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

[jokers10]

As of today we don't have a problem, or at least a serious problem of people colluding with the trust system.

If we don't have such a problem as of today, it doesn't mean we won't get it in case of implementation of this system.

First, we already know that there are different people in DT system who don't like each other, and some tags are probably a little personally motivated. So we have a latent groups which can show up in case of implementation of this idea.

Second, if someone left a tag, doesn't want to delete it and then his tag is being deleted by others, why do you think that he will decide that his tag became not actual? I guess he will probably be very disappointed and will try to put together a group of like-minded to strengthen his tag. So implementation of this idea could motivate such groups to appear.

As for flags, they were already made in a different kind, it is a group decision to support or not, and there are rather strict rules on what is an appropriate reason for a flag and what is not.

I think that some tags of course look not so appropriate, but I think that voting for deleting these tags can bring more problems than we have now.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Wow, I do not remember this thread at all (though I distinctly recall that 2019 was pure fucking armageddon in my personal life).  Sometimes when threads like this get bumped, I get a soft and squishy feeling inside--and one of the causes for that is seeing posts like this:

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. 

and:

I think I know why this suggestion came about, and on its face it seems like a decent idea as long as the requirement to have a certain number of "downvotes" is in place before the feedback isn't shown by default.  But the thing is, this generally isn't a problem that DT trust is so incredibly wrong that other DT members need to act on it.  There have been instances of that, for sure, but it isn't a chronic problem.  And if there's a DT member who's consistently leaving obviously wrong feedback, that member is going to get removed eventually.

That said, I don't like having to counter feedback.  It's annoying and it would be nice if there was some mechanism that would make it unnecessary.  We've now got the flag system, and those flags can be supported or opposed.  Why not be able to support or oppose trust feedbacks?

Hey!  That's me giving my sage wisdom there.  Was I smoking something with any of the members here?

But on a serious note: I still hold the above opinion, and I didn't realize there were still issues bothersome enough these days to bump this topic.  There was a ton of drama in 2019, but not so much four years later.

[Timelord2067]

The OP needs to re-read their own first post to remind themselves how far removed from those sentiments they've become.

[LoyceMobile]

The OP needs to re-read their own first post to remind themselves how far removed from those sentiments they've become.

Nope, it's still accurate.
Is this about the neutral feedback and trust exclusion I gave you after giving you the benefit of the doubt for years?

[dragonvslinux]

Any thoughts how this could considerably change the makeup of users' trust lists, as this could mean not requiring such a high % of feedback accuracy, if some feedbacks end up being suppressed?

For example people would probably become more lenient, and include users with removed feedback, on the basis that it's been removed. Likewise there potentially wouldn't be so much reason to distrust as many users, if a lot of inaccurate feedback ends up being removed. At least with members with a few inaccurate ones, rather than serial abusers that no doubt would remain excluded. To me, this seems like it has the end result of increasing the number of DT members, whether that's a good or bad is another question. I can think of a few users that would otherwise have higher inclusion if a few feedback's were removed.

PS - Where is that thread where you proposed +1 inclusion instead of 0 for DT? Tried searching for it but can't find it.

[DooMAD]

Since the topic is bumped, I'll echo this issue that Vod raised a while back:

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. 

I definitely feel it would increase the amount of whining about feedback.  At the moment, you have to go direct to the source and have a conversation with the person who left the feedback in question.  But if such feedback can be downvoted by a given group of users, requests for this will become much more frequent, more public and likely more annoying.  Much like all the dumb threads we get about ban appeals.  People will just complain constantly because they think they'll get the feedback removed.

Rather than not displaying the feedback, it would work better (IMO) if each feedback simply displayed a kind of "legitimacy score" next to it based on the strength of DT upvotes versus downvotes.

[decodx]

Rather than not displaying the feedback, it would work better (IMO) if each feedback simply displayed a kind of "legitimacy score" next to it based on the strength of DT upvotes versus downvotes.

I just had a similar thought that I shared in another thread. What if we had a voting system, similar to the one used for flags, where a certain number of DTs could collectively override the initial trust rating and move it from negative to neutral status? It seems that we're generally in agreement that neutral trust has been somewhat underutilized on the forum, and most of the issues tend to stem from the improper use of negative trust. This change could potentially mitigate the ongoing dramas that we've been witnessing in the Reputation Board for quite some time.

[Timelord2067]

Do as I say, not do as I do.

Try reading what I write from now on.

(I thought you pinky promised to ignore me? 🤔🤣

[Poker Player]

After seeming like a good idea to me at first, I think as nutildah says in another thread:

Yes, its already an overly complex system -- I agree that any additions would just create unnecessary complications. Some people continue to fail to grasp the difference between trust ratings and inclusions/exclusions, despite there being plenty of educational resources out there and years worth of banter about how they should be used.

I suppose that as often happens with certain ideas, in an ideal world it would be perfect, but implemented in this real world it would add more complications and problems.

[1miau]

Bump again since the idea was mentioned again.

+1
I believe for the mentioned case, a decentralized DT decision could help to settle the issue. After all, that would be DT voting on that issue and we can't do much more from a decentralized perspective.

Regarding concerns of more drama caused by a possible implementation of OP's suggestion. Probably we get some drama during voting but that's not bad at all. Because in the long-term the cases will be settled by DT. Either feedbacks are voted out by a sufficient margin or they will stay. This will reduce controversial cases as going against DT's decision will most likely only result in more DT members chiming in and support DT's decision.
Case settled.

The case in Reputation is a good example: topics about similar issues are popping up, again and again. And this won't be the last time. I don't remember how often the topic has popped up...
By voting out certain feedbacks, we might avoid these cases to pop up again and again because we have an initial decentralized DT decision and everyone has to deal with it. Going against DT's decision is just not profitable for most cases.

And as I've brought up earlier: OP's suggestion can be helpful in many ways, like voting out feedbacks due to simply being outdated. 
However, I'm not the one to decide it, if it's getting implemented. There are more urgent forum issues (like our new forum design). 
But it's a nice suggestion after all. 

[Stalker22]

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?

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.

theymos could make some tweaks to how it is displayed so that the Type 1 flag isn't just for newbie warnings.

[LoyceV]

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?

Flags don't apply to most of the users who I gave negative feedback. Take this guy for example.

[Pmalek]

I want to comment on 1miau suggestion of 5 DT1s having the possibility to cancel out certain feedback by effectively moving it to the untrusted category.
I think 5 DT1s is a small number. I would support a majority vote in this case. I don't know how many DT1s we have, but I would want at least 80% if not 90% of DT1s voting in favor of removing a certain feedback.

Why? Because there shouldn't be a possibility that my 5 closest DT1 buddies can collude and remove feedback I don't want to see on my profile. But even if that happens for this DT1 cycle, what's going to happen with next month's change and reorganization of the DT1 list? Will there be new votes or is the decision made final?  

[LoyceV]

I want to comment on 1miau suggestion of 5 DT1s having the possibility to cancel out certain feedback by effectively moving it to the untrusted category.
I think 5 DT1s is a small number. I would support a majority vote in this case. I don't know how many DT1s we have, but I would want at least 80% if not 90% of DT1s voting in favor of removing a certain feedback.

There are 100 DT1 members, and I don't think there's ever been a majority vote from them on anything.

Why? Because there shouldn't be a possibility that my 5 closest DT1 buddies can collude and remove feedback I don't want to see on my profile. But even if that happens for this DT1 cycle, what's going to happen with next month's change and reorganization of the DT1 list? Will there be new votes or is the decision made final?

Maybe the "downvoting" can work both ways: give other DT1-members the power to "upvote" the removed feedback.
And while typing this I realize this will just make everything way too complicated.

[Pmalek]

Maybe the "downvoting" can work both ways: give other DT1-members the power to "upvote" the removed feedback.
And while typing this I realize this will just make everything way too complicated.

We would then enter an endless loop of upvoting and downvoting. Basically, a popularity contest of who gets more DT1s to agree with them in a given cycle. The decisions made this month could simply be cancelled out next month or the month after that if the right or wrong people (depending on how you look at it) make it into DT1. One way to mitigate that is a majority vote. But as you said yourself, the majority has never agreed on anything in the past.   

[LoyceV]

We would then enter an endless loop of upvoting and downvoting. Basically, a popularity contest of who gets more DT1s to agree with them in a given cycle. The decisions made this month could simply be cancelled out next month or the month after that if the right or wrong people (depending on how you look at it) make it into DT1.

That sums up the entire DT1-system

One way to mitigate that is a majority vote. But as you said yourself, the majority has never agreed on anything in the past.

It still won't help for edge cases. See this example:

The 2 top lines (red and blue) are theymos and me "toggling" the DT1 majority vote. Depending on the composition of DT1, there may or may not be a majority.

[Poker Player]

But as you said yourself, the majority has never agreed on anything in the past.   

Really?

I don't want to play devil's advocate here, because although it seemed like a good idea initially, and then seeing the arguments presented, I think it is better to leave things as they are, but when you said this I went to look at the first case that came to my mind, I guess because it was the most striking recently.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

There is not a single vote against the flag.

[LoyceV]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

There is not a single vote against the flag.

I don't really want to count, but how many of those votes are from DT1-members? I doubt it's 50% of them, let alone 80% or more. His negative DT-feedback is currently -44, and that's not only from DT1, it includes DT2, which has much more members.

[Poker Player]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

There is not a single vote against the flag.

I don't really want to count, but how many of those votes are from DT1-members? I doubt it's 50% of them, let alone 80% or more. His negative DT-feedback is currently -44, and that's not only from DT1, it includes DT2, which has much more members.

But that's not my point. The point is that there is not a single one who disagrees with the flag. This would seem to disprove the statement that

... the majority has never agreed on anything in the past.    

This would also apply to the number of negative feedbacks after the event. There is not a single one, not even neutral, defending him, so I think there is a clear agreement from the community, including DT1, in this case.

[LoyceV]

But that's not my point. The point is that there is not a single one who disagrees with the flag. This would seem to disprove the statement that

... the majority has never agreed on anything in the past.

The context was this:

I think 5 DT1s is a small number. I would support a majority vote in this case. I don't know how many DT1s we have, but I would want at least 80% if not 90% of DT1s voting in favor of removing a certain feedback.

This would also apply to the number of negative feedbacks after the event. There is not a single one, not even neutral, defending him, so I think there is a clear agreement from the community, including DT1, in this case.

That makes the argument not to require 50% or more support even stronger.