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

[hacker1001101001]

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.

It is more like a witch hunt some times and the accused in analyzed until the inside of his pants to find out anyways to put him to multiple trust ratings, and curbe the abuse by blaming him as risky without any real victims complaining of such. Just like show me the man, I will show you the crime attitude.

<…>

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.

Or what if just an upvote feature is added?  ( if upvotes of DT1 are more the rating would appear under the trusted feedback, else if downvotes are more it would appear under untrusted feedback )

All of the votings could be made anonymous so that no drama would arise and DT1s could up or down vote on ratings without being afraid of other judgment.

[1714521991]

1714521991

[1714521991]

1714521991

[1714521991]

1714521991

[eddie13]

I actually think the trust system is pretty darn good just the way it is..
Sure it isn't absolutely perfect in every aspect but nothing is..

My biggest gripe with the trust system is the way it is tied to merits and voting.. Just because a user can earn a lot of merits doesn't mean, to me, that they are necessarily a good choice to have a huge amount of voting power..

Merit is supposed to be for "good posts", and to rank up..  
When I give some merits it's hard for me not to think "How is this user going to use these merits to vote? Am I sure I want to give this user more voting power? Do I like the way this user votes?"
Their might also should be a cap on the amount of voting power any account has like 2000-3000 merits voting weight cap..

I also don't much like the way your inclusions list is one and the same as your voting list..
Maybe I would like to include someone but not vote for them to be on DT1, or the opposite..

And, votes not being anonymous is pretty silly to me..
Their would be less voter intimidation if votes were anonymous as in Secret Ballot Voting which is basically the standard of voting practices across the free-ish world for good reason IMO..


In any case, overall this new DT system is doing pretty good..
It has gotten and will continue to get better with time..

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.

A lot of the time when someone recieves a negative tag, that is quite agreeable, many users will dogpile in replicating the same rating..
Maybe because they want the same reason for a neg-rating to have more weight, or possibly in many cases just to make it look like they are doing something important but really they are just copy-pasting to build their own perceived reputation..

A user could get like -5 this way for something as simple as asking for a no-collateral loan..


Also often times when a user gets their first negative rating they completely freak out and do a lot of stupid stuff because of it, fly off the handle, and wind up making their situations even worse and getting more tags for their resulting tantrum such as personal attacks or name calling any responders who don't agree with them right off the bat, or resort to less than respectable actions in their fury in multiple possible ways..

[o_e_l_e_o]

Maybe I would like to include someone but not vote for them to be on DT1, or the opposite.

They way I approach it is to forget about DT1 altogether. After all, my personal trust list is, well, personal. If there is someone whose judgement I think is good (in terms of both feedback left and their own trust list) I'll include them. Poor judgement, I'll exclude them. If my inclusion or exclusion makes the difference to whether they are DT1 or not, then so be it, but I don't let it guide my decision.

And, votes not being anonymous is pretty silly to me..
Their would be less voter intimidation if votes were anonymous as in Secret Ballot Voting which is basically the standard of voting practices across the free-ish world for good reason IMO.

I can see where you are coming from, but how can I judge whether someone is displaying good or poor judgement (so I can decide whether to include or exclude them as above) with secret ballots? It would be like allowing secret voting in Congress/Parliament/Government. How can I vote for a representative without knowing what they stand for?

[LoyceV]

My biggest gripe with the trust system is the way it is tied to merits and voting.. Just because a user can earn a lot of merits doesn't mean, to me, that they are necessarily a good choice to have a huge amount of voting power..

Agreed. But a Merit requirement is a good way to keep account farmers out. What else could be used to easily distinguish between a dedicated user and a spammer with many accounts before handing out voting power?

Their might also should be a cap on the amount of voting power any account has like 2000-3000 merits voting weight cap..

I have (almost) enough Merit Supervotes for all users on my Trust list, but many others vote for the same users, so effectively I'm probably not even using half of my voting power already.
Long-term, many users should have a lot of Supervotes at their disposal, which further reduces the individual voting power.

I also don't much like the way your inclusions list is one and the same as your voting list..
Maybe I would like to include someone but not vote for them to be on DT1, or the opposite..

You can include your own (Newbie) alt-account (on Depth 0), and include someone from that account to put them on your Depth 1. That way you're not voting, but you do see their feedback by default.
The opposite doesn't make sense: if you don't want to include someone, why would you want him to be on DT1?

And, votes not being anonymous is pretty silly to me..

My Trust list viewer is often used to fuel drama, but as long as it's public information, I believe in making it easily accessible.

[TECSHARE]

Again, I want to encourage LoyceV here to keep working on ideas to improve the system around here as they do in fact have a very unique perspective on the systems in place, but this solution reeks to me as a strategy that has failed miserably in the past. That strategy is one of band-aid like patches on the system which just add another layer of complication, another layer of opacity, and an even more complicated system with more parts to break. This was the direction Theymos was going in for a while but I think he finally came to the realization that these kinds of patches are counterproductive. The more elements you add to a system, the more ways it has to break. As it stands right now as some one who has been around for all iterations of the trust system, I think the one we have now is the best so far (short of no trust system at all). I think we need to give it some more time to let the dust settle and let the disputes work their way through the system. The last changes to the system were pretty big and it took some adjustment from everyone. I think really we should be focusing less on the system itself and more on the mentality and culture we use to approach it. At the end of the day that is the real problem, not the system itself.

[eddie13]

After all, my personal trust list is, well, personal.

Actually.. It's kinda public..

how can I judge whether someone is displaying good or poor judgement (so I can decide whether to include or exclude them as above) with secret ballots?

You could judge them based on their philosophies, weather their ideas/positions align with yours or not, and their inclusions list, if the vote list was separate from their inclusions list, vote list being secret and inclusions list remaining public..

If I run for mayor of my town, should I have to publish all of my voting choices in all the past elections including propositions, judges, representatives, primaries, and presidential?

What if I don't want everyone in my town to know that I voted against the recreational marijuana proposition?
They would all hate me at its face value, but maybe I voted against it because the proposition basically hands the market to corporations making sure to squeeze the little guy out by requiring ridiculously high licencing fees and startup costs to comply with the stupid law, and it being a government tax collecting scheme even if they don't care that China is coming in to buy it all up..

My biggest gripe with the trust system is the way it is tied to merits and voting.. Just because a user can earn a lot of merits doesn't mean, to me, that they are necessarily a good choice to have a huge amount of voting power..

Agreed. But a Merit requirement is a good way to keep account farmers out.

Right.. The system is pretty good.. Nothing is perfect..

The opposite doesn't make sense: if you don't want to include someone, why would you want him to be on DT1?

I don't know.. If I lived in sanfran and worked at Google maybe I wouldn't want everyone to know I voted for Trump..

What if I wanted to exclude a campaign manager because of their poor political philosophies but not want them to hate me and deny my signature application because of it?

My Trust list viewer is often used to fuel drama, but as long as it's public information, I believe in making it easily accessible.

Absolutely..
It is very useful and I like to think of all of these data collection projects by users here as a good reminder of, if this is what these relative amateurs are capable of, what do you think the professionals (3 letter agencies) are capable of?

As it stands right now as some one who has been around for all iterations of the trust system, I think the one we have now is the best so far (short of no trust system at all). I think we need to give it some more time to let the dust settle and let the disputes work their way through the system.

Agreed...
This is 98% where I'm at right now too, but it is fun/interesting to hypothesize..

I'm not suggesting my hypotheticals to be included into the system, just thinking/rambling about what I perceive to be possible weaknesses..


------------

effectively I'm probably not even using half of my voting power

Good thing the power is in your hands and not who knows who else..
But do you think this amount of power in a single users hands should exist at all?

For example.. You might like the idea of your president using an executive action to do something that you like, but you must remember, what precedent does this set that the opposition may be able to use some day to do something you don't like if they get their hands on this same power..

[o_e_l_e_o]

Actually.. It's kinda public..

I meant personal as in "relating to me" as opposed to "private".

You could judge them based on their philosophies, weather their ideas/positions align with yours or not, and their inclusions list

Sure, but that's not to stop someone saying/doing one thing in publicly viewable trust ratings/feedback and another thing in secret trust ratings. I really don't agree with giving DT1 users the ability to secretly alter the trust system, especially when it involves overriding public ratings from other DT1 users.

What if I wanted to exclude a campaign manager because of their poor political philosophies but not want them to hate me and deny my signature application because of it?

Then I would argue you are misusing the trust system for personal gain and don't belong on DT1.

But do you think this amount of power in a single users hands should exist at all?

It's not really the power in a single users' hands - you still need two supervotes (250 merit each) and 10 normal votes (10 merit each). I have previously argued to increase the number of votes required which would further dilute the power of any single user, and I think this argument is becoming more relevant over time as the list of potential DT1 users will continue to grow to unmanageable levels.

[wolwoo]

The exact solution: keep your team, all merits are yours, trusts are yours, DT1-DT2-DT3-DT843943240 get it all to you.
Let your profiles be emerald green and your rank "KING of The LEGENDARY".

lock everyone's account and turn the forum to whatsapp group

[Timelord2067]

I vote no to this idea - this persons' gang will vote down the negative of that gang and then that gang's affiliates will step in an bolster the votes causing the first gang's affiliates to also step in and counter vote.

The same would happen with positives - imagine how many gang members will vote up positive feedbacks for the sale of a $1 trinket, or "being a great guy" or having been the escrow in a transaction (for a $1 trinket) or some other flimsy reason.

We all know who the gang members are who've outed themselves in recent threads, so you only need to play the numbers and game the system.

[pugman]

At first when I read this I thought of it ass a not so great idea. I would turn it down.

But come to think of it, maybe the voting could work, if the voting is unanimous(as in all the DT1 members agree that the rating is bad), or if majority of them disagree. Also, the voting could be limited, as in you can vote only thrice a month, so people would have to be wise on who to vote for.

And if there's colluding of any sort, the admins can obviously undo this.

[Vod]

I don't think this would be a good idea, not because of the idea, but of the current state of DT.

It would just increase the drama.  Right now for a few weeks each month after the DT reorg there is a lot of political play, trading of trust and negatives.  Now instead of lobbying to get someone off DT, you would be lobbying to remove a trust rating that next month prob will be irrelevant. 

[dragonvslinux]

Bump

Bump reference: To all DT1 members | Interesting negative feedback from JollyGood!

He tagged two more users for the same reason (@muslol67 , @BitcoinTurk) with same reference. @theymos There should be a method to neutralize this type of wrong negative feedbacks (opinion based feedbacks). May be a system like flag system, there should be opposite/support options for DT1 users. Merit or smerit rewards can motivate DT1 members for voting, it is just an idea.

LoyceV suggested this already and I was positive about it, too: Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT

The more threads I read like this, the more I'm convinced that a type of down-voting would be beneficial.

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.

A number like 5 adds up. 3 users can easily group together to "hide" negative feedback to untrusted, but not 5 so easily.
Would it be prone to trust abuse? For sure. Is the current trust system prone to trust abuse? Absolutely.
Would it reduce the amount of trust abuse compared to the current system? Probably.

[actmyname]

Bump reference: To all DT1 members | Interesting negative feedback from JollyGood!

Situation resolved, by the way.

The more threads I read like this, the more I'm convinced that a type of down-voting would be beneficial.

The whole point of trust feedback is to have it so that people will look at them and write their own feedback, isn't it? I have always been hesitant to add any sort of regulatory micromanaging when it comes to DefaultTrust and I think adding an option for any arbitrary number of DT members (who cycle every month) based on another arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback is prone to abuse.

Even countered feedback in the past was just to stop someone from seeing the negative number on their profile sheet but given the breadth of the DefaultTrust network, with 100 DT1 members that include at least ten other users, you have a huge number of users in DT. This means that individual feedback is worth less and that users should be paying much more attention to the feedback comments rather than just the raw numbers (something that should have been done anyway).

[dragonvslinux]

Bump reference: To all DT1 members | Interesting negative feedback from JollyGood!

Situation resolved, by the way.

Indeed, this is good to see  

The more threads I read like this, the more I'm convinced that a type of down-voting would be beneficial.

The whole point of trust feedback is to have it so that people will look at them and write their own feedback, isn't it? I have always been hesitant to add any sort of regulatory micromanaging when it comes to DefaultTrust and I think adding an option for any arbitrary number of DT members (who cycle every month) based on another arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback is prone to abuse.

In my mind the suggestion would be for acting DT1 to be able to downvote, not "voting-only" DT1 (those with negative strength). This would at least remove the arbitrary metric of merit to delete feedback, instead requiring the variable of positive DT1 strength as well as inclusions from those with enough merit. I do get your point about micromanagement of DT feedback could be bad, as it wouldn't be a solution to the fundamental problems, but from another perspective the introduction of flags that are voted on do appear to be an improvement. Notably it could lead to less exclusions, if users had the ability to "hide" negative feedback, then there would be less of a need to exclude a user to achieve the same goal.

The main downside I see is that DT1 members could down-vote legitimate DT2 feedback (legitimate to DT2 members at least), which ultimately puts more power into the hands of DT1, which is unnecessary imo. Arguably I think it'd be better if a downvote required 5 DT1 members or 10 DT2 members, or a combination there of, so each DT2 vote counts as half a DT1 vote for example. But I also think this would be a very complex mechanism to introduce, even if the abuse of down-voting could be limited and restricted. Either way, there is current abuse, any positive changes would still be open to abuse (such as trust flags) - just possibly a little less.

Either way, I think any "fair" decentralized system will always be prone to abuse, the question isn't how to avoid this, but how to counter this in a decentralized manner (instead of further centralizing). Systems that aren't prone to abuse are usually very centralized and restrictive, but this is because they are usually fundamentally abusive as a construct.

[Timelord2067]

Those on DT1 that have given me negative / distrust are mostly the ones who have peddled in account sales or trades, lending using UID's as collateral etc so I can only imagine it would be more of the childish, retaliatory, wild west bile that fills my trust feedback wall.

[dragonvsandroid]

Those on DT1 that have given me negative / distrust are mostly the ones who have peddled in account sales or trades, lending using UID's as collateral etc so I can only imagine it would be more of the childish, retaliatory, wild west bile that fills my trust feedback wall.

Tbf your DT-based trust "wall" is negatives "filled" mainly from the cat, rather than any broad spectrum of DT users giving you negative trust. Your negatives as a sum are barely plural to put it simply. Maybe a down voting option would disable a couple of these don't you think?

As for your distrusts, nobody has "given" you distrust. It's not something that is given. There are just certain members that distrust you (but notably haven't given you negative feedback). No doubt due to the feedback you leave others, as this is what trust lists are based upon. It also feels like I'm beating a dead horse with this opinion.

[Vod]

Bump

With no new ideas?   

[LoyceV]

Bump

With no new ideas?   

Nope, I was reminded about this thread when I received a PM about this topic.

[LoyceV]

Bump again since the idea was mentioned again.

[Poker Player]

I like the idea too, agreeing with many people who commented at the time on this thread. What I see is that theymos did not deign to say anything, as is usual with him, but as far as I can see he is not one to say much on these issues and, if anything, after a long time and a lot of insistence, he implements the change.

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.

I don't see the problem. As of today we don't have a problem, or at least a serious problem of people colluding with the trust system. And even less of colluding with the votes of the flags, which would be the closest thing.