Only for the BOLD and Braves. Let's have a discussion.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority

How it worked: Theymos adds some selected members as DT1 and the DT1 members add users in their network who they trust, they become DT2.

For the record DT level can be extended up to DT4 (please correct me if I am wrong) but anything over DT2 is always ignored because it includes almost everyone which does not create any value for the network.

The current DT network: In January 2019 Theymos decided to change the old algorithm. Without giving all responsibility to one member (theymos) he decided to have a voting system for DT1 members and the voting system allow to select 100 members in the DT1 network to make the entire network decentralized.

So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.

TL;DR;

The current system created an open area for anyone to be in the DT network. We add, remove a user in our trust setting depending on their judgement of feedback leaving to others based on how less is their retaliatory mindset. Obviously none of us are perfect, none of us are above our personal likes and dislikes. But when a user's feedback leaving is (1) clearly out of retaliatory, (2) clearly to hostage others to silent against him, (3) clearly based on inappropriate arguments, (4) clearly using it to scam others would you still add him in your trust network or you will tilde (~) him?

Warning: Be BOLD and brave, who do not care for a negative feedback and a tilde (~) before leaving an opinion. Here are your examples:

100% retaliatory negative feedback:


In response to:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408864.msg60704946#msg60704946

100% retaliatory tilde (~)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60709658#msg60709658

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Warning: Be BOLD and brave, who do not care for a negative feedback and a tilde (~) before leaving an opinion.

We all like to be told positive things about ourselves and we don't like to be told negative things.

Even if you think you are ugly, you don't like it when someone comes and says you are ugly to your face. And in fact, you are likely to react quite badly if someone does.

In that sense, the trust system of the forum is no different from what happens to us in everyday life.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

In that sense, the trust system of the forum is no different from what happens to us in everyday life.

There are certain instructions and guidelines to follow for trust settings. If you do not follow the basic then it will become a worthless system and is not gonna serve the purpose. The trust system is not your personal asset, you are liable to act accordingly that was given to you by others. Or others are free to withdraw their support from you.

[ABCbits]

If you do not follow the basic then it will become a worthless system and is not gonna serve the purpose.

I already find DT system partially worthless. Nowadays i check feedback manually (if needed) rather than blindly trust quantity of trust feedback (+A/=B/-C).

[Gianluca95]

Well sir, I guess that being in DT1 is a responsibility for everyone that is into it. It means that you're reputed influential from the other members, and in my opinion this one should be used (in negative) only if there are

some serious risk of scam (or confirmed) from the users that is tagged, or if the user has an improper conduct. In case of positive one, you can leave a positive feedback to a user that does something of cool for the forum,

or if he has always respected his business (this is the case of a user that is owner of a casino, or an activity here), or if he has a long story of scam fighting ecc.

Any other type of use, like tagging someone just because is unpleasant, isn't a professional use, and in this case, you wouldn't be able to be in DT list.

Keep in mind that here there are users that has additional earnings from signature campaign, bounty ecc, and tagging them means that you're going to damage his/her financial situation. So, in my opinion, you should be

really sure of what you're doing before leavin a neg trust.

[examplens]

Obviously none of us are perfect, none of us are above our personal likes and dislikes. But when a user's feedback leaving is (1) clearly out of retaliatory, (2) clearly to hostage others to silent against him, (3) clearly based on inappropriate arguments, (4) clearly using it to scam others would you still add him in your trust network or you will tilde (~) him?

I didn't really follow what kind of conflict happened between you and Jollygood, it seems that something is important because this is your second topic where the discussion will be based on Jolly's giving feedback.

Also, I see that you and Jollygood exchanged negative feedback with each other. Everything confuses me a little now if you complain about something that you yourself do.
For both tags, your and his (Jollygood), I would say that they are inappropriate and revenge-minded.

[Poker Player]

I didn't really follow what kind of conflict happened between you and Jollygood, it seems that something is important because this is your second topic where the discussion will be based on Jolly's giving feedback.

Also, I see that you and Jollygood exchanged negative feedback with each other. Everything confuses me a little now if you complain about something that you yourself do.
For both tags, your and his (Jollygood), I would say that they are inappropriate and revenge-minded.

This is not the first time we have had this kind of drama in the section. The previous ones that I remember ended up with the negative feedback changed to neutral.

I think the best thing to do if you are bothered by someone is to ignore them.

If someone is misusing the trust system, they will end up out of DT.

[yahoo62278]

Being on DT is no longer a prestigious thing. It's like waking up, everyone can do it. I and others have already said there needs to be a change. We can keep what we have for reputation based feedback( which is what should matter as far as the forum goes), and we need a different system for trades as they are 2 totally different things.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Everything confuses me a little now if you complain about something that you yourself do.

Sorry if you are confused and thinking I did the same as he did. It must be my failure. But any way let me try again.

His feedback has no reference (he does not have one in fact) to response my negative feedback to him.
He says I was posting lie
He says my accusations are baseless
He thinks its a revenge
The repeating part is not clear to me.

More reasons,
I did not leave red or neutral to bitlucy scam.

From above which one warns a red tag or even a negative inspired neutral feedback?


My feedback has a clear reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408864.msg60704946#msg60704946
First of all he did not pay user starmyc but silent him with his negative feedback. He did not reply to my PM and even still have not replied to me for a clear explanation which leads me to believe that he does not have one but scammed.

More supporting cause

I have my reasons explained in the reference. In short
[....]
2. His arguments are inappropriate and his use of red tags based on the inappropriate arguments. He did it twice (from the limited investigation I conducted myself) once for nemgun and recently for Royse777

More and more

[......]
It was on telegram where CEO used the user @BitlucyCEO

Has notting to do with Royse777[......]

Well it does not matter which employee or part owner of Bitlucy contacted you to work for them. Based on the facts as they are known thus far, Bitlucy was owned by two people: Royse777 and the Bitlucy CEO - therefore some would say it does have something to do with Royse777.

[......] Are you saying for example, in a group of company if the chairman runaway with the fund resulting the entire company including their shareholders in loss, you are going to tag the chairman and all the shareholders? This is pathetic. You were the same pathetic against the user nemgun too.[......]

Let's be on topic.
I have pointed out 4 inspirations for leaving a negative feedback in the starting topic.

(1) clearly out of retaliatory, (2) clearly to hostage others to silent against him, (3) clearly based on inappropriate arguments, (4) clearly using it to scam others

(1). Which ones apply to his feedback left for me, starmyc, nemgun and Royse777?
(2). Which ones apply to my feedback?

Update:

because this is your second topic where the discussion will be based on Jolly's giving feedback.

Please read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714131#msg60714131
You will understand why the first topic was created, when the PM was sent and why this topic was created.

[FatFork]

Obviously none of us are perfect, none of us are above our personal likes and dislikes. But when a user's feedback leaving is (1) clearly out of retaliatory, (2) clearly to hostage others to silent against him, (3) clearly based on inappropriate arguments, (4) clearly using it to scam others would you still add him in your trust network or you will tilde (~) him?

I didn't really follow what kind of conflict happened between you and Jollygood, it seems that something is important because this is your second topic where the discussion will be based on Jolly's giving feedback.

Also, I see that you and Jollygood exchanged negative feedback with each other. Everything confuses me a little now if you complain about something that you yourself do.
For both tags, your and his (Jollygood), I would say that they are inappropriate and revenge-minded.

I agree. Nothing really important to see here. This is just a continuation of the drama that started with Royse777 and BitLucy casino.

@BitcoinGirl.Club, I really don't see the point of creating another topic and creating more drama between individual members. Both of your tags are equally ridiculous and absurd, and you started it.

EDIT:
I just noticed that JollyGood changed his tag to neutral, so I'm changing my stance. In my opinion, your neg. tag is an inappropriate use of the trust system.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I agree. Nothing really important to see here. This is just a continuation of the drama that started with Royse777 and BitLucy casino.

@BitcoinGirl.Club, I really don't see the point of creating another topic and creating more drama between individual members. Both of your tags are equally ridiculous and absurd, and you started it.

EDIT:
I just noticed that JollyGood changed his tag to neutral, so I'm changing my stance. In my opinion, your neg. tag is an inappropriate use of the trust system.

I am confused the topic is losing it's merit because you are thinking it's between me and JollyGood.
It does not matter if JollyGood change the feedback to neutral or remove everything. It's a matter of who we should keep or tilde in our trust setting. To help I even pointed out 4 inspirations that obviously goes well with the examples. In my OP do you see I talked about JollyGood?

If you want to discuss about JollyGood then this is the post : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714605#msg60714605

[LoyceV]

For the record DT level can be extended up to DT4 (please correct me if I am wrong)

Correct, but your Trust settings will likely timeout. Take a look at the large recursive implications of Trusting users before increating your Trust depth. Chances are you're already trusting more people than you even know about.

For both tags, your and his (Jollygood), I would say that they are inappropriate and revenge-minded.

Agreed. Since it looks like that's what this topic is really about, I wrote my view here.

[lovesmayfamilis]

@BitcoinGirl.Club, I really don't see the point of creating another topic and creating more drama between individual members. Both of your tags are equally ridiculous and absurd, and you started it.

This is all reminiscent of the story of the boy who walks and shows everyone a finger with a splinter. He does not want to pull out a splinter because people feel sorry for him and the kid gets more attention.

What is remarkable is that Royse777 limited himself to a neutral tag. I don't know if he called for the help of lawyers.

I have Royse777 and JollyGood on my trust list, and I know they are both normal people. There have been several cases where JollyGood has changed or removed its reviews altogether. It's time to get used to his behavior. Furthermore, two reviews from one are equivalent to one.Royse777 got into history, and I think he will also successfully get out of it over time.

But your presence here seems completely superfluous to me. I haven't followed deeply, but I still believe in both of them.

Did something happen to the ignore button?

[tranthidung]

For both tags, your and his (Jollygood), I would say that they are inappropriate and revenge-minded.

Let me quote the post I merited because I have same approach. I change it a little bit to generalize the idea that is applied for every user.

If any user has nothing better to do in his life than to write multiple feedback on your profile, that tells more about him than about you.

Exchange negative trust feedback is unnecessary in most cases. I rarely put anyone into my distrust list but if I do, I will not likely to remove it. It stay forever but I don't see reasons why I have to leave any negative trust feedback on the user I distrust. Take it simple and reduce non sense drama.

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

But your presence here seems completely superfluous to me. I haven't followed deeply, but I still believe in both of them.

You can start here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407834.msg60714131#msg60714131
Then continue from the first post
I hope it helps 😉

Did something happen to the ignore button?

It does not help always.

[Solosanz]

Exchange negative trust feedback is unnecessary in most cases. I rarely put anyone into my distrust list but if I do, I will not likely to remove it. It stay forever but I don't see reasons why I have to leave any negative trust feedback on the user I distrust. Take it simple and reduce non sense drama.

It's still not reduce the drama

AFAICS JollyGood will distrust an user when that's user distrust him, same like this one where an user gave him a negative tag, then he will gave negative tag too or it can be said as revenge minded. The same happen when someone merited your post, you will merited his post too since you think he's a good and kind person. It's a human psychology, but in this forum such behavior isn't appropriate and it would make an abuse.

What I'm thinking is how possible if theymos implemented a new system where we can't see the user who trust, distrust, give positive/neutral/negative feedback and merited us except both administrator and moderators.

[eddie13]

My opinion is that this thread should not have been made and is just complicating the path to the facts of the situation you have made the OP about..

You OP are accusing JG of scamming a coder for dust..
If you are wrong then his feedback on you is correct..

Do we think JG scammed a coder for dust?
That is the question..

[dragonvslinux]

My opinion is that this thread should not have been made and is just complicating the path to the facts of the situation you have made the OP about..

You OP are accusing JG of scamming a coder for dust..
If you are wrong then his feedback on you is correct..

Do we think JG scammed a coder for dust?
That is the question..

This topic is a very strange way to present the situation that's for sure and doesn't really make much sense (especially now the feedback has been updated).

The coder also claims he gave over the source code, JG claims he didn't get it. Someone's not telling the truth. If the coder could prove the source code was sent it could help answer that question I think.

As for the "retaliatory tidle" of distrusting of dkbit98, it's because JG understandably doesn't trust the neutral feedback that was left for him. It's not really retaliatory, just reactionary.

[examplens]

although you both changed your feedback, I'm still convinced that both of you were forced and that this is some kind of discussion between you. which again, is not the correct use of the trust rating system here.

My feedback has a clear reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408864.msg60704946#msg60704946
First of all he did not pay user starmyc but silent him with his negative feedback. He did not reply to my PM and even still have not replied to me for a clear explanation which leads me to believe that he does not have one but scammed.

the only thing that is clear here is your attitude towards Jollygood. The way you see him and his journey through the forum. I still don't see any evidence enough for the red tag.
After the last update, you added a new reference link to your feedback, I read that topic several times and have not seen any misunderstanding, nor any complaint that someone was cheated or not paid. Just usually discussion, certainly not enough for any trust tag even positive. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160752)

everything we have in the case starmyc vs Jollygood is an exchange of feedback between the two of them and a message to you via PM. unfortunately, this is not enough for anything, and without presenting clear evidence by any of them.

therefore, you gave a negative rating based on possible unfair behavior in some deals. You have no clear evidence, even if you don't know what was the subject of the agreement, did they agree that the code itself would be part of the delivered work?

it is evident that your negative feedback was given to him (Jollygood), provoked by your attitude and feelings toward him. I believe you know, such cases are more like a neutral tag, not negative or even positive.

His feedback has no reference (he does not have one in fact) to response my negative feedback to him.

it is interesting that he changed the tag to neutral, no matter how harsh and merciless he seemed when giving negative tags, however, he is ready to admit his mistake.

More reasons,
I did not leave red or neutral to bitlucy scam.

Only 8 users (including me) leave the neutral or red tag on Royse's account. Here are 100 DT1 members, I didn't follow if he tagged the other 90+. isn't this too much drama?

..

I am confused the topic is losing it's merit because you are thinking it's between me and JollyGood.
It does not matter if JollyGood change the feedback to neutral or remove everything. It's a matter of who we should keep or tilde in our trust setting. To help I even pointed out 4 inspirations that obviously goes well with the examples. In my OP do you see I talked about JollyGood?

you didn't mention him, but all your screenshots were taken via his profile. from the discussion on this topic, I would say that everyone saw it that way.

The coder also claims he gave over the source code, JG claims he didn't get it. Someone's not telling the truth. If the coder could prove the source code was sent it could help answer that question I think.

I understood differently, that the coder did not want to send the code but was asking for more money.
however, we do not know what the initial agreement looked like, so we cannot know which side did not comply with the agreement.

[dkbit98]

...

Are you JollyBad lawyer or you consider him a saint maybe?
I see you gave him positive feedback back in 2019 and that is fine, but you never said anything to criticize his questionable behavior?
I don't support any side in this case but his recent jumping on people heads reminds me on middle ages burning and torture of witches, that is best way to describe his recent behavior.
There are not so many scams to report and talk in forum now, so he switched to gambling and turning regular members into terrorists and scammers... doesn't look normal to me.

@BitcoinGirl.Club you should really stop creating more topics about him.
If someone was damaged in any way dealing with JollyBad, than this member should come out in public and explain more about that case, we don't need more lawyers in forum.

Being on DT is no longer a prestigious thing. It's like waking up, everyone can do it. I and others have already said there needs to be a change. We can keep what we have for reputation based feedback( which is what should matter as far as the forum goes), and we need a different system for trades as they are 2 totally different things.

I think we should all mass drop out from DT membership, that would force theymos to make some needed changes and reduction of DT1 members.