THE TRUST SYSTEM: Are Counter-Feedbacks Counter Productive?

[JollyGood]

This thread is not about any member or incident but is about a general situation that exists in the forum regarding counter-feedbacks.

There are cases where deserved or not, negative trust has been left for a user. Then another user comes along and deems that negative trust as wrong/unfair/inappropriate or as a breach of the trust system and decides to leave positive trust for the same recipient stating it is to counter previous feedback.

I think it is an inappropriate use of the trust system for anybody to give positive trust ratings to users just because they received negative trust that was (or could debatably be deemed as being) in breach of the trust system.

I believe that any action of trying to counter-balance either an out-and-out breach of the trust system or a perceived breach of the trust system by giving positive trust to those who received negative trust is in itself a breach of the trust system.

I myself have received (positive trust) counter-feedback and have seen others give it too so I am not saying counter-feedback are not being used for good purposes or that it cannot be used for good purposes but as for whether it is an appropriate use of the trust system - that is not even questionable because clearly it is not, however it is widely accepted without issue.

So the thread has been created with a view to have some form of consensus in ascertaining if handing out a positive counter-feedback to users is acceptable then should or should it not also be widely accepted in the forum and not frowned upon for leaving negative trust for users by widening the criteria in which they deserve negative trust such as for trolls, spammers, alt accounts?

I see some users adding others to their distrust list just because they have left debatable negative trust for others yet to my knowledge they do not add those who leave positive counter-feedbacks to their distrust list. It is as though one breach of the trust system is looked down upon and the other is not when both are breaches.

I also know some users give warning or time to others to remove negative trust otherwise they will be added to distrust lists but to my knowledge they do not follow the same process for users posting positive counter-feedback. Again, both are breaches of the trust system yet one is accepted and the other is not.

If positive counter-feedbacks are not counter productive when they are in breach of the trust system then why are negative trusts counter-productive when used against trolls, spammers and alt accounts even though both are a breach of the trust system?

Maybe other actions that are widely accepted should not be questioned too or no deviation of the trust system should be accepted as a blanket ban so to speak.

updated 26th March 2021 What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks.

[1715082429]

1715082429

[1715082429]

1715082429

[1715082429]

1715082429

[1715082429]

1715082429

[suchmoon]

The following is based on your premise (counter to "negative trust that was [...] in breach of the trust system").

Two wrongs don't make a right and this goes both ways. One shouldn't leave positive feedback unless they genuinely believe the recipient is unlikely to scam anyone, regardless of any prior ratings etc. However it's disingenuous to paint it with the same brush as negative trust abuse. Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess. Don't justify neg trust abuse with a false equivalence.

But if one does need to counter - I think a neutral is more appropriate in some cases. It's just as visible but doesn't imply "unlikely to scam". In the old pre-flag system counter feedbacks were allowed and encouraged in some circumstances but it's a bit more complicated in the new system where there is no longer a trust score that would reset with a counter rating.

Given that the vast majority of DT1 doesn't give a shit about what's written on the trust page ("high risk" and "unlikely to scam" specifically) and wouldn't use the proper solution to the problem (~), it's no great shock that some users may still resort to the counter ratings. That doesn't make it a "breach". It makes it an imperfect last resort workaround for what should have been avoided or prevented to begin with.

[JollyGood]

Why does one need to place counter-feedback with positive trust thus be in breach of the trust system when their premise for doing was to point out that someone else who had left negative feedback had breached the trust system?

If users feels so strongly about upholding the trust system there is not justification for them to breach it even if other users have breached the trust system where negative trust has been given. Why would someone then breach the trust system themselves just to point out another user has done it?

Yes I agree two wrongs do not make a right. Just because one user sees negative trust as unfair it does not mean positive counter-feedback is the correct response when a neutral could suffice.

And I disagree with with about your disingenuous comment.

No matter who left it, if there is negative trust for trolls and it is widely accepted as improper use of the trust system then how does that justify a different user coming along and leaving positive trust for no reason other than to post it as a counter-feedback to another user?  There is no cleaning up of my mess or that of anyone else.

Nobody asked anybody to clean up after anyone so that is a pointless non-entity that warrants no discussion. What does matter is why a user would come along and make improper use of the trust system by leaving counter-feedback after citing an improper use of the trust system took place and then does the same thing themselves by not following the correct process.

Going further, why is leaving negative trust deemed more of an issue than leaving counter-feedback? That is how it seems.

The following is based on your premise (counter to "negative trust that was [...] in breach of the trust system").

Two wrongs don't make a right and this goes both ways. One shouldn't leave positive feedback unless they genuinely believe the recipient is unlikely to scam anyone, regardless of any prior ratings etc. However it's disingenuous to paint it with the same brush as negative trust abuse. Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess. Don't justify neg trust abuse with a false equivalence.

But if one does need to counter - I think a neutral is more appropriate in some cases. It's just as visible but doesn't imply "unlikely to scam". In the old pre-flag system counter feedbacks were allowed and encouraged in some circumstances but it's a bit more complicated in the new system where there is no longer a trust score that would reset with a counter rating.

Given that the vast majority of DT1 doesn't give a shit about what's written on the trust page ("high risk" and "unlikely to scam" specifically) and wouldn't use the proper solution to the problem (~), it's no great shock that some users may still resort to the counter ratings. That doesn't make it a "breach". It makes it an imperfect last resort workaround for what should have been avoided or prevented to begin with.

[actmyname]

Post-DT100 change: unnecessary.

Trust value dilution via both the linear evaluation and the expanded space of DefaultTrust members incentivizes reading the feedback as opposed to the previous system, where one would have the ability to (somewhat) consistently rely upon the curated theymos-approved list.Neutral feedback should be used more often.

[suchmoon]

Why does one need to place counter-feedback with positive trust thus be in breach

Not a breach if it's actually meant to say that the person is unlikely to scam anyone. Otherwise...

Going further, why is leaving negative trust deemed more of an issue than leaving counter-feedback? That is how it seems.

Are we still talking about negative trust that doesn't convey "high risk"? Of course it's more of an issue. It creates the problem to begin with. It shouldn't exist. Don't do it - no counter - everyone's happy. How hard can it be? How hard can it be to hit that "delete" link instead of creating this thread? But if you don't want to delete those ratings you're gonna have to accept tildes and counter feedbacks. Which part if this you're still having problems with?

Neutral feedback should be used more often.

Couldn't agree more. But I guess some people really like to see their words in bold and red.

[Little Mouse]

Two wrongs don't make a right and this goes both ways.

That's the thing.
But still there are some issue. Let's say someone neg tagged an account for things which doesn’t actually warrant a negative. How can the user get out of that tag? To PM the feedback sender? Sometimes some DT members are so irresponsible that they don't care.
The point is unless another DT member acts against that feedback, nothing happen in some cases. So, in such cases, the tagged user are carrying the feedback without doing anything wrong.
Now, if a DT member positive tag the account as counter feedback (which is wrong again but to let other users that the previous feedback isn’t appropriate), something can be done to remove the neg tag. I think this is good for this approach.

[LoyceV]

I think it is an inappropriate use of the trust system for anybody to give positive trust ratings to users just because they received negative trust that was (or could debatably be deemed as being) in breach of the trust system.

I agree, the forum's Trust description clearly states what positive feedback means:

Receiving incorrect negative feedback doesn't mean the user is unlikely to scam anyone.

Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess.

Agreed! The last case of "counter feedback" I've seen lately was amongst others countering JollyGood's negative feedback (which in my opinion was incorrect).
For my full opinion on how to use the Trust system, see LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (also useful for high ranking accounts).

Neutral (shown as =1)

• Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted. This can be good feedback, for instance when someone helped you out.
• I think Neutral Feedback is currently undervalued on Bitcointalk. It's a great tool to de-escalate without drastic consequences. Please use it when appropriate.

I often leave neutral feedback nowadays. Negative is for scammers only. I use neutral for trust abusers too, there's no need to step down to their level by retaliating. A neutral tag can even stand out amongst many red tags.

[JollyGood]

I cannot agree with what suchmoon stated though you agreed with him about "Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess."

What suchmoon is saying (and you agreed to that view) is that in your opinions it is acceptable for users to leave positive counter-feedback for those receiving inappropriate negative trust. So the argument is simply saying "you did not use the trust system properly so I will also not use it properly either" and that argument is flawed. It is not cleaning up any mess, it is creating the mess or making it worse.

If one user has received what is deemed to be inappropriate negative trust, what exactly gives another user the right to breach the trust system and give a counter-positive trust rating? Can they justify it by saying "you left inappropriate trust and broke the trust system rules so I will break the same trust system rules (I otherwise uphold) by leaving a positive counter-feedback".

Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice.

What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well.

Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess.

Agreed! The last case of "counter feedback" I've seen lately was amongst others countering JollyGood's negative feedback (which in my opinion was incorrect).

[LoyceV]

I cannot agree with what suchmoon stated though you agreed with him about "Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess."

Trolling is against the forum rules. Report it, and let Mods deal with it.

What suchmoon is saying (and you agreed to that view) is that in your opinions it is acceptable for users to leave positive counter-feedback for those receiving inappropriate negative trust.

If it wasn't clear yet: I encourage the use of neutral feedback for this

Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice.

Agreed

[suchmoon]

What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well.

Last attempt to spell it out for you but I don't think you're looking for an actual answer but rather to justify your actions and/or smear your opponent.

Order of preference for actions to deal with improper use of negative trust (e.g. for trolling or opinions):

• Users leaving such trust ratings should not do it.
• Other users should no longer include them (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
• Other DT1 members should exclude them (remove them from DT1/DT2).
• Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.

It is your responsibility to fix it, not everyone else's responsibility to fix your mess or penalize other users for trying to fix your mess. When I see the first three actions taken with any sort of consistency and responsibility I may consider no longer supporting counter feedbacks. Until then it's fair game, albeit neutrals would probably work better in some cases.

[LoyceV]

Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.

Interesting addition: I can indeed imagine leaving a positive feedback when an otherwise trusted member gets negative feedback for no good reason. But for other cases, I'd stick to neutral only.

[actmyname]

Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.

Interesting addition: I can indeed imagine leaving a positive feedback when an otherwise trusted member gets negative feedback for no good reason. But for other cases, I'd stick to neutral only.

"If you wouldn't give them a positive trust without the need for a counter, don't give it to them using the counter" seems like a good line of thinking.

Similar to way back when people would give no-collateral loans vs. "account collateral"

What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well.

The one core issue I have with this framing is that it is very analogous to the "how can you be tolerant if you are intolerant of bigots?" rhetoric. Intent is key in distinguishing actions, don't you think so? These are not equivalents, at least in my opinion. I wouldn't positive-counter blindly, but likewise, I wouldn't punish against it blindly either.

[JollyGood]

I cannot agree with what suchmoon stated though you agreed with him about "Don't neg-trust trolls so that people don't need to try to clean up your mess."

Trolling is against the forum rules. Report it, and let Mods deal with it.

What suchmoon is saying (and you agreed to that view) is that in your opinions it is acceptable for users to leave positive counter-feedback for those receiving inappropriate negative trust.

If it wasn't clear yet: I encourage the use of neutral feedback for this

Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice.

Agreed

Thank you Loyce. Using neutral feedback is hugely underused in the forum, I think the forum dynamics would probably change for the better if it was used more.

It seems like a sizeable number of members in the forum are operating as they want by picking which parts of the trust system and other forum rules to implement and accept. Then some of those members do not accept it when other members implement their own interpretation of the very same rules. Having broad consensus between members (or at least those are DT) would have given a direction to follow since the trust system is not being implement correctly by too many members.

As the list in the section below shows, if we all start adding or including or excluding each other based on our opinions of the trust system then we can all basically do what we want. Having consensus would avert most issues.

What I would like to see is what reasons will be provided by members that have already done or have contemplated adding users to their distrust list on the basis of making improper use of the trust system by leaving negative trust and quoting that reason yet they have not taken the same actions against members that leave positive counter-feedbacks. I will add this to the OP as well.

Last attempt to spell it out for you but I don't think you're looking for an actual answer but rather to justify your actions and/or smear your opponent.

Order of preference for actions to deal with improper use of negative trust (e.g. for trolling or opinions):

• Users leaving such trust ratings should not do it.
• Other users should no longer include them (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
• Other DT1 members should exclude them (remove them from DT1/DT2).
• Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.

It is your responsibility to fix it, not everyone else's responsibility to fix your mess or penalize other users for trying to fix your mess. When I see the first three actions taken with any sort of consistency and responsibility I may consider no longer supporting counter feedbacks. Until then it's fair game, albeit neutrals would probably work better in some cases.

Firstly what I surmised from your post is the presumption that I am trying to justify my own action and/or to smear an opponent that you did not name. You are wrong on both counts. After that, thank you for the list. I tend to agree with some aspects of it but not entirely. There are some other possibilities which though I might not agree with (or will not put forward) are options and possibilities nonetheless:

• Users leaving inappropriate trust ratings should not do it.
• Other users should no longer include them (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
• Other DT1 members should exclude them (remove them from DT1/DT2).
• Other DT members may counter with neutral or positive ratings where appropriate.
• DT1 members that disagree with the positive counter-feedback might no longer include members leaving (not vote them into DT1 and not make them DT2).
• DT1 members could exclude members leaving positive counter-feedback (remove them from DT1/DT2).
• DT members may counter with neutral or red ratings of their own to counter the positive-feedback where appropriate.

Having 3 votes in the poll has been somewhat disappointing...

[actmyname]

It seems like a sizeable number of members in the forum are operating as they want by picking which parts of the trust system and other forum rules to implement and accept. Then some of those members do not accept it when other members implement their own interpretation of the very same rules. Having broad consensus between members (or at least those are DT) would have given a direction to follow since the trust system is not being implement correctly by too many members.

Some users would argue, it's not a bug - it's a feature, in that the (relatively) free framework of the wide-scoped DT100 system results in a large pool of members participating in a coordinated effort to organically formulate a democratic-esque system of which to operate.

Others would say that the vastness of the space results in many interspersed leaks of abuse and corruption which can sometimes pool into a puddle of members. The interpretation of the trust system and its guidelines vary across users (e.g. account sales, bounty abuse) but consensus is never going to happen all at once - the pigeons need to be fed crumbs at a time before their stomachs become loaves.It is often quite vague, the threshold of "bad feedback" that a particular user can send before they are distrusted, yet one way we can curb a factor that may prevent users from doing so is to continually post redundant feedback such that the DefaultTrust coalition (so to speak) does not have to rely on a single point of failure for displaying negative trust/flags against a large swathe of scammers or worse^* users.

_{* worse than the DT member, however marginal.}

What I do like about the trust system in general is that it effectively allows people to create policy-based (by way of representatives or themselves directly) bubbles of interaction in which users can choose the particular space they want to operate within. For any unconventional-trust users, they are allowed to distrust any relevant DT members and form their own DefaultTrust circle. You have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen.

That's a good thing, though: reliance upon the base trust system is, of course, only a measure by default. I just wish there was an accompanying guide for new members that join the forum.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I think it is an inappropriate use of the trust system for anybody to give positive trust ratings to users just because they received negative trust that was (or could debatably be deemed as being) in breach of the trust system.

I don't think it's inappropriate, but I refuse to do it nonetheless.  There are a few things that could go wrong when doing so, including the original neg being removed while the counterpositive remains (for whatever reason).  I also don't like leaving a positive for someone unless there's a damn good reason, and a wrongly-left negative--even though it's not right--doesn't rise to that level IMO.

OP, there's a lot that's wrong with the trust system we have, and there haven't been any significant improvements in my time here.  Since there aren't any hard rules telling members what they can and can't do, everyone is basically free to interpret the spirit of the trust system as they see fit--regardless of any consensus among DT members or anyone else. 

It's almost pointless debating stuff like this since people will likely continue leaving counter-positives and there aren't going to be any consequences for doing so (even if it were against the rules or even frowned upon).

[Vod]

Having 3 votes in the poll has been somewhat disappointing...

Think of it as a teaching moment.  This forum has already made it's owners and friends insanely rich.   

[JollyGood]

Interesting addition: I can indeed imagine leaving a positive feedback when an otherwise trusted member gets negative feedback for no good reason. But for other cases, I'd stick to neutral only.

"If you wouldn't give them a positive trust without the need for a counter, don't give it to them using the counter" seems like a good line of thinking.

I agree with this. If there is no need to give positive trust in the first place then there is no need to give positive counter-feedback trust. That rule seems simple enough for any and all members to follow.

It seems like a sizeable number of members in the forum are operating as they want by picking which parts of the trust system and other forum rules to implement and accept. Then some of those members do not accept it when other members implement their own interpretation of the very same rules. Having broad consensus between members (or at least those are DT) would have given a direction to follow since the trust system is not being implement correctly by too many members.

Some users would argue, it's not a bug - it's a feature, in that the (relatively) free framework of the wide-scoped DT100 system results in a large pool of members participating in a coordinated effort to organically formulate a democratic-esque system of which to operate.

Others would say that the vastness of the space results in many interspersed leaks of abuse and corruption which can sometimes pool into a puddle of members. The interpretation of the trust system and its guidelines vary across users (e.g. account sales, bounty abuse) but consensus is never going to happen all at once - the pigeons need to be fed crumbs at a time before their stomachs become loaves.

Pigeons, crumbs, stomachs and loaves....

Recently I completely overlooked exactly just how much of a well thought out writer you are... detailed with deep thinking and only elaborate where necessary. You could easily moonlight as an author in one capacity or another if you wanted to. My respect to you actmyname  

It is often quite vague, the threshold of "bad feedback" that a particular user can send before they are distrusted, yet one way we can curb a factor that may prevent users from doing so is to continually post redundant feedback such that the DefaultTrust coalition (so to speak) does not have to rely on a single point of failure for displaying negative trust/flags against a large swathe of scammers or worse^* users.

_{* worse than the DT member, however marginal.}

The threshold is effectively open to interpretation as much as it is open to abuse. I have seen a number of members that have pointed out feedback they find questionable by citing it inappropriate by virtue of the trust system guide but then they themselves do the same by leaving positive counter-feedback.

What I do like about the trust system in general is that it effectively allows people to create policy-based (by way of representatives or themselves directly) bubbles of interaction in which users can choose the particular space they want to operate within. For any unconventional-trust users, they are allowed to distrust any relevant DT members and form their own DefaultTrust circle. You have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen.

That's a good thing, though: reliance upon the base trust system is, of course, only a measure by default. I just wish there was an accompanying guide for new members that join the forum.

What you mentioned about DT members forming their own DefaultTrust circle and that "you have seen this happen, you are seeing this happen, and you will continue to see this happen", that assessment seems true and you make a valid point.

I would further add to your comment by saying that there is no evidence of any DT members forming their own DefaultTrust circle via collusion with nefarious motives and that the default trust circles you refer to (and most of us believe exist) could have been created on more of a subliminal level between like-minded members rather than by out-and-out skulduggery.

[marlboroza]

It is counter to negative feedback sent for trolling/spamming/I-don't-like-you/someone-said-to-tag-you-I-really-have-no-idea-what-you-did/you are newbie account who knows too much/Insert-any-other-not-related-trust-reason.

Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice.

Don't send inappropriate ratings and users won't have anything to counter, problem solved. Don't act like problem lies in my counter feedback, problem is your negative trust.
You know, JollyGood, it is not cool what you did here, especially because of the fact that you have never ever complained when negative feedback was countered on your profile and some other things I won't mention  

marlboroza over and out.



PS

Please remove this



It insults me.

[Quickseller]

There are cases where deserved or not, negative trust has been left for a user. Then another user comes along and deems that negative trust as wrong/unfair/inappropriate or as a breach of the trust system and decides to leave positive trust for the same recipient stating it is to counter previous feedback.

I think it is an inappropriate use of the trust system for anybody to give positive trust ratings to users just because they received negative trust that was (or could debatably be deemed as being) in breach of the trust system.

I disagree with this premise.

If there is no fact dispute, but Sally believes Bob is "high risk", Sally will leave a negative rating against Bob. Sally gives a lot of "good" ratings, and the rating does not appear to be in bad faith, so it would not make much sense to exclude Sally from the DT network. However there is still an "injustice" against Bob. Sam wants to correct this injustice and asks Sally to remove the negative rating, but Sally refuses. The only option is for Sam to leave a positive rating on Bob's trust profile with a note saying he does not agree with Sally's rating.

Anyone doing due diligence prior to trading with Bob will see both ratings, and can act accordingly. If Sally subsequently removes her negative rating, but for some reason Sam does not remove his counter rating, someone conducting due diligence would ignore Sam's rating.   

[JollyGood]

With great difficulty I am writing the following because maybe the misunderstanding could have been cleared via PM but you blocked me, sadly.

In a nutshell, it seems you think the thread was about you when it was not. I re-iterate this thread is not about you, it is unrelated to you and the first line of the OP states: This thread is not about any member or incident but is about a general situation that exists in the forum regarding counter-feedbacks

Unfortunately I never got round to starting this thread but have been wanting to for some weeks, it just so happened that I created this thread in close proximity to the thread that was created by one user to throw unfair attention on a member that simply wanted to be left alone.

Maybe the two errors I made (if I can call them that) were that firstly I should have waited a week or so before starting this thread so to keep distance between that thread and this one and secondly going by your reaction I should have sent you a PM to explain the thread was not about you but about positive counter-feedbacks and their use but it never crossed my mind you would think the thread was about you.

marlboroza, looking at that image and the text I wrote I would go a step further and say that I have a lot of respect for you, much more than you might think and I mentioned that on several occasions.

I respect lots of members here but for me you are one of maybe just 3 or 4 users that fall in the highest respect category. Without doubt you are completely trustworthy and you yourself are one of the biggest assets in the form of a member that this forum has. I am disappointed with your reaction to something that was unrelated to you and was misunderstood by you.

It is counter to negative feedback sent for trolling/spamming/I-don't-like-you/someone-said-to-tag-you-I-really-have-no-idea-what-you-did/you are newbie account who knows too much/Insert-any-other-not-related-trust-reason.

Using positive counter-feedbacks is a completely inappropriate use of the trust system and from my perspective it has no justification at all because if anything a neutral rating can suffice.

Don't send inappropriate ratings and users won't have anything to counter, problem solved. Don't act like problem lies in my counter feedback, problem is your negative trust.
You know, JollyGood, it is not cool what you did here, especially because of the fact that you have never ever complained when negative feedback was countered on your profile and some other things I won't mention  

marlboroza over and out.



PS

Please remove this



It insults me.