  negative trust can be abused by forum members and there is no way to prevent it.

They can, and they are being abused.

I would just call everyone, including myself, to examine red trusts, and give everyone a chance.

[hugeblack]

If you feel that one of these reviews is bad/wrong, create a topic here ---> Reputation.
If the members feel that you have been wronged, those who wronged you may be excluded from being DT1/2 members and therefore them negative feedback will not affect you.

Generally, don't let it get you, everything is updatable in the future.

[dkbit98]

If you feel that one of these reviews is bad/wrong, create a topic here ---> Reputation.
If the members feel that you have been wronged, those who wronged you may be excluded from being DT1/2 members and therefore them negative feedback will not affect you.

Generally, don't let it get you, everything is updatable in the future.

I am thinking more about Red Trust I gave to other people, and I would like to give everyone a chance to prove me wrong.
One mistake I make can seriously affect other member, so I am questioning and double checking everything.
I don't think that red trust or positive feedback is 'set in stone'.

Ignore button is mostly neglected I think, as i see people constantly getting involved in endless discussions with same trolls. But then again, it is not a surprise as here you actually have incentive to engage in pointless discussions through signature campaigns.

I would agree with this 100%

[TryNinja]

You must be spending time under the rock, and not on the forum.

I don’t. I read and know more than you think. But when you criticize something, you also specify what is wrong about it rather than letting people try to guess what you are talking about. What negative feedbacks were given prematurely? That’s relative.

You don’t want to name them, nothing will change. If the red neg isn’t justified, you can always report it to other DTs so they can exclude the user if he is unwilling to correct its feedback.

And yes, I have seen some cases where I believe trust wasn’t justified. I even excluded someone from my trust based on that. But that was what I thought about it.

[hacker1001101001]

I agree red trust feedbacks are given too easy now a days around here.

Just want to quote a recent example. I even think this is what OP is concerned about.

Lauda   2019-12-06   Reference   Selectively acts as as your "friendly neighbourhood guy", but those double-faced pricks are the worst. Most of what he does nowadays, he does out of spite.
After being called out for his virtue-signalling several times, he tries to attack here and there with half-baked "legitimate concerns".
I wouldn't trust this user nor his judgement with anything.

[The-One-Above-All]

Red trust has now NOTHING to do with financially motivate wrongdoing else it would be a FLAG

Red trust is simply a tool that DT members weaponize for personal reasons. That have NOTHING to do with financially motivated wrong doing in most cases.

Theymos has made a huge fuck up leaving the old feedback system there and grandfathering the OLD abuse in. The old abuse is what forced through the need for flags. I mean leaving it there and grandfathering it in is completely fucked up.

By leaving the old feeback system there BUT LOWERING the threshold for giving it to " you can give it for any shit you want NOT just to scammers or those strongly likely to scam"  but allowing the same punishment to be used against people that get red trust aka no sigs, trading issues etc.... he essentially crushed free speech further. Terrible design and poorly conceived.

The new flagging system has potential but it is impotent whilst feedback is negative or positive or has a score. It should simply be feedback with no scoring. People have to READ the feedback and decide for themselves. Campaign managers should ONLY be allowed to punish people according to objective FLAGS of clear financially motivated wrongdoing.

What actually happens also is you have a lot of DT members that realize to cut back on competition for sig spots they just find any reason to flag your account. The campaign managers find ALL KINDS of metrics that the DT scum control to ONLY ALLOW the DT members to join their highly paid sig campaigns LOL.


Or if you are a competing campaign manager (not dt) or running a competing project that places incentive for reasons to slap some red.  There are all kinds of incentives for DT scum to throw red around.

Red trust has ZERO positives and HUGE negative implications.

The feedback system needs deleting or removing of all scores and it is simply a list of comments people can read. The flags stay the same. The lemons flag MUST be only raised on clearly financially motivated wrong doing or STRONGLY LIKELY TO SCAM like the minimum threshold for the OLD feedback system.

[marlboroza]

I had experience to receive negative trust simple because I was member in some signature campaign

It can happen if someone is advertising scam.

because of some issues long time ago, before 7-8 years and not connected with this forum,  trade or crypto at all.

Trust is not related only to this forum, or to crypto, some users seems don't understand this. For example, if someone scam you on facebook, would you trust that person on bitcointalk or you will warn others?

- Ask advice and consult other members before giving red trust

You mean DT who can't do shit themselves? Doesn't look like a good DT material to start with.

You don’t want to name them, nothing will change. If the red neg isn’t justified, you can always report it to other DTs so they can exclude the user if he is unwilling to correct its feedback.

I reported DT member and they are still DT.

[The-One-Above-All]

I had experience to receive negative trust simple because I was member in some signature campaign

It can happen if someone is advertising scam.

because of some issues long time ago, before 7-8 years and not connected with this forum,  trade or crypto at all.

Trust is not related only to this forum, or to crypto, some users seems don't understand this. For example, if someone scam you on facebook, would you trust that person on bitcointalk or you will warn others?

- Ask advice and consult other members before giving red trust

You mean DT who can't do shit themselves? Doesn't look like a good DT material to start with.

You don’t want to name them, nothing will change. If the red neg isn’t justified, you can always report it to other DTs so they can exclude the user if he is unwilling to correct its feedback.

I reported DT member and they are still DT.

If you have clear evidence of any scamming a flag should be raised. Negative trust is a broken dinosaur that just destroys the forum and the free speech here. It is UNDENIABLE. If there is no direct link to financially motivated wrongdoing there should be no flag or tag obviously. Most red trust i see handed out has ZERO connection to financially motivated wrong doing. More likely is a DT throwing their weight around trying to crush free speech of other members.

Then they perform some mental gymnastics saying eating lemons when you know there are others around who may die because they are allergic to lemons shows you don't care about other people, if you don't care about other people then obviously you will scam them if you get the chance.

CLEAR DIRECT LINK to financially motivated wrongdoing or NO FLAG NO TAG....else you may as well say free speech is dead or that we are pushing to echo chambers of DT and their agendas here.

It is UNDENIABLE. I have seen NO credible defense raised ever. Just a lot of DT's crying trolling because they want to keep their fav weapon that allows them to punish people they don't like and ensure they get the best sig spots. Or in EXTREME cases you will find DT members use red trust to silence people who present observable instances of those DT members prior financially motivated wrong doing. The other DT will support this behavior. The entire thing is currently fucked. Hence the board turning into warzone and the trust system just getting diluted into a mess that soon will provide zero use at all in preventing the real scammers standing out.