theymos could you sticky your intent on the reputation board

[Timelord2067]

Dear theymos,

How they hanging?

Given you wrote this:

Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.

Can you confirm this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181603.0 is an appropriate use of the Flag system please?

I've highlighted in blue the portion of your quote that interests me.

Thanks.

[1715562324]

1715562324

[1715562324]

1715562324

[Lauda]

Ratings
 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating.

Very good post, and confirms what I was talking about the whole time. A more lenient system has an equal or wider amount of available reasons for ratings. The readers of ratings should not project their their conclusion on why it was given before even actually reading it.

For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.

Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives?

[LoyceV]

For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.

Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives?

The way I read it, theymos' comment is for mass-ratings. Instead of a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, I like to think of it as giving them a reason to change their actions.
For individual ratings, such as the ones on this scammer, I see no reason to remove my tag if he ever decides to stop scamming.

[ibminer]

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

So you're saying someone with a deceptive and dishonest personality does not constitute a potential trade risk??

I'd have to disagree.

[Steamtyme]

So you're saying someone with a deceptive and dishonest personality does not constitute a potential trade risk??
I'd have to disagree.

If you take personality out of the sentence how would you proceed. If someone is a blatant liar or has shown a dishonest approach to life it seems reasonable they would be a potential trade risk. Adding personality to the end of those descriptors makes no sense apart from trying to bridge the gap and bring personalities into the fold of taggable offences.

It does open up what you consider to be a lie and dishonest but I think that's covered in this portion.

If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

[ibminer]

If you take personality out of the sentence how would you proceed. If someone is a blatant liar or has shown a dishonest approach to life it seems reasonable they would be a potential trade risk. Adding personality to the end of those descriptors makes no sense apart from trying to bridge the gap and bring personalities into the fold of taggable offences.

Including good or bad personalities to the list of what the trust system is "not for" seems to indicate that bad/dishonest personalities or ideas shouldn't be part of a rating at all. Am I not understanding the intent of this statement?..

It does open up what you consider to be a lie and dishonest but I think that's covered in this portion.
--snip retroactive example--

My concern is being able to proactively identify someone as a trade risk. The retroactive actions are generally much easier to deal with or decide on, although IMO somewhat pointless after someone has scammed, because they'll likely just switch accounts until the community forgives their prior account for their behavior.. and if they don't, they just move on with their other accounts. (rinse & repeat)

theymos agrees proactive scam-hunting is good, but if you take personalities and ideas out of the equation, what is left which could be looked at in a proactive way to determine if someone is a potential trade risk and be able to warn others about it?

[Steamtyme]

Including good or bad personalities to the list of what the trust system is "not for" seems to indicate that bad/dishonest personalities or ideas shouldn't be part of a rating at all. Am I not understanding the intent of this statement?..

I just remove personality from it and you are left with Good or Bad, which you would have to derive from their actions/behavior. This is going to be subjective based on who is casting judgement. In going through this you would be pointing to whatever the person has done to trigger that decision in tipping the scales for you to be confident in assessing them as a risk. This would then become your reference for the feedback.

Then pointing to the quoted portion I used in my previous reply, if the majority then agrees with it the feedback would be valid. The reference should be accurate and strong enough to warrant the proactive tag you decide to place. Active scam hunting will bring this about and there will rarely be a unanimous agreement. That alone doesn't necessarily mean you are abusing or misusing the system. Some will ~ maybe, some will include you. Then when it comes around to DT-1 there will be a more active discussion possibly on the validity of your ratings.

theymos agrees proactive scam-hunting is good, but if you take personalities and ideas out of the equation, what is left which could be looked at in a proactive way to determine if someone is a potential trade risk and be able to warn others about it?

Touched on this above. I believe it comes down to actions. Take my stance on tagging accounts that use locked and self moderated sales topics to prevent legitimate discussion on their thread and lure people off forum for dealings. These actions and behaviors put up flags for me, but not everyone.

[alani123]

I saw that the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice of thunder, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a white horse and its rider had a bow. A crown was given to him, and he came forth to conquer and intent on conquering.

The problem is that any word from theymos gets interpreted and misinterpreted in ways that completely skew the intent. If he says "this behavior may be a reason for negative trust but..." you can bet that some people will ignore the "but" part (and treat "may" as "must") and some will focus entirely on the "but" ignoring the first part.

Just use common sense and good hygiene in your trust lists. I've found that it's far more valuable to build my trust list not based on whom I agree with but based on honesty and ability to reason with. Your mileage may vary.

When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. To its rider was given power to take peace from the earth, so that people should kill each other, and a great sword was given to him.

Trading with TOAA is high risk, a very high risk of losing your sanity. Also newbies won’t look at neutral feedback, they probably don’t even read positive trust half the time

When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a black horse and its rider had a balance in his hand. I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wage and three quarts of barley for a day’s wage! Do not damage the oil and the wine!”

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
~~

When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth living creature say, “Come and see!” And behold, a pale horse, and the name of its rider was Death,g and Hades followed him. He was given authority over one fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword, with famine, with death, and by the wild animals of the earth.

~~

This guide make it open to wide abusive action. Any more warning to another member of risky, member must be able to show a behavior of try to scam or did scam must show example financial misconduct . Think in your own opinion more risky than average is not sensible.
If not provide example then red is abuse.
I investigate each of TOAA post and even the last challenge proof he supply correct evidence. Not even one person can beat his challenge last one. I enjoy his post and find the real history intresting
 
So much red trust is a abusive and spoils system. His dirty turds I research I find nothing wrong for 5he ones I follow his link, these same one gives him red and they did it more high risk. only member claim TOAA scammer is on dirty turd with evidence he find on them.
Now he gone who can fight for fair embers treatment. His swearing and anger his most trouble only. Should be calm. Each member relax and focus real scammer not your personal enemies. Enemies break sensible opinion emotional anger can influence. I think he can return soon. I try to support if he tell the truth.

When the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been killed for the sake of the word of God and for the testimony they had kept. They cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, holy and true Master, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” A long white robe was given to each of them. They were told to rest for a while longer, until their fellow-servants and brethren (who would also be killed as they were) should complete their course.

For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.

Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives?

The four stages of the trustocalypse. Thanks to DireWolfM14 for the inspiration with this post.

[suchmoon]

So you're saying someone with a deceptive and dishonest personality does not constitute a potential trade risk??

I'd have to disagree.

I'd have to disagree with your disagreement. If someone has a horrible personality but hasn't used those personality traits in detriment to their trading partners, you can't automatically assume it's a high risk. If someone is a liar but delivers the trinkets they sell - should they be labelled with red trust?

That's not to say there aren't gray areas, particularly considering users without trading history, as well as in the interpretation of "high" risk.

[marlboroza]

For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.

Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives?

It was always like that, you tag someone because they are advertising scam, if they remove signature (or any other scam advertising material) - you remove your negative or change it to neutral.

At least that's how I was tagging and removing tags from scam promoters. I didn't remove negative from accounts who waited "too long" (if you know what I mean) to remove scam promotional material because I generally think they are high risk accounts, and if someone has been "neutralized" and they again choose to advertise another scam, that second tag I won't remove because user is just high risk. And, I removed few neutrals as well.

[ibminer]

If someone has a horrible personality but hasn't used those personality traits in detriment to their trading partners, you can't automatically assume it's a high risk. If someone is a liar but delivers the trinkets they sell - should they be labelled with red trust?

That's not to say there aren't gray areas, particularly considering users without trading history, as well as in the interpretation of "high" risk.

To answer the question, yes, I feel like there are enough people in the world that do not want to trade (or see it as more risky) to trade with someone who consistently exhibits lying and deceitful behaviors.

I'd say someone like that who is selling trinkets should not be on the same level of trust as an honest person selling the same trinkets. Whether you see them as "high" risk or not, I don't know, people can make up their own minds... but IMO, a person takes a higher risk trading with someone who exhibits certain personality traits and a higher chance of being ripped off, in one way or the other.

Providing a warning to other users (especially new/future members) via a red feedback, which doesn't carry anywhere near the weight it used to, I believe should be acceptable and a legitimate use of the trust system. It's not like it stops that person from selling their trinkets, but it identifies character traits that other people I believe would see as riskier to trade with.

Please, tell me how someone could be identified proactively as a high risk with your line of thinking. When can one assume a person is a high risk? .. Define "proactive scam-hunting".

The more we push the system into a retroactive-only approach, the more the Bitcointalk slogan should be "Free scam for every account! Unlimited accounts. We don't moderate scams, and we provide easy access from Tor. Let the games begin!"

[suchmoon]

Please, tell me how someone could be identified proactively as a high risk with your line of thinking. When can one assume a person is a high risk?

Perhaps if they lie about the actual trinkets they can be considered high-risk in trinket trade. If they lie to their wife about her totally not looking fat in that dress then they're only at high-risk of having a fat wife.

And we can still use a neutral for "lying to his wife", which has pretty much the same weight and visibility as "orange is the new red" but without the "scammer" stigma.

[Lauda]

If someone is a liar but delivers the trinkets they sell - should they be labelled with red trust?

I wouldn't risk trading with someone who is a known liar.  

Please, tell me how someone could be identified proactively as a high risk with your line of thinking. When can one assume a person is a high risk? .. Define "proactive scam-hunting".

Actually, the power of proactive approach is also trying to be severely limited.

The more we push the system into a retroactive-only approach, the more the Bitcointalk slogan should be "Free scam for every account! Unlimited accounts. We don't moderate scams, and we provide easy access from Tor. Let the games begin!"

That's the way that "intellectual liberals" rescue the society.

[LoyceV]

theymos agrees proactive scam-hunting is good, but if you take personalities and ideas out of the equation, what is left which could be looked at in a proactive way to determine if someone is a potential trade risk and be able to warn others about it?

Check some of my sent negative feedback for examples (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
These are quite obvious, but apparently people still fall for them (otherwise the spammers would have given up by now). It's more tricky when someone offers something that's very likely a scam, but could also be a very innocent Newbie trying to sell something.

[eddie13]

Egregious levels of lying could be tagworthy to me but probably not all "white lies"..
Any amount of lies would be in my consideration of them though on deciding wither or NOT to ever give them positive trust or add them to my trust list..

What constitutes "Egregious levels of lying" unfortunately will always remain subjective and therefore debatable..

[TECSHARE]

I think one of the main issues we are suffering from here is not one of intent, but application. It seems reasonable that ratings should be for objective documented circumstance right? "scam hunting" quickly turns into a nanny state when people inevitably start tribing up. Since this is the predictable end result, shouldn't we be basing these ratings on objective things like violation of contractual agreement, theft, or violation of applicable laws?

The trust system is supposed to operate as a platform for trusted individuals to build reputations, not just filter out con artists. It doesn't have to be used as a hammer to work. Used less with more specific intent would reduce conflict exponentially. People are treating it as a wide net application systematically spamming ratings by the thousands. That is not productive and is just endless signal noise that makes valid negative ratings invisible. The trust system is like a donkey you just keep whipping over and over to make it work then finally you realize the donkey is dead and whipping it isn't actually accomplishing anything.

Also is "lying" really a valid metric? I have seen plenty of cases of people who live in far away frozen wastelands that like to make claims about lies, but they always some how rely on their own personal interpretation of what happened, not what is plainly observable. This is way too arbitrary of a metric.

[suchmoon]

I think one of the main issues we are suffering from here is not one of intent, but application. It seems reasonable that ratings should be for objective documented circumstance right? "scam hunting" quickly turns into a nanny state when people inevitably start tribing up. Since this is the predictable end result, shouldn't we be basing these ratings on objective things like violation of contractual agreement, theft, or violation of applicable laws?

That's what the flags are for, type 2 and 3 in particular. Type 1 and red trust is for lesser stuff.

Also is "lying" really a valid metric?

It can be. If someone is trying to sell a 1 PH 1 kW miner that's an obvious lie and a scam, even if they haven't violated any contracts.

Problems start when people try to come up with absolute universal criteria based on their personal views, like any deceptive behavior needs a tag, or any lie is acceptable if there is no theft... The trust system (in theory) should combine subjective views of its participants into some sort of a communal view of what is trustworthy and what is not. I think the system works reasonably well given the circumstances. But I don't expect it to ever meet my expectations 100%.

[marlboroza]

People are treating it as a wide net application systematically spamming ratings by the thousands. That is not productive and is just endless signal noise that makes valid negative ratings invisible. The trust system is like a donkey you just keep whipping over and over to make it work then finally you realize the donkey is dead and whipping it isn't actually accomplishing anything.

Lets take your old tagging just for the sake of discussion:



So you have tagged 1 account because they are ponzi scammer. Someone else did the same thing as you did by tagging account bitconnectcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1681719.0. Another user has tagged another ponzi scammer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5196904.0. Someone else tags yet another ponzi scammer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155943.0, so that makes 4 of them.

You are basically suggesting that only one account should be tagged/flagged, even thought they are all scammers. Which one would you pick to tag/flag? How? What if there is hundred such accounts(and there is)?

[TECSHARE]

I think one of the main issues we are suffering from here is not one of intent, but application. It seems reasonable that ratings should be for objective documented circumstance right? "scam hunting" quickly turns into a nanny state when people inevitably start tribing up. Since this is the predictable end result, shouldn't we be basing these ratings on objective things like violation of contractual agreement, theft, or violation of applicable laws?

That's what the flags are for, type 2 and 3 in particular. Type 1 and red trust is for lesser stuff.

Also is "lying" really a valid metric?

It can be. If someone is trying to sell a 1 PH 1 kW miner that's an obvious lie and a scam, even if they haven't violated any contracts.

Problems start when people try to come up with absolute universal criteria based on their personal views, like any deceptive behavior needs a tag, or any lie is acceptable if there is no theft... The trust system (in theory) should combine subjective views of its participants into some sort of a communal view of what is trustworthy and what is not. I think the system works reasonably well given the circumstances. But I don't expect it to ever meet my expectations 100%.

If it is absolute criteria it is not really based on anyone's views now is it? The point is, unless it is something observable based on factual documented events, transaction IDs, etc it is so totally subjective making it totally open to interpretation and abuse. It creates drama and is not preventing anything. The forum police are not Tom Cruise in Minority Report. Leave the future crimes to him. This is why due process exists in legal systems, so that a minimum standard of evidence is required before impugning on their freedoms with what would otherwise be arbitrary or abusive reasons. We need to have a more narrow definition of what is an acceptable negative rating, not a wider one.

Think of it like electricity. You are jacking the voltage way up but it has no amperage because all the energy is being dispersed more widely and fractured. If you reduce the voltage, the amperage can increase making the energy exerted more targeted and useful to have a positive impact when it is really needed. The over use of negative trust and the trust system in general for every little thing is asinine. Everything doesn't need to be a codification, but a universal standard for a base accusation before using a system of penalties would seem pretty basic.

[suchmoon]

If it is absolute criteria it is not really based on anyone's views now is it?

I'm saying it's not possible to implement it the way you want it unless you manage to force everyone to agree with you. Your suggested criteria is based on your view that only committed scams should be subject to negative trust, but your view is clearly in the minority in DT1. Many other users prefer an early warning system.

The trust system actually allows your criteria to be used (anyone who agrees with your criteria can add you to their trust list) along with any other point of view. Your argument for limiting the freedom of choice is quite perplexing.