Trust inclusion or exclusion for inactive members.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I've noticed a certain group have been DT distrusting users long after they are gone (or presumed to be gone) IIRC there was some question about some activity that Blaze was involved in... (but don't quote me on that as it looks to have occurred a very long time ago)

This topic is inspired from the discussion happening on the other thread.. My understanding in general is when a user is not active for long time, not participating in the default trust system; we can consider not to vote for them [avoid both inclusion and exclusion]. Some possible plots can be as follows to understand the matter a little clear. I also think from a good discussion we may have even better understanding for the current feedback and default trust system.

Satoshi came first in mind. The current default trust system is totally irrelevant for the account. [1.] The are no feedback given by him to anyone, [2.] He does not have anyone to perform a DT voting. The account is a great history but is not useful in DT system due to the inactivity.

TMAN: [1.] Left many feedback [2.] Performed DT voting [3.] But not active anymore. It has been over three years now. Three years ago the forum environment and current environment is totally different. It changed a lot. A feedback left by him three years ago can be very inappropriate today. A good example is the feedback left for Best_Change.

Bruno: [1.] Left many feedback [2.] Performed no DT voting [was he died before the new default trust system?] [3.] Not alive [RIP brother], of course inactive. Someone wanted to use his account and wanted to scam users but failed. Whatever the case is, I don't think having the account in Trust inclusion or even in Exclusion leaves any weight in the current system. Very similar for Zepher [RIP] too. He can not edit a feedback, give a feedback or remove a feedback. These accounts can not use the system at all.

There are other users who are [1.] Active but not performing in DT voting however since they are active and somehow or greatly involved in trades or forum events having them in inclusion or exclusion is relevant.

From the above scenarios understandably we can conclude that when a user is not active for long time, any feedback it left or received carry no weights or very less weights. After many years, the time has changed, a lot of things of the forum has changed; an old-inactive account is outdated to be in the trust or distrust setting.

In my opinion this small detail will improve a lot of weight of the forum feedback system. The feedback and default trust system will look more appropriate than before.

[jokers10]

Sometimes accounts of farmers tagged by those who left the forum become "clean" because DT members left and lose even DT2 status with time. And so we need catching abusers once more, because a farmer didn't left the forum and can find that fortunately for him some of his accs are being "cleaned".

I think that having few outdated tags on a respected accounts is a lesser problem than that scammers and abusers will lose their red tags and will cheat again and again.

So IMO it is good if some inactive for years accounts which were active in hunting on abusers previously are staying in DT2. We can stay warned about many abusers thanks to them.

[nutildah]

From the above scenarios understandably we can conclude that when a user is not active for long time, any feedback it left or received carry no weights or very less weights. After many years, the time has changed, a lot of things of the forum has changed; an old-inactive account is outdated to be in the trust or distrust setting.

It really still depends on the appropriateness of the trust ratings and whether they continue to stand the test of time. If a years-inactive account is still on DT2, its feedback carries the same weight as feedback left just today (unless we are going by the old trust system as still calculated by BPIP; in which case older ratings carry more weight than new ratings). If you disagree with some or the majority of feedback left by an inactive DT2 user, you should exclude them.

Bruno: [1.] Left many feedback [2.] Performed no DT voting [was he died before the new default trust system?] [3.] Not alive [RIP brother], of course inactive. Someone wanted to use his account and wanted to scam users but failed. Whatever the case is, I don't think having the account in Trust inclusion or even in Exclusion leaves any weight in the current system. Very similar for Zepher [RIP] too. He can not edit a feedback, give a feedback or remove a feedback. These accounts can not use the system at all.

Bruno only ever left 2 feedbacks and they were to his other accounts. He was against use of the trust system. Inclusion or exclusion of him is meaningless, much as it is for Satoshi, Hal or Cobra.

Zepher is one such case where I excluded him because I felt many of his ratings were either no longer relevant or not good to begin with. He has not been on DT2 for quite some time.

[LoyceMobile]

I remember the worries when Lauda was first removed from DT: thousands of tagged users were suddenly "set free". And that's the problem with removing old inactive users: old inactive scammers can activate again.

Then again, people should really do their own research instead of sending money to strangers on the internet.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

[...snip....]

Here is where I was coming from. For example Bruno, many people distrusted his judgement but the person is no longer alive. Zepher is distrusted by many too. Same applies for him too. None of them will be leaving any more feedback to anyone anymore so there are nothing left to trust or distrust their judgement. They are above of all judgement.

I remember the worries when Lauda was first removed from DT: thousands of tagged users were suddenly "set free". And that's the problem with removing old inactive users: old inactive scammers can activate again.

In other words the feedback system looks isolated, depending on Lauda. it's not a good outcome.

[philipma1957]

hmm I am older 66 which means I have less time left then I did when I got here in 2012.

Don't remove me when I am gone I would prefer to stay here with my trusts and distrusts left as they are.

The forum is about 13 years old it will likely be here in 13 years.

This chart says that in 13 years my odds of being edit Alive dead are 32.85%

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

So I kind of like to think I would be allowed to stay.

[un_rank]

From the above scenarios understandably we can conclude that when a user is not active for long time, any feedback it left or received carry no weights or very less weights. After many years, the time has changed, a lot of things of the forum has changed; an old-inactive account is outdated to be in the trust or distrust setting.

Old reports still carry lots of weight and points users in what direction to check when looking for which users to trade with and which to beware of. The date a feedback was left is available for anyone reading it to see and decide what relevance to place on it. They can also check the reference for further information needed.

- Jay -

[dragonvslinux]

Already posted my general opinion in that topic:

someone's feedback doesn't become useless if they leave, it's still just as useful even if it won't be updated and therefore can become outdated.

This topic is inspired from the discussion happening on the other thread.. My understanding in general is when a user is not active for long time, not participating in the default trust system; we can consider not to vote for them [avoid both inclusion and exclusion]. Some possible plots can be as follows to understand the matter a little clear. I also think from a good discussion we may have even better understanding for the current feedback and default trust system.

I don't see including absent/left members in trust list as "voting" for them personally. This concept is reserved for reaching the threshold of inclusions to become eligible for DT1, or otherwise in relation to DT1 members voting directly. If they are no longer active, they aren't eligible for DT1, so it's therefore simply based on whether their feedback is trusted by default or not.

Additionally when including inactive members this doesn't ever extend to their list of inclusions, in the way that it would be DT1 members producing votes for DT2 members, as inactive members can only be DT2 at most. So in this sense it's very much a "limited vote", one that is solely based on trusting their feedback, as their only personal inclusions and exclusions, or lack of, become irrelevant.

Satoshi came first in mind. The current default trust system is totally irrelevant for the account. [1.] The are no feedback given by him to anyone, [2.] He does not have anyone to perform a DT voting. The account is a great history but is not useful in DT system due to the inactivity.

This is just an example or poor judgement from those who include a member who hasn't left any feedback.

PS - Didn't you include my mobile account to your trust that hasn't left any feedback?? ...

TMAN: [1.] Left many feedback [2.] Performed DT voting [3.] But not active anymore. It has been over three years now. Three years ago the forum environment and current environment is totally different. It changed a lot. A feedback left by him three years ago can be very inappropriate today. A good example is the feedback left for Best_Change.

This is an example of how feedback can become outdated, and if so, then sure the user can be removed from DT. But not based on his activity, simply the accuracy of feedback, regardless of who the member is.

There are other users who are [1.] Active but not performing in DT voting however since they are active and somehow or greatly involved in trades or forum events having them in inclusion or exclusion is relevant.

This I don't understand. Either their feedback is trusted or not to enter your inclusion list. Whether they have an trust list or not doesn't change the accuracy or that feedback either.

From the above scenarios understandably we can conclude that when a user is not active for long time, any feedback it left or received carry no weights or very less weights. After many years, the time has changed, a lot of things of the forum has changed; an old-inactive account is outdated to be in the trust or distrust setting.

I guess you are trying to say old, maybe even outdated feedback carries no weight? If that's the case, then by this logic it's not that damaging to remain then? Personally I think for example a red tag is a red tag, whether it's from the past year or from many years ago. Sure someone reading it might give it more or less weight based on it's age, but otherwise whether the user remains active or not becomes less relevant imo.

Personally I think what you are suggesting is an over complication of the trust system. You simply add users with accurate feedback, dead or alive. That's it.

If you trust the judgement of a user less because they have left or died, then don't include them in your trust list.

[SamReomo]

we can conclude that when a user is not active for long time, any feedback it left or received carry no weights or very less weights. After many years, the time has changed, a lot of things of the forum has changed; an old-inactive account is outdated to be in the trust or distrust setting.

In my opinion this small detail will improve a lot of weight of the forum feedback system. The feedback and default trust system will look more appropriate than before.

Well, I know that the inactive users aren't really doing anything on the forum currently but when they left the feedback then at that time they saw good or bad in someone's actions. We can't really underestimate their judgement if they aren't active anymore on the forum. Most of the users who aren't active currently may get online once again because sometimes the life tests us a lot and at those time we try to detach ourselves from the internet.

I would say that if their trust or distrust was with a valid reason then it still carries a weight but it was only due to difference of opinion then those type or trust or distrust do not carry much weight. The members who aren't active still have played their role in forum when they were active however if it's for the betterment of the forum then surely it would be a good step.

 

[BenCodie]

Sometimes accounts of farmers tagged by those who left the forum become "clean" because DT members left and lose even DT2 status with time. And so we need catching abusers once more, because a farmer didn't left the forum and can find that fortunately for him some of his accs are being "cleaned".

I think that having few outdated tags on a respected accounts is a lesser problem than that scammers and abusers will lose their red tags and will cheat again and again.

So IMO it is good if some inactive for years accounts which were active in hunting on abusers previously are staying in DT2. We can stay warned about many abusers thanks to them.

I was originally going to say "why remove legitimate opinions and feedback just because of inactivity?"... But I do see the point, and it made me think of a cool solution that I am sure LoyceV or someone like him could easily tackle by building a tool something along the lines of:

> Scrape all sent feedback left by people who were once in DT1 and got removed due to inactivity only
> Find all members who currently aren't painted red out of this feedback
> Current DT1's can go through the list and add a feedback if they choose to.

Thoughts?

[jokers10]

I was originally going to say "why remove legitimate opinions and feedback just because of inactivity?"... But I do see the point, and it made me think of a cool solution that I am sure LoyceV or someone like him could easily tackle by building a tool something along the lines of:

> Scrape all sent feedback left by people who were once in DT1 and got removed due to inactivity only
> Find all members who currently aren't painted red out of this feedback
> Current DT1's can go through the list and add a feedback if they choose to.

Thoughts?

It is a duplicated work. Of course you can duplicate someone else's tags and many DT members do so. But you are responding not for other's tags, but for your own and to leave an own duplicated tag the one should learn enough about the case for which a tag is left. So we'll face with a need for DT members to go through the tags again, additional work.

So if are talking about the tags which are already became untrusted due to some DT member inactivity, it can be a good idea, we at least can learn how big could be the problem and where are its boundaries.

But even if we can monitor tags becoming untrusted due to someone's inactivity, I don't think we should exclude good hunters from our trust lists (DT2) only because they are inactive. If their tags became inaccurate with time, it should be solved in case by case order.

[LoyceV]

it made me think of a cool solution that I am sure LoyceV or someone like him could easily tackle by building a tool something along the lines of:
> Scrape all sent feedback left by people who were once in DT1 and got removed due to inactivity only
> Find all members who currently aren't painted red out of this feedback
> Current DT1's can go through the list and add a feedback if they choose to.

Been there, done that. See [PRISON BREAK] Full list of users who lost their DT red trust from Lauda

Thoughts?

It was a lot of work. You can't tag 2000 accounts just because someone else did the same, you'll have to actually check the evidence and decide per case whether or not they (still) deserve it. I'm not going to do that.

[jokers10]

It was a lot of work. You can't tag 2000 accounts just because someone else did the same, you'll have to actually check the evidence and decide per case whether or not they (still) deserve it. I'm not going to do that.

Two thousand tags! I didn't left so many for all the time I'm here! It is a good example of why reconsidering all tags of any active DT member will be a huge problem by itself. It was done for years and DT members don't have so much spare time to waste it on useless work. 2000 tags! Reconsidering them is not what I ever plan to do. And I guess the majority of DT members will say the same.

[hugeblack]

I think this should be taken case by case. I still trust Lauda, despite some differences with him, but he has performed excellently with tagging old scammers. And sometimes I even trust people who have not been around for a while, like @Johoe. Therefore, trust varies and not everyone trusts people just because they are reliable or because everyone adds them. (For example, most people add @theymos for nothing other than he is admin)

In some cases, such as TMAN, despite the negative trust he left for BEST_CHANGE, this should not be the only reason for not trusting him.

hmm I am older 66 which means I have less time left then I did when I got here in 2012.
Don't remove me when I am gone I would prefer to stay here with my trusts and distrusts left as they are.

I trust you and as long as I am DT1 you will remain on that list (I hope others don't remove you)

[LoyceMobile]

hmm I am older 66 which means I have less time left then I did when I got here in 2012.

Don't remove me when I am gone I would prefer to stay here with my trusts and distrusts left as they are.

If Bitcointalk turns out to be as legendary as I hope it will be, our posts and trust feedback should still be here centuries from now. In about half a century, when the last of the current users stops posting and becomes inactive, they'll drop off DT1 and all their inclusions will become "untrusted". By then, the current scammers are inactive too, so the tags served their purpose and will only be part of history.

[dkbit98]

Here is where I was coming from. For example Bruno, many people distrusted his judgement but the person is no longer alive. Zepher is distrusted by many too. Same applies for him too. None of them will be leaving any more feedback to anyone anymore so there are nothing left to trust or distrust their judgement. They are above of all judgement.

You can't really confirm if someone is going to come back in forum or not, even if they are dead.
For example we had one well known DT member in our local board marlboroza and he was inactive for really long time, but then he made a post last month.
Second example was another of our members that stopped writing for few months, and we started to speculate what happened to him, he came back and said that he had to take a break because of his personal life.
There is no exact period to determine if someone is ''inactive'', really inactive or retired.

If Bitcointalk turns out to be as legendary as I hope it will be, our posts and trust feedback should still be here centuries from now. In about half a century, when the last of the current users stops posting and becomes inactive, they'll drop off DT1 and all their inclusions will become "untrusted". By then, the current scammers are inactive too, so the tags served their purpose and will only be part of history.

I think things will change drastically in next half of century, I am not sure internet as we know it and bitcointalk will even exist.

[LoyceV]

I think things will change drastically in next half of century, I am not sure internet as we know it and bitcointalk will even exist.

I'm sure the new forum software will still be expected any time soon in half a century

[franky1]

trust system is bullshit anyways.. when a bunch of ass kissers back up fellow liars, the system becomes pointless

the point of bitcoin is to research, review, scrutinize, confirm and verify..  trust is what caused people to fall for all the fiat tricks, lies and scams

[philipma1957]

I think this should be taken case by case. I still trust Lauda, despite some differences with him, but he has performed excellently with tagging old scammers. And sometimes I even trust people who have not been around for a while, like @Johoe. Therefore, trust varies and not everyone trusts people just because they are reliable or because everyone adds them. (For example, most people add @theymos for nothing other than he is admin)

In some cases, such as TMAN, despite the negative trust he left for BEST_CHANGE, this should not be the only reason for not trusting him.

hmm I am older 66 which means I have less time left then I did when I got here in 2012.
Don't remove me when I am gone I would prefer to stay here with my trusts and distrusts left as they are.

I trust you and as long as I am DT1 you will remain on that list (I hope others don't remove you)

It is getting a bit harder to do the physical work I do mining ⛏️ but reading posting and looking at what others do is still something I want to do.

[decodx]

I think things will change drastically in next half of century, I am not sure internet as we know it and bitcointalk will even exist.

I'm sure the new forum software will still be expected any time soon in half a century

I have a feeling that even before the new forum software is released, it'll already be outdated.   

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I think things will change drastically in next half of century, I am not sure internet as we know it and bitcointalk will even exist.

I'm sure the new forum software will still be expected any time soon in half a century

In the fine line between live and death, I think we will meet theymos in the other side and ask what was it all about LOL

trust system is bullshit anyways.. when a bunch of ass kissers back up fellow liars, the system becomes pointless

Trust system was not created for ass kissers to back up fellow liars or such things, it was created to give support or oppose to the feedback left by forum members depending on the correctness of the feedback. The feedback system was created to appreciate trades that conducts on the forum so that other can take some idea about a member before they make a potential trade.

But unfortunately people don't use both systems for the reason it was created. The system is not bullshit but the people who use it for their own benefits.

[nutildah]

trust system is bullshit anyways.. when a bunch of ass kissers back up fellow liars, the system becomes pointless

the point of bitcoin is to research, review, scrutinize, confirm and verify..  trust is what caused people to fall for all the fiat tricks, lies and scams

Trust is required when doing any kind of trade. Not that trading is your thing, as you've made it clear in your signature:

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.

 - Trust is required for any kind of P2P exchange.
 - Trust is required when depositing coins on exchanges.
 - Trust is even required when using a DEX or automated escrow service.
 - Any time you want to use Bitcoin for its original purpose (as a currency, commodity or medium of exchange), trust is involved.

Trust is what makes commerce happen. Its basically what makes the world go round.

You're just sour that you've been negative trusted for non-trade related issues. I can't say I blame you.

[franky1]

i dont care about trust rating.. thats the point. its an entire joke

trust is belief without proof especially when there is known fake trust and scammers collaborating to promote each other

if i were to trade i would trade with people i could slap with a rotten fish(or sue them) should they wrong me

if you are handing funds to strangers, you might aswell just throw a suitcase of cash into a public street

there are reasons why things like escrow, locks, multisig exist.. because faith, trust, belief do not replace research, knowledge. proof and confirmation

[SmartGold01]

From the above scenarios understandably we can conclude that when a user is not active for long time, any feedback it left or received carry no weights or very less weights. After many years, the time has changed, a lot of things of the forum has changed; an old-inactive account is outdated to be in the trust or distrust setting.

In my opinion this small detail will improve a lot of weight of the forum feedback system. The feedback and default trust system will look more appropriate than before.

First I will like to appreciate your opinion and reasoning towards the trusting system, however I know too well that this discussion is not that related to me since I am not a DT yet but, I was attracted by some points which you outlined here and I would also want to give reasons to it from my own angle and points of view. I don't know how you people may feel but sometimes there is a sense into what beginner like us do say at times but is just a matter of how we give meaning to what they (low rank members) are saying.. 

From above statement, an inactive accounts gives a trust and leave a positives feedback for long time ago and people should starts seeing it as something not useful anymore or less weight? To me and the way I gives meaning to some things, an award can never be reversed back from the receiver to the giver meaning those people were also right in their judgement and they also reasoned positively despite their inactive yet the have also gives discredit and credited to lots of profile. Okay, Take a look at for instance, A manager gives a service to a certain project and it happens that the campaign ended and that project or their representatives aren't active in the forum does it mean their feedback on the manager's profile should be seen as an inactive feedback or irrelevant feedback (less weight)?

No, their feedback to the manager who manages their campaign has also give credits to the manager and boost his profile and chances of getting more jobs from other clients. In essence they might not be around (be it death or sick and away for some period of time) their positive and negative trust gives their presence to this forum and for that other upcoming DT members could know the caliber of men and women or users that was there before them. So in my opinion let gives respects to those who are found death or away as I believe you & I will be also away somedays and never come back here and other people will quote you from this thread and will want to also make your judgement and ratings as an inactive or irrelevant since you are no more active in the forum. 

Let say Satoshi is a good example and people had gave him many positive feedback and he doesn't participate in the DT voting either, but we don't need to forget his is the reason for our gathering today in this forum. So seeing their ratings or whatsoever as something that is less weight is not appropriate, even today or tomorrow I finally becomes a DT I wouldn't like my feedbacks to people be less weight, maybe excepts in most cases like account ban this can be considers as you said but in as much as that account is free to post here then their ratings should carry's the same weights as other active accounts.
Note: I didn't reply or comments here to attack you or disagree on your opinion rather I am also giving my own side of view, and this shouldn't calls for giving me tag or to starts attacking me back in everything I do. I only give my own reasons as you do gives your reasons as well.

[LoyceV]

Let say Satoshi is a good example

Satoshi is a special case: there's no reason to include satoshi in your Trust list, but there's no harm in it either. After all,t he account is locked. I consider this only a "thank you" to someone who can't be reached any other way. It's meaningless for the rest of the Trust system.

[SmartGold01]

Let say Satoshi is a good example

Satoshi is a special case: there's no reason to include satoshi in your Trust list, but there's no harm in it either. After all,t he account is locked. I consider this only a "thank you" to someone who can't be reached any other way. It's meaningless for the rest of the Trust system.

You are correct!
Never include him in my list and my list is created based on those I found their content meaningful to me or as a role model. Which I just pick few about 5.

[nutildah]

i dont care about trust rating.. thats the point. its an entire joke

trust is belief without proof especially when there is known fake trust and scammers collaborating to promote each other

Your opinion is heavily swayed by your personal experience. And again, I don't blame you. I don't think being a troll is a good enough reason to leave somebody negative trust as it seldom has anything to do with their trustworthiness or ability to complete a trade.

However, the way the system is currently set up, it does a good job of preventing actual scammers from getting very far as most DT are rather vigilant about who they add to their trust list or give trust ratings to (most, not all). Its far better than the old system, or nothing at all.

there are reasons why things like escrow, locks, multisig exist.. because faith, trust, belief do not replace research, knowledge. proof and confirmation

Unless you have complete mastery of coding (which no ordinary Bitcoin user should be expected to possess), then a certain degree of faith and trust is required when using any of these tools.

[examplens]

Some inactive members have recognized and exposed many scammers in the past, does this mean that due to their inactivity, they cease to be scammers? As a consequence of the exclusion of these from the trust zone.

Trust system was not created for ass kissers to back up fellow liars or such things, it was created to give support or oppose to the feedback left by forum members depending on the correctness of the feedback. The feedback system was created to appreciate trades that conducts on the forum so that other can take some idea about a member before they make a potential trade.

But unfortunately people don't use both systems for the reason it was created. The system is not bullshit but the people who use it for their own benefits.

Every created system has its abuses and misinterpretations.
Ass-kissing is a special discipline, you can see the same through giving merits to campaign managers or adding them to the trust list. Probably out of the hope of increasing the chances of entering their campaigns.

[BenCodie]

it made me think of a cool solution that I am sure LoyceV or someone like him could easily tackle by building a tool something along the lines of:
> Scrape all sent feedback left by people who were once in DT1 and got removed due to inactivity only
> Find all members who currently aren't painted red out of this feedback
> Current DT1's can go through the list and add a feedback if they choose to.

Been there, done that. See [PRISON BREAK] Full list of users who lost their DT red trust from Lauda

Thoughts?

It was a lot of work. You can't tag 2000 accounts just because someone else did the same, you'll have to actually check the evidence and decide per case whether or not they (still) deserve it. I'm not going to do that.

Of course, it would be a lot of work to filter through each one...though I'm sure if the data I described (not just for Lauda) was there, DTs or even non DT members would do their bit in ensuring that known scammers/farmers/etc. were not able to roam free.

I do wonder many accounts that were once tagged are currently active and roaming right now.

[philipma1957]

it made me think of a cool solution that I am sure LoyceV or someone like him could easily tackle by building a tool something along the lines of:
> Scrape all sent feedback left by people who were once in DT1 and got removed due to inactivity only
> Find all members who currently aren't painted red out of this feedback
> Current DT1's can go through the list and add a feedback if they choose to.

Been there, done that. See [PRISON BREAK] Full list of users who lost their DT red trust from Lauda

Thoughts?

It was a lot of work. You can't tag 2000 accounts just because someone else did the same, you'll have to actually check the evidence and decide per case whether or not they (still) deserve it. I'm not going to do that.

Of course, it would be a lot of work to filter through each one...though I'm sure if the data I described (not just for Lauda) was there, DTs or even non DT members would do their bit in ensuring that known scammers/farmers/etc. were not able to roam free.

I do wonder many accounts that were once tagged are currently active and roaming right now.

An interesting question how many have been set free to do more harm/ I am thinking 10 to 23 are now free.

maybe loyce can figure that out.

[LoyceV]

Of course, it would be a lot of work to filter through each one...though I'm sure if the data I described (not just for Lauda) was there, DTs or even non DT members would do their bit in ensuring that known scammers/farmers/etc. were not able to roam free.

The forum used to show Trust rates for each user on the Trust page. Theymos removed that to reduce server load (and time outs on long Trust pages), but that was before he added pagination. The data you're asking for would be available on every Trust page if this were to be restored. So ask theymos

maybe loyce can figure that out.

That's far too much work, and nearly impossible to check who's posting what now.

[BenCodie]

Of course, it would be a lot of work to filter through each one...though I'm sure if the data I described (not just for Lauda) was there, DTs or even non DT members would do their bit in ensuring that known scammers/farmers/etc. were not able to roam free.

The forum used to show Trust rates for each user on the Trust page. Theymos removed that to reduce server load (and time outs on long Trust pages), but that was before he added pagination. The data you're asking for would be available on every Trust page if this were to be restored. So ask theymos

maybe loyce can figure that out.

That's far too much work, and nearly impossible to check who's posting what now.

This is also similar amount of work?
- Get all sent negative feedbacks by DT1/DT2 who were removed by inactivity only (not any other matter)
- List accounts who have this feedback, based on last post date & time (and/or last seen). - optionally with a cutoff date to curate data based on what is relevant.

I think you might just catch quite a few scammers who are roaming free if you or anyone were able to do this. I believe in second chances, but not without appeal first.

How many hours of work would this take? And if an incentive fund/pool was made to donate to loycevclub, what amount would motivate you, if there is a figure?

I am extremely curious to see how many of these members are still roaming and especially if we are all just overlooking it. This might even be in the interest of signature campaign managers/advertisers who (a legitimate member vs. a past scammer, I'm sure legitimate member wins every time)

[LoyceV]

This is also similar amount of work?
- Get all sent negative feedbacks by DT1/DT2 who were removed by inactivity only (not any other matter)

This is where the tricky part starts: I can't know why someone gets excluded from DT, without checking the details.

- List accounts who have this feedback, based on last post date & time (and/or last seen). - optionally with a cutoff date to curate data based on what is relevant.

I think you might just catch quite a few scammers who are roaming free if you or anyone were able to do this. I believe in second chances, but not without appeal first.

Maybe. But negative feedback doesn't stop scams either. People should really start thinking for themselves, and red tags are only the first small hint for that.

How many hours of work would this take? And if an incentive fund/pool was made to donate to loycevclub, what amount would motivate you, if there is a figure?

I can't tell. I know the feedback format is annoying to deal with, and I don't really want to do it again. That's why I never completed my idea of a "feedback change log".

[dkbit98]

I'm sure the new forum software will still be expected any time soon in half a century

We had so many SMF patches recently, thanks to PowerGlove, that I am starting to think that is not science fiction anymore.
If he can patch forum than he can surely do something with new software, and he already has attention of theymos.
I would be more than happy with improved Personal Messages and better Trust System if possible.

[philipma1957]

I'm sure the new forum software will still be expected any time soon in half a century

We had so many SMF patches recently, thanks to PowerGlove, that I am starting to think that is not science fiction anymore.
If he can patch forum than he can surely do something with new software, and he already has attention of theymos.
I would be more than happy with improved Personal Messages and better Trust System if possible.

Oh man do I want private message improvements.

I still have 800 pages and to simply be able to make a page 200 messages vs 20 would make it easier to down load the info I want and just delete the ones I don't want.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I remember the worries when Lauda was first removed from DT: thousands of tagged users were suddenly "set free". And that's the problem with removing old inactive users: old inactive scammers can activate again.

Yep, I too remember when that happened, and there was at least one discussion about the repercussions of a member like Lauda leaving the forum, one who'd left so many DT-weighted feedbacks over the years. 

There are pros and cons to the situation OP brought to the table, and this isn't the first thread about it either, if my memory serves correctly.  And assuming I am right that the community has talked about feedbacks left by members who've disappeared, that discussion was always left hanging.  Why?  Because there's no solution to it except for an intervention by Theymos, and he seems unwilling to step in and remove any feedbacks from members like TMAN, Bruno, TECSHARE, Lauda, etc. 

The only thing that can be done is to decrease the weight of the feedbacks by removing inactive members from DT--but again, that opens another can of worms if scammers are no longer red-tagged with the weight of a DT member.  I've long given up on anything being done except for talking about this, and I'm not even sure there's a big problem anyway.

[BenCodie]

This is also similar amount of work?
- Get all sent negative feedbacks by DT1/DT2 who were removed by inactivity only (not any other matter)

This is where the tricky part starts: I can't know why someone gets excluded from DT, without checking the details.

They're static variables, and there aren't a lot of them I would think? 5, 10, 20 maximum?

- List accounts who have this feedback, based on last post date & time (and/or last seen). - optionally with a cutoff date to curate data based on what is relevant.

I think you might just catch quite a few scammers who are roaming free if you or anyone were able to do this. I believe in second chances, but not without appeal first.

Maybe. But negative feedback doesn't stop scams either. People should really start thinking for themselves, and red tags are only the first small hint for that.

I think that neutral 0 trust has a lot more risk for scammer success than < 0 - It is one of the main use cases of the trust system after all. If the same reason was added to profiles who are currently 0 but used to be < 0, users will be drawn to look at reason for a red trust rating.

How many hours of work would this take? And if an incentive fund/pool was made to donate to loycevclub, what amount would motivate you, if there is a figure?

I can't tell. I know the feedback format is annoying to deal with, and I don't really want to do it again. That's why I never completed my idea of a "feedback change log".

Understood, fair enough.

Still very curious to see what the forum would look like with these changes. Hopefully one day that curiosity is satisfied

[LoyceV]

They're static variables, and there aren't a lot of them I would think? 5, 10, 20 maximum?
~
Still very curious to see what the forum would look like with these changes. Hopefully one day that curiosity is satisfied

If that's the case: what's stopping you from (manually?) finding those few users, and checking their feedback?

I think there may be a bigger source to find though: users who left accurate (negative) feedback, but never made it to DT.

[BenCodie]

They're static variables, and there aren't a lot of them I would think? 5, 10, 20 maximum?
~
Still very curious to see what the forum would look like with these changes. Hopefully one day that curiosity is satisfied

If that's the case: what's stopping you from (manually?) finding those few users, and checking their feedback?

I think there may be a bigger source to find though: users who left accurate (negative) feedback, but never made it to DT.

It's a lot harder to invest effort into something that might be able to be automated....at the same time, I think this is probably something that could be done manually if time was invested into such.

I might look into it, I'd first need to see which users the community still trust. Anyone who is still trusted now despite inactivity do deserve their feedback shown....and my curiosity just might make that happen even though my feedback is not of importance. These efforts would definitely serve the intended purpose more effectively if done by a dt1/2 member.