Are the negative trusts you have given so far really necessary?

[vycl87]

I have not been following the "meta" board for a long time. Because I often think that the purpose of the forum is out of the way and that people are trying to make obvious cold war. Here I see a lot of unnecessary negative trust activities that appear at the end of the correspondence. Are these really necessary? Have you ever reevaluated the negative feedbacks you have made so far?

First of all, I think it is necessary to accept that everyone may have differences of opinion. So I think it's not right to give negative feedback to someone just because one thinks differently from you. Also, there is no logical explanation for going out of the subject and breaking each other. I think the energy spent here would be better for all of us if it really focused on the right points like blockchain tech or something. I think everyone should re-consider this negative feedback thing again.

I think that if we use both the trust system and the merit system correctly, it can be so useful and beneficial for all of us. I'm even very sure. I ask you, please review all the negative feedback you provided. I'm sure you will notice what you need to ignore.

Let me briefly tell you my own story. When the merit system arrived I was just a "member" and had only 10 merits. It took me a long time to come to where I am now. In the early days, I was far from contributing to the forum since I was just trying for bounty. Therefore, I continued as a member for a long time. Moreover, we did not have many merit resources on the local board. And since I usually write on the local board, it took quite a while to become a Full Member. But then I suddenly realized that the contributions made were somehow appreciated. When I came up with something good, I was somehow rewarded. And now I'm here. And now I think of being able to contribute to the forum rather than having merit, and somehow being rewarded.

I am very sorry to see that an account has received negative feedback because I have come this long way. I think those who come to their places by struggling like me will understand me very easily. I think it's best to stay away from personal conflicts and quarrels. Thus, those who manage the forum can deal with more correct issues. If it is not really a big problem, let them go, ignore them. If it is really trouble then you should consider giving trust both negative or positive.

I hope I was able to tell you what I was thinking about correctly.

[1713251493]

1713251493

[1713251493]

1713251493

[The Cryptovator]

If you do not abuse forum trust system then you shouldn't get tag. There would be few retaliatory feedback but it's very low. Whoever abuse trust system by false feedback's they have been removing from DT network by other DT members. Trust actually using for prevent abuse/likely scam. Most of DT members leaving feedback's with reference links, so if there is not appropriate reason for tag you might open thread on reputation about it so other DT members would see and they might counter or distrust. But if DT members just ignore likely scam or abuse then forum will full by scammers/abuser. Will you like make a heaven for scammers on this forum?

Personally I have been trying to use negative feedback very carefully. I never left feedback if someone express their opinions against me. Everyone have freedom of speech, so let them speak. Eventually they will get return same as they done for others.

[vycl87]

If you do not abuse forum trust system then you shouldn't get tag. There would be few retaliatory feedback but it's very low. Whoever abuse trust system by false feedback's they have been removing from DT network by other DT members. Trust actually using for prevent abuse/likely scam. Most of DT members leaving feedback's with reference links, so if there is not appropriate reason for tag you might open thread on reputation about it so other DT members would see and they might counter or distrust. But if DT members just ignore likely scam or abuse then forum will full by scammers/abuser. Will you like make a heaven for scammers on this forum?

Personally I have been trying to use negative feedback very carefully. I never left feedback if someone express their opinions against me. Everyone have freedom of speech, so let them speak. Eventually they will get return same as they done for others.

Of course, nothing I mentioned here is about those who use the system correctly. But there are also those given unnecessary as a result of personal fights. Everything I mentioned above is about them. I did not need to say that we do not want anyone who create SCAM and/or SPAM content here.

[HCP]

Your post gave me pause to go and check on my trust history... I didn't recall giving any "unnecessary" negative feedback, even in the cases of rambotnic and game-protect who both left a false negative on my profile.

Indeed, in the case of rambotnic, I even sent them a PM asking them to reconsider the red trust (it was my first) and they told me that I had to "suffer"... C'est la vie.

In the case of game-protect, they tagged me because I supported a flag (that had overwhelming evidence). Given their history and behaviour, I didn't even bother trying to reason with them.


As far as I can tell, all my negatives are for scammers, shills promoting scams and/or malware or folks with active scam accusations (with what I consider adequate evidence of said scam).

I believe this is the correct usage of trust feedback.

[erikalui]

I have only given negative trust to people who have scammed me and not to those who have scammed others as sometimes those accusations cannot be trusted else they get resolved and it gets troublesome to follow them up.  For personal conflicts, a neutral rating would be fine but not a negative feedback. Trolls and spammers especially have to be given neutral feedback.

[LoyceV]

I strongly believe in this:

Do's and Don'ts

• Don't leave positive feedback for your own alt account (use neutral comments for this).
• Don't leave negative feedback when someone violates the forum rules. Instead, use Report to moderator for rule violations.
• Do leave mutual neutral feedback if you want to show which alt account(s) belong to you.
• Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.
• Don't leave (positive) feedback just because someone left it to you.

And this:

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.

And this:

It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

I invite anyone to review my the feedback I've left, and if there's anything worth discussing, please post in my reputation thread.

Some of my negative feedback is no longer needed, because the accounts have been Nuked, but I leave them as reference anyway.

[suchmoon]

I have not been following the "meta" board for a long time. Because I often think that the purpose of the forum is out of the way and that people are trying to make obvious cold war. Here I see a lot of unnecessary negative trust activities that appear at the end of the correspondence. Are these really necessary? Have you ever reevaluated the negative feedbacks you have made so far?

I review my trust ratings roughly twice a year and sometimes remove or revise some of them. I used to advocate others to review their ratings but have largely given up on that. Nobody wants to be told what to do, even in the most polite terms.

Sending red trust for opinions is an unfortunate new habit that has developed here, along with a laundry-list of excuses for it (and no, "lying" is not a valid excuse). Trust list exclusion is a more suitable and a more effective way of dealing with someone's flawed judgement. Neutral rating can be added if you really feel the need to say something about the person. Other than that the trust system should be left out of flame wars.

[vycl87]

I strongly believe in this:

Do's and Don'ts

• Don't leave positive feedback for your own alt account (use neutral comments for this).
• Don't leave negative feedback when someone violates the forum rules. Instead, use Report to moderator for rule violations.
• Do leave mutual neutral feedback if you want to show which alt account(s) belong to you.
• Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.
• Don't leave (positive) feedback just because someone left it to you.

And this:

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.

And this:

It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

I invite anyone to review my the feedback I've left, and if there's anything worth discussing, please post in my reputation thread.

Some of my negative feedback is no longer needed, because the accounts have been Nuked, but I leave them as reference anyway.

I think only you've understood me completely.

And I like this sentence, I think it is a summary of my topics;

It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

Thank you a lot for the clarification.


And, if you are completely ok with your feedback, there is no issue. Just I wanted to re-consider again if someone really deserved it or not! So like LoyceV said above, your feedback will be usefull or make this forum better? Just think about it. What I wanted to tell you was not to give negative feedback to anyone! Just give it to the one who truly deserves it!

I have not been following the "meta" board for a long time. Because I often think that the purpose of the forum is out of the way and that people are trying to make obvious cold war. Here I see a lot of unnecessary negative trust activities that appear at the end of the correspondence. Are these really necessary? Have you ever reevaluated the negative feedbacks you have made so far?

I review my trust ratings roughly twice a year and sometimes remove or revise some of them. I used to advocate others to review their ratings but have largely given up on that. Nobody wants to be told what to do, even in the most polite terms.

Sending red trust for opinions is an unfortunate new habit that has developed here, along with a laundry-list of excuses for it (and no, "lying" is not a valid excuse). Trust list exclusion is a more suitable and a more effective way of dealing with someone's flawed judgement. Neutral rating can be added if you really feel the need to say something about the person. Other than that the trust system should be left out of flame wars.

Again, I think you understand what I'm saying. Thank you for your clarification.

[mu_enrico]

For me, I'm not a fan of the current feedback system since there is a reason why, for example, Facebook, Twitter, etc., don't have a dislike button. So I'm a bit reluctant to give negative feedback. Also, positive feedback is somewhat similar to merit. For me, the feedback system should be used for trading purposes only.

However, even if you have decided to "not participate," there will be a person who just likes to troll you with random negative feedback. I think my negative feedbacks are fair, and I hope I don't have to give more of it in the future.

[Stedsm]

For me, I'm not a fan of the current feedback system since there is a reason why, for example, Facebook, Twitter, etc., don't have a dislike button. So I'm a bit reluctant to give negative feedback. Also, positive feedback is somewhat similar to merit. For me, the feedback system should be used for trading purposes only.

--snip--

Exactly, the trust system was solely made with the purpose of giving it to those upon whom we risked or we got risked some coins to/by someone and we trust them/they trust us that we can be used as an exchanger or that we can use them for that very same purpose because one/few of our trades were successful. I don't know how mudding each other for some personal reasons, spam, giving stupid trust feedbacks (see my profile for a few by game-protect) justifies to be sitting there in our profile. I know that spam needs to be reported and I'm completely with the spambusters but those who give red marks for spamming, is it really the best place to land your opinion?

[Lauda]

For me, I'm not a fan of the current feedback system since there is a reason why, for example, Facebook, Twitter, etc., don't have a dislike button.

Just because 99% of the humanity can't be trusted to rationally assess other people's behavior, that doesn't mean that nobody can. People who use Facebook & co. are very ignorant and sheep to begin with.
Answer to OP: More than necessary, restraint is more often exercised than not.

[UserU]

However, even if you have decided to "not participate," there will be a person who just likes to troll you with random negative feedback. I think my negative feedbacks are fair, and I hope I don't have to give more of it in the future.

Usually those trolls hardly hold any weight, since they're either not in any DT or they don't link any reference(s).

[xolxol]

DT abusers be like yeah you abused the system thats why you have red not knowing they abused it too by giving shit feedbacks to protect their crimes.

[cabalism13]

Just because 99% of the humanity can't be trusted to rationally assess other people's behavior

Well said for a Cat.

DT abusers be like yeah you abused the system thats why you have red not knowing they abused it too by giving shit feedbacks to protect their crimes.

Someone is triggered with the discussion...

Usually those trolls hardly hold any weight, since they're either not in any DT or they don't link any reference(s).

Also don't forget those users who just make unnecessary feedback just because you offended them, also there are some users who provide links but their feedback are just copy/pasted from the other users. I simply disagree with copy pasting of feedback. Its too obviously biased, someone should still create their own feedback even though the reason for tagging is the same.

[dannybrown]

I'm really sorry.
Every day, I began to walk away from this forum, which I fell in love with because of unfair accusations and slander.
I really don't understand why they're doing this.
I have always enjoyed being a part of this forum.I've seen everybody blame each other lately .this is painful.

[Lauda]

I'm really sorry.
Every day, I began to walk away from this forum, which I fell in love with because of unfair accusations and slander.
I really don't understand why they're doing this.
I have always enjoyed being a part of this forum.I've seen everybody blame each other lately .this is painful.

Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".

[Stedsm]

Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".

Please don't mind when I try to point this out, but isn't it true that there were DTs who abused their authority of giving bad trusts by trying to show their power on the forum through false/baseless accusations? I don't want to get involved in all this drama anymore because the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags". TBH, I only see the best in the interest of an individual to have a trust list maintained here, though it doesn't make any difference at first but once a DT (of any depth) is proven wrong, this might turn out to be a win-win situation for that person who was accused either due to jealousy or baseless assumptions.

[Lauda]

Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".

Please don't mind when I try to point this out, but isn't it true that there were DTs who abused their authority of giving bad trusts by trying to show their power on the forum through false/baseless accusations? I don't want to get involved in all this drama anymore because the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags". TBH, I only see the best in the interest of an individual to have a trust list maintained here, though it doesn't make any difference at first but once a DT (of any depth) is proven wrong, this might turn out to be a win-win situation for that person who was accused either due to jealousy or baseless assumptions.

He's reply, whilst trying to hide it, is solely based because his own abuse among his own Turkish gang got called out:

Blacknavy
Kalemder
Vispilio

Your argument on its own is valid, but in relation to my response is invalid.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags".

I don't think that's why he came up with the flag system, though I have to admit I haven't paid much attention to it and have yet to make a flag against a member here.  TECSHARE has always brought up the issue of the difference between dispicable behavior and trustworthiness in business deals--and sometimes, but not always, they're the same thing.  As an example, I think TECSHARE is an angry loon but I would do business with him with no hesitation because of his track record on the forum of not screwing people over.

There have always been allegations of trust abuse by DT members, but the fact is if that happens those DT members would be called on it and probably would be kicked off DT via exclusions by other DT members.  TECSHARE is actually one example of that happening (years ago), but there have been others too. 

I'm comfortable with all the negs I've left for members, which mostly deal with account sales.  But back in 2017-18 before the merit system was launched, I was leaving negs for shitposters because there were no other tools available to combat them.  I was never comfortable doing that and ended up removing all of those feedbacks after the merit system came along.  If you're on DT, you have to be careful about leaving either positive or negative trust just because of the weight it carries.  Hopefully new DT members realize this and act accordingly.

[Stedsm]

--snip--

There have always been allegations of trust abuse by DT members, but the fact is if that happens those DT members would be called on it and probably would be kicked off DT via exclusions by other DT members.  TECSHARE is actually one example of that happening (years ago), but there have been others too. 

I'm comfortable with all the negs I've left for members, which mostly deal with account sales.  But back in 2017-18 before the merit system was launched, I was leaving negs for shitposters because there were no other tools available to combat them.  I was never comfortable doing that and ended up removing all of those feedbacks after the merit system came along.  If you're on DT, you have to be careful about leaving either positive or negative trust just because of the weight it carries.  Hopefully new DT members realize this and act accordingly.

I like people like you who actually either change or remove trust feedbacks whenever needed, but there were people on DT and some are still on DT who went dormant after leaving negative feedbacks and not coming back to the forum. I know that their feedbacks shouldn't really be a priority for them to come on the forum, but then, such feedbacks completely ruin an account if their negative trust is either baseless or is not relevant anymore to what they were given it for. Let's say someone defaulted on a loan a few years before and you leave a red tag to him back then, but he manages to repay it by time and settles it with the lender, shouldn't it be your responsibility to either remove your rating or neutral tag him? But if you are too busy in your real life and can't come online, who will take the responsibility to counter tag that person or exclude you from their list so that the borrower's account doesn't get wasted?