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

[Blitzboy]

I personally think that this idea of yours is good, but it can not solve the main problem: the conflict between the DTs together. Here means the conflict of thought between the DT, when DT tags someone, they think it is worth it, but another DT doesn't think so, DT eliminating other DT's responses will lead to a bigger conflict between DTs. It is not good for a forum, although this is to help other members. So I find it not feasible, but I like your idea.

[Deathwing]

With how the current Trust system is and how Default Trust members are selected, I don't think that this is a good option.


Its unfortunately way too open to abuse. Unless the default trust system changes, I don't expect good results per se. On that topic, the monthly random selection thing needs to go away...

[Frengki_cisco]

@LoyceV, your idea has a very human purpose.
If like @LoyceV, give and say good, but no one cares about it, the destruction is certain to be.

I have also started it in the past two days, with different titles for the same purpose: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213565.0
But I'm not sure if I can make their hearts soft, or it will be harder than it is...

I think this is the time, where people have to go into the vineyard and pick grapes without having to climb the fence that has been provided, the entrance lane has been opened openly and feelingfully, so it is not easily damaged and durable.

[Jet Cash]

Perhaps requiring maybe 5 DT members to agree with a down vote before confirming it would be a good idea.

5 DT’s agree & click down vote ensures potentially harsh or unfair neg is not shown by default.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement. The only problem would be a downvoter being removed from DT1, but that is probably a minor consideration.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Perhaps requiring maybe 5 DT members to agree with a down vote before confirming it would be a good idea.

5 DT’s agree & click down vote ensures potentially harsh or unfair neg is not shown by default.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement. The only problem would be a downvoter being removed from DT1, but that is probably a minor consideration.

Thanks, glad to see a few people agree with it. I just thought it’d be good to require multiple DT’s agreement before a neg was negated (lol).

It’d have to be anonymous down voting to ensure no fellow DT butt kissing is present. I mean you might get one or two DT’s PM’ing each other to try & organise a down vote agreement but I can’t see 5 being involved in something like that.

I think this is all a good idea because (not mentioning any names) I’ve seen a couple of DT’s delete an old neg & retype it as a new feedback to totally screw some peoples trust feedback which isn’t fair at all.

[hacker1001101001]

Perhaps requiring maybe 5 DT members to agree with a down vote before confirming it would be a good idea.

5 DT’s agree & click down vote ensures potentially harsh or unfair neg is not shown by default.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement. The only problem would be a downvoter being removed from DT1, but that is probably a minor consideration.

Thanks, glad to see a few people agree with it. I just thought it’d be good to require multiple DT’s agreement before a neg was negated (lol).

It’d have to be anonymous down voting to ensure no fellow DT butt kissing is present. I mean you might get one or two DT’s PM’ing each other to try & organise a down vote agreement but I can’t see 5 being involved in something like that.

I think this is all a good idea because (not mentioning any names) I’ve seen a couple of DT’s delete an old neg & retype it as a new feedback to totally screw some peoples trust feedback which isn’t fair at all.

It seems fair enough idea to be implemented for negative ratings from DT1 and DT2. It would take care that only the legimate feedbacks from a DT would be with power and appearing to default trust list users, and the abusive once could just be depowred by other DTs. Just changing the trust colour did nothing.

We just don't know when this type of suggestions would be considered by theymos.

[DooMAD]

It sounds like something users are generally supportive of, but with some reservations about the potential consequences.  It is a tricky one, since it effectively boils down to freedom of expression versus societal boundaries, which is always a huge can of worms.  Where does the right end for one person to say what they want?  It's not a line easily drawn, sometimes.

All I can really suggest is, if enough people are supportive of the idea, perhaps a short trial-period to see how it actually plays out in the wild?

[shield132]

OP I don't like your current idea, I even think that idea of making orange and green feedback black was better. Your thread in beginner's & help section isn't even pinned, I think it has to be in order to really gain attention (number of views are very low too - 1573 view as for now).
What about to add feature of Report Trust (feedback) and after certain reports, then move this trust on review for DT1 members to decide whether it has to be left the way it is or it has to be removed.
Btw I don't think that some unnecessary and personal revenge feedbacks don't have huge influence on users and when you see details of it, it's pretty easy to decide whether this makes user untrustworthy or not.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It’d have to be anonymous down voting to ensure no fellow DT butt kissing is present. I mean you might get one or two DT’s PM’ing each other to try & organise a down vote agreement but I can’t see 5 being involved in something like that.

I definitely can, and I think it will only get worse as more and more people become eligible for DT1. I mean, we already have scam promoters and trust abusers on DT1. It's only a matter of time before we have enough to collude with each other in this way. Anonymous voting would also be difficult as fellow DT1s wouldn't know who to exclude that was downoting ratings inappropriately.

All in all, it's just another level of complexity which pushes the problem up a level rather than solving it. If someone is leaving ratings you disagree with, then remove or exclude that person rather than including/excluding people who are voting the correct/incorrect way on these ratings. We already have to build trust lists based on individual's ratings AND their trust lists AND their flag support/opposition. Do we really want to add their votes on other ratings to this as well?

[DireWolfM14]

the fag system

LOL

Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

What we really need is DT1 members growing some backbone and drawing a few more lines in the sand. It's not even that everyone needs to exclude every perceived abuser, it's enough that a handful of them take action but lately it's been almost impossible to achieve even that. So begrudgingly I'd have to kinda sorta agree with my arch-nemesis above - I think giving more power to DT1 members would just mean less backbone and more abuse.

Agreed.  It seems like many are afraid to exclude those who've demonstrated poor judgement, because they fear a retaliatory exclusion.  Which happens, of course, but who cares?

I like to think of myself as one who sticks to his convictions, I've said it before and I'll say it again:  If you're afraid to lose your position on DT1 you probably don't belong there.

[Jet Cash]

I've come to the conclusion that the DT system is just there to try to block some sig spammers, and bad bounty programmes. For those of us who don't have these as a part of out lives, I'm not sure how we can use the system.

[hosseinimr93]

I've come to the conclusion that the DT system is just there to try to block some sig spammers, and bad bounty programmes. For those of us who don't have these as a part of out lives, I'm not sure how we can use the system.

There are many feedback regarding scams.
DT members warn users to not trade with scammers, not participate in scam ICOs, do not use a scam gambling website, etc. 

[SFR10]

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 things my idea has any merit.

I like your idea as well but at the same time can argue for both sides...
^{- IMO, it should be anonymous, unlimited and require for the majority of the votes to alter a feedback.}

Perhaps requiring maybe 5 DT members to agree with a down vote before confirming it would be a good idea.

5 DT’s agree & click down vote ensures potentially harsh or unfair neg is not shown by default.

I mean you might get one or two DT’s PM’ing each other to try & organise a down vote agreement but I can’t see 5 being involved in something like that.

I agree with your suggestion as well but would like to polish it a bit further...

Step 1: A DT1 member reports feedback for review.
Step 2: For each feedback, 5 DT1 members ^{[or more]} are chosen "at random" to vote.
Step 3: Chosen DT1 members can pass the opportunity to other DT1 members ^{[at random]} by clicking "pass" on certain feedbacks ^{[with a limited amount of pass]}.
Step 4: After 5 votes:

• 3 or more votes for removal = Removal of feedback from DT

I might be wrong, but I think that it would create even more drama than we have right now or under old version of trust system. Probably it's impossible to make perfect trust system here which would be good for everyone...

Based on my experience, the so-called drama never leaves this forum ^{[regardless of the trust system in place]}.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Step 1: A DT1 member reports feedback for review.
Step 2: For each feedback, 5 DT1 members ^{[or more]} are chosen "at random" to vote.
Step 3: Chosen DT1 members can pass the opportunity to other DT1 members ^{[at random]} by clicking "pass" on certain feedbacks ^{[with a limited amount of pass]}.
Step 4: After 5 votes:

• 3 or more votes for removal = Removal of feedback from DT

This is far too complex, in my opinion. There are already users on DT1 (let alone regular users) who don't even understand the difference between leaving positive/negative ratings and including/excluding from your own trust list, and in what situations each is appropriate. Asking them to start voting on other ratings is bad enough, but giving options to pass the vote to someone else is far too much. Many will use it incorrectly, and many will ignore it because they don't understand it.

Further, this essentially turns ratings in to a lottery, where the rating might stay or might go depending on which other DT1 members are randomly selected to vote on it. Trust ratings from DT1 members should be reliable, and not based on chance. If they aren't reliable, then the user responsible should simply be excluded from DT1.

[Harlot]

The problem I see here is that the trust system will somehow have a inbalance when it comes to the DT's point of view. We all know that every DT member here has a personal opinion on each matter they are giving feedbacks with and if a DT1 member has the power to remove/downvoite their feedback it seems like their opinion is somehow less valuable compared to the DT1 who is disagreeing with him. So maybe I think the current system where DT members are countering it with a positive feedback is still a good option since it is like giving a second opinion on the same matter at least in this way we still see the transparency on all sides.

[LoyceV]

Thanks for all the comments, the "5 DT1 downvote" thing sounds like a good compromise.

I'm just fed up with what I consider Trust abuse, and I noticed another thing: the moment veteran members receive their first negative feedback (on something controversial), they often quickly collect a few more negatives. It's as if people are waiting for someone else to make the first move.

[Thekool1s]

I will just throw my 2 satoshis in... I do like the idea but there are issues with this "5 vote downvote" idea as well... What virtually could happen is 2 camps will keep fighting out each other's downvote and we will be back to ground zero. I will through in something I thought of long ago but never pitched in. We already have a section called "Untrusted Feedback" why not create another section called "Personal(Opinion) Feedback" ^{(I'm not good with names)} which won't be accounted for just like "Untrusted Feedback". This way DT members can neg the sh@t out of each other without causing any Drama, it's not a Fix to the problem but it can definitely reduce the Drama which surrounds the Trust system. If an "Opinion Neg" is thrown as a regular neg then mods could virtually remove it/move it as it won't belong in the "appropriate section". At the end of the day, People will always find a loophole, Anything which offers "Power" will be abused in some manner/time by humans. Fixing the Trust system is like fixing the Human nature but then again it can be definitely worked on...

[Diced90]

While I like the intent here, I get the distinct impression that this kind of feature would be used to not only cement in controlling groups within the trust system, it would also relieve pressure from users to act on abusers of the trust system while still leaving them the ability to abuse their authority. I can easily see this ending up being a clusterfuck of selective application and driving even more clique like group think as the popular/suck ups get taken care of while the ones that do their own thing get neglected.

This could definitely be used to reduce trust manipulation if implemented correctly, but I think it could be augmented such that it works like a net.

With that in mind, trust groups would be identified based on the percentage of people that have eachother added to their trust list. This would identify several trust factions as you could call them.

A trust would need to be downvoted by individuals from multiple trust factions in order to successfully take away the red (or green) colour and revert it to neutral.

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

The thing is, it may lead to the creation of consistent colluding (and conflicting) groups of 5, that down-vote other’s trust ratings for whatever common purpose. To avoid that, perhaps the down-voting power could be given at random to x DT1s (9 for example) during each month. That may avoid what I suspect would happen to a great degree.

[dzungmobile]

As drama I saw with my time here, there are DT members who know each other, are 'friends' (something like that), then what you mentioned is right. When one get first neg trust, it usually leads to more be trusts in a row.

It is a bit off topic but from your list of DT members update, it has become longer and longer with new DT2 members. How many of them are truly trusted and deserve to be called as DT2 members. It is a big question and hard to say.