Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT

[dkbit98]

Here is an idea. What if we completely remove the negative trust (making it neutral) and use only flags for trust issues and trade risk?

I don't like the idea of removing negative trust and making it neutral.
As much as current DT system is broken at the moment we still need to have the option of giving any member positive, negative or neutral feedback.
If something needs to be removed I would than remove all feedback, but this opens another can of worms.

[1714247960]

1714247960

[1714247960]

1714247960

[1714247960]

1714247960

[KingsDen]

The frustrating reality would be the possibility of having hundreds of pieces of feedback down-voted by certain members, that would require up-voting by others in order to remain, which sounds like an exhausting task for DT1 members.

It seems that it is you that is thinking this in a vague way.
Take it that I feel that I am u justly tagged by a DT1, I'll raise a judgement flag for the case and link the thread that lead to my tag. If I should have the support of 5 DT members or 10 DT members as the admin will approve, the red tag would be removed and the DT score of the one who left the tag will drop. But if I don't have enough DT support, the tag remains.

[philipma1957]

Trying to follow the alternating proposals here but failing to understand the logic of 2/3 or 3/4 of DT1 to vote. For starters, it's very unlikely to get 61 to 69 DT1 members to vote on anything imo.

I don't see the issue with having only 50%+ agreement as the threshold for having feedback removed...

It will undoubtedly be difficult, yes. I just feel like it shouldn't be easy to have feedback removed and put in the untrusted category. You are protecting the trust system that way. It already has its difficulties. If it was an easy thing to do, it would stop being a valuable tool and slowly lose its purpose. Maybe I am exaggerating.

look at my trust

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=64507

Hahaha. Sorry, had to laugh. If I had the power to make decisions here, such uses of the feedback system wouldn't be allowed. You are not the only that has that, and information that someone is stupid/crazy/gay/brain-damaged doesn't help anyone.

Yeah it’s annoying and a bit sad that people run around trolling the way he does.

[Plaguedeath]

Bump this topic since we have a new drama.

the DT score of the one who left the tag will drop.

It not work like that, the tag will be removed, but the score is still same as long as there's no user exclude or distrust him. Surely he can leave a same feedback to that account, but it's somewhat like a troll where you still selfish and not want to accept if the feedback you left wasn't appropriate according to the community, which would make other users to exclude or distrust him.

[jokers10]

Bump this topic since we have a new drama.

the DT score of the one who left the tag will drop.

It not work like that, the tag will be removed, but the score is still same as long as there's no user exclude or distrust him. Surely he can leave a same feedback to that account, but it's somewhat like a troll where you still selfish and not want to accept if the feedback you left wasn't appropriate according to the community, which would make other users to exclude or distrust him.

How will it help? Of course many DT members can in such case vote against tags from both sides, but these tags are left on a base of emotions and those emotions are still strong, so we'll just get a new level of drama. There are several DT members in that topic who recommended to remove those tags, but there's no positive result. If we'll remove those tags basing on voting, what will prevent the drama participants of leaving new ones? If it was on rational base, it could be solved by arguments, but what is based on emotions... I don't think removing those tags through voting can solve the problem you mentioned. Unfortunately.

[digaran]

Bump this topic since we have a new drama.

the DT score of the one who left the tag will drop.

It not work like that, the tag will be removed, but the score is still same as long as there's no user exclude or distrust him. Surely he can leave a same feedback to that account, but it's somewhat like a troll where you still selfish and not want to accept if the feedback you left wasn't appropriate according to the community, which would make other users to exclude or distrust him.

So you bump this because 2 DT members having troubles in paradise?
Next subject on agenda, requesting a new system to support minorities, on top of that we'd need another system for human rights, animal rights etc.  But this is not a government/ nation, I thought it was at some point, but none of you(with a few exceptions) here really deserve any thing good, I came back after years to receive more tags, but do you see anyone doing something about it? It's because I hold no power, an  ordinary person's reputation is worthless for this community, and as you know, sometimes you are on top, sometimes under, the time for me to be on top is around the corner God willing.😉

[NotATether]

Well, even if it is bumped, I do not support this.

Adding downvote (and possibly upvote) functionality will turn Bitcointalk trust feedbacks into a toxic space like Reddit (people who use Reddit will relate to this). As if the drama in this forum is not already bad enough. So if I had the option between doing nothing and messing with some levers that might make the situation even worse, I'd rather do nothing.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

How will it help? Of course many DT members can in such case vote against tags from both sides, but these tags are left on a base of emotions and those emotions are still strong, so we'll just get a new level of drama. There are several DT members in that topic who recommended to remove those tags, but there's no positive result. If we'll remove those tags basing on voting, what will prevent the drama participants of leaving new ones? If it was on rational base, it could be solved by arguments, but what is based on emotions... I don't think removing those tags through voting can solve the problem you mentioned. Unfortunately.

You nailed it. With the current DT system step up. It won't help that much, in fact it will lead to more chaos. In the new drama that Plaguedeath refers to, the case can easily be solved by both members agreeing to remove the feedback from each other's profile and ignore each other afterward. Simple as that. Both members are trustworthy or are not likely to scam, but the problem is maybe with the egos surrounding the feedback they left each other.

On giving the DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT, maybe there would be an additional clause like if a DT member gets his feedback revoked after a specified number of times, all his future trust ratings would no longer show up under trusted feedback but rather under Untrusted feedback. This would preserve the past accurate feedback
But with all this, it would mean the DT system would need an overhaul, and I don't think we are all ready for the drama that ensures afterward.

[digaran]

This would preserve the past accurate feedback
But with all this, it would mean the DT system would need an overhaul, and I don't think we are all ready for the drama that ensures afterward.

What past valid feedbacks? In case you and any other member here have your heads in to the sands, let me shout out so you can hear, how many of scammers, cheaters get exposed/doxxed after getting caught? Have you wondered why they never stop popping up like mushrooms the more you catch them?  You can't fight them like this, instead you have to educate the community in a way that they become vigilant and informed enough, not to fall for the scam.
Instead, you are actively trying to stop something that can easily be gamed. There are many farming services/ shilling services providing you with enough "bounty cheaters" "scammers" with low fees so that you could continuously catch them and tag them, then you'd become a useful member to get on DT. Once you are there, we'd have this current situation, you can easily spend $10,000 to become a reputable member with hundreds of "good" feedbacks.

Note, the price is much much lower than $10k, I give them credit by saying $10k, you could get positive trust by trading $1000 back and forth with a few old gang members.
Anyways I wouldn't trust anonymous individuals with money, no matter what, unless they reveal their ID for the public.

Edit, separated paragraphs to make it clear I'm not directly talking with Bitcoin_Arena, rather saying things in general. Lol

[LoyceV]

you can easily spend $10,000 to become a reputable member with hundreds of "good" feedbacks.

How many scammers have you seen who are willing to spend $10k on their image? By the time they've done that, they have an actual reputation to lose.

Anyways I wouldn't trust anonymous individuals with money, no matter what, unless they reveal their ID for the public.

An ID from someone in another country won't do you any good.

Let's face it: this idea I posted 4 years ago won't get implemented.

[Mpamaegbu]

So here's a new suggestion: would it be possible to give DT1 the power to "downvote" certain (negative) feedbacks so they are no longer shown by default? That could potentially solve many of the current disputes that have been fought through negative feedback for many months.

That would be great to implement but a step further should be added so it doesn't get abused because of the so much drama that goes on here. My argument is consistent with when there's a deceased user who left such a tag. What happens next, then? What happens after they've left the tag and things suddenly change that disprove the reason for the tag in the first, what happens next where the said member can't be reached to remove the tag? Is the tagged member going to bear the indelible mark forever? Honestly, I'm in for a way that this type of tag can be removed.

[PytagoraZ]

So here's a new suggestion: would it be possible to give DT1 the power to "downvote" certain (negative) feedbacks so they are no longer shown by default? That could potentially solve many of the current disputes that have been fought through negative feedback for many months.
I'm not sure if this "voting" should be anonymous or public, unlimited or very strictly reserved for very rare occations, and needs just one or a majority vote, but all that can be figured out later if Admin thinks my idea has any merit.

Wow... Surprised, proposals like this have been around since 2019. Does that mean the drama has been going on for a long time?

Maybe I'm still a beginner and don't know the history of what has happened on this forum. but let me give a little of my opinion here.

I don't agree if DT1 has the capabilities you mentioned because DT1 has quite a lot of members. Maybe some of DT1 who have a high level of trust have this ability, one of which is you. Don't have too many members who have that kind of ability, maybe 5 or 10 members are enough. And also provide punishment if it turns out that the member who has the ability has made a mistake and doesn't want to admit it. So justice can be created because there are special abilities but there are punishments too
But don't pay too much attention to my opinion, because I don't really understand the trust system and the long history of this system.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

What past valid feedbacks? In case you and any other member here have your heads in to the sands, let me shout out so you can hear, how many of scammers, cheaters get exposed/doxxed after getting caught? Have you wondered why they never stop popping up like mushrooms the more you catch them?  You can't fight them like this, instead you have to educate the community in a way that they become vigilant and informed enough, not to fall for the scam.

Then good. Go ahead and start educating members on how to leave feedback on other profiles, and we see how it goes. You think all people will think a like?

With past valid feedback, I am making a reference to a member who used to give good feedback in the past but then started leaving useless feedback. You preserve the past feedback since it's still helpful, but then make the new feedback untrusted.

Instead, you are actively trying to stop something that can easily be gamed. There are many farming services/ shilling services providing you with enough "bounty cheaters" "scammers" with low fees so that you could continuously catch them and tag them, then you'd become a useful member to get on DT. Once you are there, we'd have this current situation, you can easily spend $10,000 to become a reputable member with hundreds of "good" feedbacks.

There's difference between being on DT and received positive feedback due to deals between other members. I have seen members who are on DT and have never traded here before. It's not about the positive feedback a member has. But the past accurate feedback he left on different profiles

Looks like you are replying angrily and not understanding what I even suggested.

[LoyceV]

But don't pay too much attention to my opinion, because I don't really understand the trust system and the long history of this system.

Read more, post less, so you can stand by your opinion when you share one.

[PytagoraZ]

But don't pay too much attention to my opinion, because I don't really understand the trust system and the long history of this system.

Read more, post less, so you can stand by your opinion when you share one.

Of course I've read quite a lot, but because I haven't experienced what happened here in the past, I'm not very confident. BTW, I've also read your thread about trust systems, I think it's almost close to what Thyemos meant, but unfortunately there are still DTs who don't care or implement it. In many ways, you are indeed a great person