I was asked to respond here (and mentioned a few times).Do you guys think DT Abuse exists?
Yes, it happens.
What if a DT-1 and DT-2 Member Include someone on their Default Trustlist who actually never left any feedback to anyone?
I clarified your question by striking out a word.
To answer it: this happens too. I'm not a big fan of it, as it doesn't help the Trust system. But it also doesn't really do damage, so it doesn't matter much.
My question is, You are a DT-1 or a DT-2 Member, How can you include someone on your trust list while that user never left feedback to anyone? How do you Trust that user's Judgment if he never left feedbacks to anyone?
Everyone has their own interpretation of the Trust system. And if everyone follows their own interpretation, it works out to a nice "average" of opinions on DT.
Nikisa
~
Nikita's judgment is Trusted by: Nikita isn't the same as Nikisa. Mistakes like this are what get users like
DarkStar included
all the time this account is DT-2 just because there is a bunch of people Including DT-1 And DT-2 who added this account as a DefaultTrust.
Technically, only the DT1-inclusion matters for Nikisa's DT2-status.
Another Possibility can be Judging from Flag Support/opposition. Is it enough to add someone one your DefaultTrust List? If so, This thread is waste of time.
It's really up to you, but for Flags, even the opposite might work:
exclude users who use Flags incorrectly instead of including users who do it right. Flag rules are quite strict.
Could you please tell me how/or based on what you will judge my judgment to others?
I can answer this: You have left
negative feedback to 10 users, 4 of them for ban evasion. I don't think that's a valid reason: if you can prove it, report them to get banned. Then there are a few bounty cheating Newbies, I don't really care about those. If the forum allows them to spam the forum, Twitter allows them to spam Twitter and Facebook allows them to spam Facebook, I think it's a waste of time to tag them. They'll just create a new account, tagging them doesn't make the forum a better place. Even worse: there are so many of those, that it makes negative feedback a "standard" thing to see, which means it loses it's meaning, which benefits the real scammers.
The other 2 negatives and 1 positive seem okay at first glance.
Buysolar is on my trust list.
He lives about 1 - 2 miles from me.
I know his family he knows my family.
We are partners in mining ⛏.
He almost has zero to do with this website but he will stay on my trust list due to the reasons above.
This is an interesting example. If you know and trust someone, I'd say that deserves positive feedback (
which you left already).
But the feedback he left isn't so great: there are no reference links, and he left positive feedback for amazon4u after using escrow. Come to think of it: you also left positive feedback to the same user for using you as an escrow, and I don't think that's right. Update: I didn't realize this feedback is 6.5 years old, so my comment based on the current Trust system doesn't really apply.
This is how the forum describes positive feedback:
Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
By using an escrow, he had no chance to scam you (or buysolar), so that trade doesn't deserve positive feedback. After all, if he's "unlikely to scam anyone", escrow wasn't needed.
Positive feedback might make someone else think he's "unlikely to scam anyone", while it hasn't been tested yet in a transaction. I'd say neutral feedback would have been more accurate in this case.
Well I trust buysolar for $$$ and whether it is off the forum or on the forum he is a guy that doe the right thing.
~
I know six or seven people on bitcointalk personally. If I think I can trust them I list them in my trust list.
This sums up my take on this:
- Did you do a trade in which you risked funds? Leave feedback!
- Did you see users who left accurate Trust feedback on many accounts? Add them to your Trust list!