Should we hand out neutral/neg tags like candy?(open but might be future edits)

[yahoo62278]

The title is a bit misleading but i'm curious as to everyone's feelings on the issue of accusing people before having proof and handing out a neutral tag while looking for or asking for evidence?

We see topics all the time where users complain about a tag they have received. Sometimes it's a negative and most times it's a neutral, but at what point should we tag a user? Obviously, if they scammed it's a no brainer tag em and bag em. What if it's a circumstantial case? What if I think theymos is satoshi and has been lying to us all along(not the case just not calling out any members)?

In the recent month or so, Jollygood has been called out, Timelord has been called out, hugeblack, and many others. You can just look on the 1st 1-2 pages of this board and see multiple threads of complaints against certain users. Some are complaints about tags, some are complaints about trolls, alt accounts, etc.

Not all of these have started with a user being tagged or asking users to ~ a user, but most IMO could be considered defamation and libelous. I know most are looking out for the community, but should we keep this shoot 1st ask questions later attitude or she we require users to have more proof before tagging anyone? Where is the line? Sad thing is most times the community is correct and some of these people deserve what they end up with, but just because we think something is it really ok to go after someone before we have the proper proof? Should we tag before a discussion? Case by case?

Everyone is obviously in control of their own trust list and are able to tag at will, but if you do not have enough proof and are looking for opinions IMO best tohave a discussion in a thread and see what the community digs up before tagging.

Just curious what some of you have to say. Examples below

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5459078.0 Deadsea tagged with neutral before there is proof

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5458318.0 rby accused although wasn't tagged for a decent amount of time

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5459010.0 timelord a troll

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456889.0 good thread from Cyber Cowboy touching on this subject a little

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5458785.0 neutral from jolly

Most of the time, there ends up being proof that someone did something and deserves what comes to them. Not disputing that at all. What about those who end up with a tag from a stubborn member who refuses to remove the tag? What if that person was innocent but someone stubborn disagrees? It's such a process to get someone removed from DT and help right away doesn't really feel like an option for someone who was wrongfully accused or tagged.

My own statement and i'm not sure if that's really how we should go about it.

Giving someone a neutral tag is not necessarily abusing DT power. He has not harmed your profile and has likely not hindered you from making money if you did apply to a sig campaign and got accepted. Do I agree with his tag? No, I wouldn't leave 1 like it even if I had the same thoughts about you, but he is him and I am me.

[1714624644]

1714624644

[1714624644]

1714624644

[1714624644]

1714624644

[Learn Bitcoin]

Yahoo!
You cannot expect opinions from everyone on your topic except for DT members. I saw there is a new guy (I doubt he is a new guy) was engaging with the reputation threads, and this is how their trust list after the week. I don't know what the exact reason was. Last week I added some DT members to my trust list. The interesting thing is, for some reason, I wanted to check my trust list today and realized some DT members also ~ me for some unknown reasons and they are whom I added to my trust list last week. I believe that non-DT members cannot share their opinions in any reputation-related threads. If they do, they will be ~ by some DT members.

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them. So, there is no point in sharing an unbiased opinion. The only good thing is, If a DT member says, "This is correct, and that is not, " I have to agree with him as an average Joe. The better decision for an average Joe is to ignore the reputation board and start shitposting to make money from the signature campaign (Which I have been doing for the last couple of days).

[yahoo62278]

Yahoo!
You cannot expect opinions from everyone on your topic except for DT members. I saw there is a new guy (I doubt he is a new guy) was engaging with the reputation threads, and this is how their trust list after the week. I don't know what the exact reason was. Last week I added some DT members to my Trust list. The interesting thing is, for some reason, I wanted to check my Trust list today and realized some DT members also ~ me for some unknown reasons and they are whom I added to my trust list last week. I believe that non-DT members cannot share their opinions in any reputation-related threads. If they do, they will be ~ by some DT members.

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them. So, there is no point in sharing an unbiased opinion. The only good thing is, If a DT member says, "This is correct, and that is not, " I have to agree with him as an average Joe. The better decision for an average Joe is to ignore the reputation board and start shitposting to make money from the signature campaign (Which I have been doing for the last couple of days).

You are so incorrect. People likely ~ because of statements or views like the ones you are making/having now. Many people have argued with a DT member and not been added to distrust lists.

DT will let people have an opinion, at least most will. Members add others to distrust lists when they scam others, when they tag people unfairly multiple times and do not listen to reason, when they bully others, or other reasons but certainly not for having an opinion.

Anyone is free to post in this topic and share their thoughts. Multiple opinions might give the community more to consider.

@Learn Bitcoin you should really relax a little and try to enjoy yourself on the forum vs trying to be so negative. Not all DT are as bad as you want to believe.

[1miau]

I'm a bit surprised about the headline because unjustified positive trust seems to be the bigger issue these days (nice guy feedbacks should be neutral, not positive trust), so "Should we hand out positive trusts like candy?" is a nice additional question.  


Regarding the initial question (and as I'm listed as well in your list):

While there might be some controversial cases, I'm not in favor of DT being more lenient. Most of the cases presented in the OP are justified trusts.
I just want to outline 2 of it:

My topic about Timelord2067's lies against me: I've created the topic because my topic in Meta is not intended for off-topic reputation discussions. Timelord2067 has littered my topic in Meta and that's just not necessary.
I've addressed Timelord2067's lies in my topic. I don't know where I should be at fault for addressing these claims.
Everything is explained in my topic in Reputation.

The topic about deadsea33 and the allegedly inappropriate feedback from hugeblack: after reviewing the topic, hugeblack's neutral trust served as a warning and from what hugeblack stated in the neutral trust, it's pretty valid.
The feedback from hugeblack is a good use of neutral trust in my opinion. DT did the rest and is in the process of exposing the bought account.
It's also nice to see that many members of this forum are doing a good research and dedicating time for that.  
That's very important for DT to be vital.


There have been many cases where DT did a good job and acting too lenient is never a good idea because it's emboldening abusers. Here's a similar case, where I've presented evidence and together with DT, we exposed an account buyer in 2019. (bought account in question was St4yInTh3D4rk)
After being called out, the account buyer still tried to get away with it, although in one of his earlier (shit)posts, he was well aware that buying accounts will lead to negative trust:

I believe you that you might not have the intention to scam anyone here and you look more trustworthy than the original owner (more due to the fact that the original owner pulled an exit-scam). But honestly I can't do much here. You know well that involvements in account sales are discouraged and accounts involved in it risk to get a red tag:

Actually selling the bitcointalk account are allowed but not encouraged so the sold account and the buyer and seller will get red tag if they get caught,so the moderators have nothing to do with that,if you want to stay away from scam then you need to stay away from account selling.

http://archive.is/OEDOK#selection-925.0-925.13

LOL, he wrote it earlier himself...  

Still he tried to get away with it.  

And there are far more accounts, where I didn't had enough time to compile the evidence and therefore did not tag yet. Most likely, jrrsparkles is a bought account as well, likely owned by the same person, St4yInTh3D4rk account was owned.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124012.msg50353545#msg50353545
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124012.msg50399294#msg50399294
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124012.msg50390330#msg50390330
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124012.msg50388489#msg50388489


jrrsparkles is still active today. Maybe it's time to finish off these accounts. They have been making a shit ton of money by spamming the forum from stolen accounts for far too long. While new members need to earn Merit, these abusers are just lazy to buy an existing account with 500+ Merit. That's extremely unfair for new members who are required to make good posts to rank up.


Therefore I'm a bit confused, that while reading OP I'm more getting the impression that abusers are getting defended and abuser hunters are getting criticized, while there's not really anything to criticize in how DT is exposing abusers. Quite the opposite: I'm very grateful for acive members exposing shady activities. It's always very time consuming to research and compile the evidence. We also need to spend more Merit on these researches.
DT is giving out trusts only if there's really a reason to leave it. And shitposters complaining about neutral trust are just ridiculous. Most times, complaining will even earn them more accusations, when DT starts digging. Why are these shitposter accounts always involved in so much shady stuff?
You can almost bet on it that when a shitposter complains about a neutral trust, he will end up getting even more neutral trusts or even a negative trust.  


Finally, DT is a decentralized network where different views are welcome but in my opinion, DT has worked very well so far to keep scammers, account sellers and other abusers at bay. DT getting more lenient these days is somehow concerning and not a good idea in my opinion. Tagging scammers, acting against abuses and bought accounts has worked very well over the past 10+ years.  

[JollyGood]

Yahoo!
You cannot expect opinions from everyone on your topic except for DT members. I saw there is a new guy (I doubt he is a new guy) was engaging with the reputation threads, and this is how their trust list after the week. I don't know what the exact reason was.

You obviously have issues with DT members which go beyond the story you have presented here. I had your name added to a list of users that were going to have their post history looked at sometime this week and an appropriate tag would be have been left if it was warranted. Having said that, the post from you today (and my reply to it) will not prejudice the outcome.

If you do not know what the exact reason was should you really be singling it out for scrutiny? It will not take you long to read through his post history or the threads that member has been making a nuisance of himself in, maybe then you will be in a better position to know what the exact reason was and then cite it. No, I put it to you that you know exactly what happened.

Last week I added some DT members to my Trust list. The interesting thing is, for some reason, I wanted to check my Trust list today and realized some DT members also ~ me for some unknown reasons and they are whom I added to my trust list last week. I believe that non-DT members cannot share their opinions in any reputation-related threads. If they do, they will be ~ by some DT members.

If you are that inclined to write about it here as a comment, why did you not write to the members that distrusted you to ask why they did it? I think you are trying portray yourself as someone who does not know what is going on and that portrayal really defeats the object because you are clearly the opposite.

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them. So, there is no point in sharing an unbiased opinion. The only good thing is, If a DT member says, "This is correct, and that is not, " I have to agree with him as an average Joe. The better decision for an average Joe is to ignore the reputation board and start shitposting to make money from the signature campaign (Which I have been doing for the last couple of days).

That is usually an argument deliberately put forward by members as a smokescreen for their own failures. You (and every other member) can claim to have been making quality posts and that is simply subjective therefore that debate is not worth having. If you say one thing another does not have to agree.

Stand by your conviction or withdraw the allegation. Make a list of the threads where any arguments took place and mention the names of any members that received neutral and/or negative tags from any DT directly as a result of arguing with a DT members. Let us see which tags are unjustified.

I don't want to say anything about any particular case or this thread. I don't want to mention any name too. But, one of these forum police blindly said I participated in a Pizza baking contest and other contests to farm merits. While I did not participate in any contest organized in this forum so far. Now I am afraid if I participate in any contest, they will say I am a shit poster and trying to farm merits from the contest. They also said I post shit in the WO thread to farm merits while I got around 7-9 Merits from the WO thread from the general discussion in my forum lifetime.

Post a link, where did they write it?

It's too easy to accuse someone in this forum. While accused members get tagged if the accuser is right, why they don't even apologize if it's proved that they were wrongly accusing someone?
I mean I am saying you are a scammer without any proof and I failed to prove it, shouldn't I apologize for accusing you?

Again, stand by your conviction or withdraw the comment. Make a list of when these alleged incidents happened and include names so we can go through them one at a time.

[Learn Bitcoin]

You are so incorrect. People likely ~ because of statements or views like the ones you are making/having now. Many people have argued with a DT member and not been added to distrust lists.

I don't remember writing such a statement that could give a place for someone's distrusted users list except two (1, 2).

DT will let people have an opinion, at least most will. Members add others to distrust lists when they scam others, when they tag people unfairly multiple times and do not listen to reason, when they bully others, or other reasons but certainly not for having an opinion.

I did not scam anyone. I don't think I left any incorrect feedback (You are invited to check); I am unsure if I bullied anyone. Do you believe these (1, 2) two posts could be a reason to have a place in someone's distrust list? The reason is unknown.

Anyone is free to post in this topic and share their thoughts. Multiple opinions might give the community more to consider.

@Learn Bitcoin you should really relax a little and try to enjoy yourself on the forum vs trying to be so negative. Not all DT are as bad as you want to believe.

Whatever you say, you won't understand the situation because you are not an average Joe. However, it is worth mentioning that NOT all DT members are the same. Most of the DT members have good judgment skills and don't use their power against the weak.

[1miau]

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them. So, there is no point in sharing an unbiased opinion. The only good thing is, If a DT member says, "This is correct, and that is not, " I have to agree with him as an average Joe. The better decision for an average Joe is to ignore the reputation board and start shitposting to make money from the signature campaign (Which I have been doing for the last couple of days).

DT will let people have an opinion, at least most will.

+1
That's a very valid point in my opinion.
As we all know DT is a decentralized network and everyone can participate.
If someone likes / doesn't like someone's judgement / feedbacks, just customize your trust list and vote members in / out.

Everyone can create topics in Reputation as well, where he's describing his opinion and tries to get support for a certain issue. But don't expect, that everyone will agree to you. DT is decentralized and some people might oppose your viewpoint on DT issues.
It's normal, so @Learn Bitcoin, don't worry. I don't know about your issue but blaming DT like how you did it, is not really accurate.

[Learn Bitcoin]

You obviously have issues with DT members which go beyond the story you have presented here.

No, I don't.

Again, stand by your conviction or withdraw the comment. Make a list of when these alleged incidents happened and include names so we can go through them one at a time.

I mentioned above. This one

Everyone can create topics in Reputation as well, where he's describing his opinion and tries to get support for a certain issue. But don't expect, that everyone will agree to you. DT is decentralized and some people might oppose your viewpoint on DT issues.
It's normal, so @Learn Bitcoin, don't worry. I don't know about your issue but blaming DT like how you did it, is not really accurate.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I don't mind if anyone can beat me with a good argument. I don't mind if anyone criticizes me for a valid reason. But, I rarely engaged in any threads where I argued with anyone. So, what could be the point of distrusting me when I did not engage in any threads? If it's reasonable to distrust someone because of their post habit, their nationality, or just because they shared their two cents, I don't know how decentralized DT-Network could be.

I saw a DT member suggesting to another newbie or a Non-DT (I don't remember) member not to share his unsolicited two cents.

[PytagoraZ]

The title is a bit misleading but i'm curious as to everyone's feelings on the issue of accusing people before having proof and handing out a neutral tag while looking for or asking for evidence?

I really appreciate your sensitivity to the reputation board. I see you are one of the DTs who have broad views and wisdom

I think, For a DT must have proof when giving the tag, because the tag of the DT has a big impact.

I've thought of a few things you might need on a reputation board:

1. Thread rules
2. The judgment thread can only be opened if the OP has preliminary evidence and preliminary analysis
3. Tread appeals must also bring evidence of the defense
4. Tags are given when the results have been decided (especially red tags)
5. Tags can be temporary (Have a certain period of time / permanent)
6. Neutral tags that don't have proof can be with better language (without judging) like = This account is under surveillance in 30 days

Then, if there is a tagging mistake, DT also at least apologizes

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them. So, there is no point in sharing an unbiased opinion. The only good thing is, If a DT member says, "This is correct, and that is not, " I have to agree with him as an average Joe. The better decision for an average Joe is to ignore the reputation board and start shitposting to make money from the signature campaign (Which I have been doing for the last couple of days).

I think it's useful, though the risk of arguing here has enormous ramifications. DT managed to make this thread so scary. DT also seems unwilling to be criticized, as if they are gods here, and they know everything

Therefore I'm a bit confused, that while reading OP I'm more getting the impression that abusers are getting defended and abuser hunters are getting criticized, while there's not really anything to criticize in how DT is exposing abusers. Quite the opposite: I'm very grateful for acive members exposing shady activities. It's always very time consuming to research and compile the evidence. We also need to spend more Merit on these researches.
DT is giving out trusts only if there's really a reason to leave it. And shitposters complaining about neutral trust are just ridiculous. Most times, complaining will even earn them more accusations, when DT starts digging. Why are these shitposter accounts always involved in so much shady stuff?
You can almost bet on it that when a shitposter complains about a neutral trust, he will end up getting even more neutral trusts or even a negative trust.  

I think there is no problem if you have proof. Wherever judgments should be based on evidence not assumptions. If you want to prevent buying and selling accounts, then the admin recommends prohibiting this action. Or require using escrow to avoid fraud.

The problem here is, if the accusation have no evidence, as you do, you have a problem with timelord and you sue him in this thread. Do you think only DT should create a complaint thread if it receives a neutral or negative tag without any clear evidence?

[1miau]

The problem here is, if the accusation have no evidence, as you do, you have a problem with timelord and you sue him in this thread.

I didn't "sue him" in this thread. Timelord2067 spammed my thread in Meta with off-topic nonsense.  
And even added lies later...
(edit: sorry, misread his and this)

Do you think only DT should create a complaint thread if it receives a neutral or negative tag without any clear evidence?

Everyone can create a thread to support / oppose / suggest to research any sort of potential abuse about any member. But people need to back their claims. And when shitposters are complaining about a generic neutral trust, it's happening quite often, that these shitposters are involved in more abuses because DT will do more research. Their attempt to get rid of a justified neutral trust is backfiring frequently, no surprise at all.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I can not pronounce myself about all cases mentioned in OP, as I have to admit I did not study them all. However, unfortunately, I was forced somehow to study very well one of them. It happened against my will, as I never wanted that, yet things in life don't always happen as we want, so I was actually dragged in studying TimeLord's case -- I was dragged by his actions against me (his most recent one being the fact that he gave me a feedback calling me racist Oo -- obviously, with no relevant reference link).

I understand that yahoo questions the feedbacks in the cases he mentioned in OP (and, perhaps, some other ones as well). However, by taking a good look at TimeLord's received feedbacks, we can see that those calling him a liar / troll are users with very good reputation on the forum. Among others, we can see the names of LoyceV, 1miau, icopress, marlboroza or nutildah. Furthermore, these feedbacks are neutral ones, so they fully respect the rules of Marketplace Trust system.

Should we hand out neutral/neg tags like candy?(open but might be future edits)

As long as there are no financial deals involved, neutral feedbacks should be used. Sadly, not all users know that and many misuse the Marketplace Trust system, and I am emphasizing the official name of this system, as many consider it simply Trust system. It's not a Trust system, but a Trust system for Marketplace. Meaning it should be used for financial deals when giving positive or negative feedbacks. However, for all other kind of feedbacks users may leave neutral feedbacks.

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them. So, there is no point in sharing an unbiased opinion. The only good thing is, If a DT member says, "This is correct, and that is not, " I have to agree with him as an average Joe. The better decision for an average Joe is to ignore the reputation board and start shitposting to make money from the signature campaign (Which I have been doing for the last couple of days).

It's normal, so @Learn Bitcoin, don't worry. I don't know about your issue but blaming DT like how you did it, is not really accurate.

I believe that Learn Bitcoin had a bad experience with a DT user (or some DT users) and he tends to extend this view over all DT users. Or, perhaps, he is too polite and, instead of pointing the finger toward someone he talks using a general approach. I can not say anything about Learn Bitcoin's (bad) experience with DT, as I don't know it, but what I can say about him is that he translated some topics of mine and he did it in a very professional manner. He was serious, he finished the work in time and he did it well. I am thankful to him for his (free) efforts in translating my topics and I think he is a serious user.

[nutildah]

I'm against using neutral tags as some sort of personal notation system or diary. They should contain information that is helpful to the other forum members reading them, in some way or another. Most of the time they do not matter in the sense that they don't affect someone's ability to enroll in a campaign or conduct business on the forum (the obvious exception being actmyname's spammer blacklist), however I know I would prefer not to see any DT neutrals next to my name as they more often carry a negative connotation than a neutral or positive one.

Somehow this thread also became about trust list inclusions and exclusions. For anyone who cares, my personal take on why members should exclude others is:

1. they don't agree with their trust ratings,
2. they don't agree with their trust list, and/or
3. they don't think that member has any business being part of DT.

It's as simple as that, really.

Being excluded by a DT member does not interfere with anyone's ability to conduct any sort of honest business on the forum. There are several highly-trustworthy forum members in the collectibles and lending section who are awful at using the trust system, yet this in no way diminishes their trustworthiness. One's proclivity to honor agreements vs. ability to use the trust system correctly are two entirely separate things.

[Plaguedeath]

I think the reason of why people are giving such neutral or negative tags like that because they just want to leave a sign or warn to other users. If they didn't leave the tags on the accounts, where do you think they can leave that? creating a new thread in Reputation thread seems not be the best solution since people will also have something to say e.g. there's no proof, don't suspect every user account.

If you ask everything is need a proof, I can give a counter argument where a ponzi scheme project offer 10% per day.We're just suspect it's scam since they offer unrealistic return, but there's no proof of they have scam anyone.

Everyone is obviously in control of their own trust list and are able to tag at will, but if you do not have enough proof and are looking for opinions IMO best tohave a discussion in a thread and see what the community digs up before tagging.

It's like someone should leave the tags based on other DT members' opinions, not based on his own judgement.

[hugeblack]

As mentioned, neutral trust does not affect the account's ability to create posts or the chances of the account achieving income or joining signatures campaign, but it is useful for the forum as it either prompts the user to rethink about his behaviors or it gives an alert to the rest of the members to search about that account.

Therefore, as long as the neutral trust has some details and not like "I don't like that account," it is useful for the forum. In the end, the main goal of the trust system is to reduce scam and make the forum better.

Personally, before leaving any trust, I ask myself if it is useful to the forum, I will do it, whatever the reaction is, sometimes not to take any action or wait until the collection of evidence takes place = support that action.

Also, some members who protest against members such as JollyGood and see that the solution in ~JollyGood are wrong. JollyGood has taken an action by leaving a trust. The aggrieved party must prove that he is wrong and then leave the matter to the community, but if JollyGood does not take any step, then the trust system is useless. In real life there are over 100 DT's and only less than 10% of them leave trust rates in clear cases.

This matter is not limited to natural trust, but even negative. There is no service that has 5/5 ratings, so even if you are a merchant, some negative ratings will not harm your business. The most prominent evidence of this is Royse777 that has some negative trust, yet it is a reliable campaign manager..


Briefly:

 - It varies from case to case.
 - Sometimes not taking action = supporting that action.
 - Neutral trust does not harm the user's account, but it is useful for the forum.

I mentioned above. This one

There is no smoke without fire, and no one took any action, so perhaps it is an opportunity to review yourself.

[JollyGood]

You obviously have issues with DT members which go beyond the story you have presented here.

No, I don't.

On the contrary it is obvious you do otherwise you would not have been vocal to this extent. 

I don't want to say anything about any particular case or this thread. I don't want to mention any name too. But, one of these forum police blindly said I participated in a Pizza baking contest and other contests to farm merits. While I did not participate in any contest organized in this forum so far. Now I am afraid if I participate in any contest, they will say I am a shit poster and trying to farm merits from the contest. They also said I post shit in the WO thread to farm merits while I got around 7-9 Merits from the WO thread from the general discussion in my forum lifetime.

Again, stand by your conviction or withdraw the comment. Make a list of when these alleged incidents happened and include names so we can go through them one at a time.

I mentioned above. This one

Poker Player has a right to his opinion about you posting in similar fashion to naim027 and to my knowledge he is not DT therefore where is the problem? He could not come to that conclusion blindly, he obviously spotted similarities therefore he gave his opinion and I still have not gone through all your post history but from what I have seen I can understand why Poker Player mentioned similarities your Learn Bitcoin account has with naim027.

Are you now advocating censoring comments?

Everyone can create topics in Reputation as well, where he's describing his opinion and tries to get support for a certain issue. But don't expect, that everyone will agree to you. DT is decentralized and some people might oppose your viewpoint on DT issues.
It's normal, so @Learn Bitcoin, don't worry. I don't know about your issue but blaming DT like how you did it, is not really accurate.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I don't mind if anyone can beat me with a good argument. I don't mind if anyone criticizes me for a valid reason. But, I rarely engaged in any threads where I argued with anyone. So, what could be the point of distrusting me when I did not engage in any threads? If it's reasonable to distrust someone because of their post habit, their nationality, or just because they shared their two cents, I don't know how decentralized DT-Network could be.

I saw a DT member suggesting to another newbie or a Non-DT (I don't remember) member not to share his unsolicited two cents.

If this is true, I would like to know who this DT member is. Post a link.

My own statement and i'm not sure if that's really how we should go about it.

Giving someone a neutral tag is not necessarily abusing DT power. He has not harmed your profile and has likely not hindered you from making money if you did apply to a sig campaign and got accepted. Do I agree with his tag? No, I wouldn't leave 1 like it even if I had the same thoughts about you, but he is him and I am me.

In the end the problem is that people are opinionated and they want to express views. Until or unless there is either a different mechanism added to this forum or an overwhelming majority consensus (or intervention from theymos), this debate will continue.

There is now a trend where members create threads to question neutral tags, it is unnecessary and brings more attention to themselves. Having said that there is a huge distinction between a neutral and negative tag and the one place placing the tag has a right to exercise their opinion based on how they interpret the evidence they have access to.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If someone argues with a DT member, DT members will ~ them.

You are so incorrect. People likely ~ because of statements or views like the ones you are making/having now.

I'm going to verify that I'm human, go through the cloudfare BS and proceed to agree with yahoo62278  on this except that I don't think members (at least not DT members hopefully) exclude people from their trust lists because of simple disagreements.  I've always understood that the ~ was supposed to be used for members whose feedbacks are deemed to be wrongly-given.  Theymos gave some guidance on that a few years back if I'm not mistaken.

In any case, unless you're on DT or are a contender to be I wouldn't worry about exclusions--but that's just me.  The trust system is so complicated and misunderstood and, in my long-held opinion, broken beyond repair.

Yahoo62278, I'm actually kind of surprised you're asking the questions you posed in the OP since you've been a member here long enough to know that people are going to do whatever they want as far as leaving negatives and neutrals regardless of how many threads are devoted to discussing trust system etiquette or even what Theymos suggests.  Trust isn't moderated and you know that.  

If it comes down to a DT issue, then that's a different story.  Other DT members will (hopefully) ~ whatever DT member is making a habit out of leaving inaccurate feedback.  Jesus, I even excluded Vod from my trust list prior to his departure, something I never thought I'd do.  My suggestion is to meditate, take a chill pill, or whatever and just let the system operate as it always has--because I don't think it'll do anything but that and hence it's in the hands of the community as a whole.

Wavy gravy, man.  Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[KingsDen]

Everyone is obviously in control of their own trust list and are able to tag at will, but if you do not have enough proof and are looking for opinions IMO best tohave a discussion in a thread and see what the community digs up before tagging.

What you stated above ought to be the standard but it may never happen. Every system has its weakness, and the few who spots this weakness uses it to guard themselves and as a tool against the vulnerable.
If I tell you that till this point I do not know how the DT voting works, you might be surprised. This is because I do not need the DT strength to fight anyone. All I want is a very sane community and not a community of gangs and lords.

If a DT member tags anyone for wrong reasons and refuses to reverse it, there is no way to remove the person from DT. I haven't seen. The best the victim will do is to ~ or leave a retaliatory tag.
If theymos for instance should create a poll to determine who leaves the DT, you will be shocked by the result of the poll.

If the system is failing, the consequence will be too many tags on people's profile and random ~ of users without reasons.

[DaveF]

"Once you pull out the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend"

I do think we should hand out neutral/neg tags more often then we do now, BUT I can see it causing people to start tagging some more borderline cases and using it to settle grudges with people based on more flimsy reasons. AND, once you go down that road there is no going back. If we start it 4th quarter 2023 as a test and Jan 1st 2024 we as a group decide that it does not work. Do we go back and remove them? How about the people that don't remove them.

Don't get me wrong, I support it and think we should be more aggressive in handing out neg / neutrals just keep in mind there will be consequences.
But, if it gets rid of a bunch of the crap, then the consequences are worth it.

-Dave

[nutildah]

If a DT member tags anyone for wrong reasons and refuses to reverse it, there is no way to remove the person from DT.

Of course there is. Enough DT exclude him to the point where they lose their DT power. That's exactly what happened to Timelord the other week.

If theymos for instance should create a poll to determine who leaves the DT, you will be shocked by the result of the poll.

Would never happen because all the busted alt accounts who wanted to manipulate the poll for their own reasons would fire up their sockpuppets and rig the vote. For example, in 2019 theymos blacklisted 58 accounts from participating in the trust system, all operated by a single person attempting to get their revenge on someone.

If the system is failing, the consequence will be too many tags on people's profile and random ~ of users without reasons.

Not at all. The consequence of a failing system would be more scammers running around undetected.

[jokers10]

If a DT member tags anyone for wrong reasons and refuses to reverse it, there is no way to remove the person from DT. I haven't seen. The best the victim will do is to ~ or leave a retaliatory tag.
If theymos for instance should create a poll to determine who leaves the DT, you will be shocked by the result of the poll.

If the system is failing, the consequence will be too many tags on people's profile and random ~ of users without reasons.

A retaliatory tag is always wrong. If a tag is definitely wrong then it could be correct to draw the attention of the community to that. But being prepared that if something is wrong it will be revealed.

~ for incorrect tag could be reasonable.

DT is not constant forever. There are always new participants, some old participants are losing support and even being distrusted. So if any of DT is working against the consensus they will be withdrawn from DT sooner or later. The consensus doesn't have strict boundaries, so there are some things on the very border and even if some respected DT member is sometimes out of boundaries it can be forgiven. But testing the system long will lead to disqualification.

It is good if forum users take part in DT making own trust lists and leaving reviews on others, when it is appropriate. (Read the recommendations on tags and flags written by theymos.)

So discussions like this one show possible problematic points in the system and clarify current image of the consensus.

Well, I suppose that each case should have proof, it should be clear for someone from a side that a tag left correctly. Even if we talk about the neutral tag. Neutral doesn't mean it is less important. I think there's no point in leaving any tag if it is not important for others to know some information about an account. Neutral means this information is not making financial deal with this account nor significantly more risky, nor significantly less risky, but anyway it's important to know.