Voting system to remove unjustified trust feedback

[Xiestar]

This thread is connected to this How do DT come up with accepting toxic behavior?

Regardless if he is DT or not doesn’t mean a user should be immune to trust abuse violation. He is using it improperly which is wrong and no reason to excuse that behavior.

The main argument only is we can’t do anything about it since trust system was decentralized.

But Bitcoin itself is decentralized too yet it has a voting system to ask the community for the future development. I think this system might be applied too on the trust system by having a voting system feature on tags that should be deleted.

This will help to remove tags that based on feelings even from some DT that usually have a biased. This will also resolve old tag by previous DT that became inactive instead of distrusting them since their tag still reflects on untrusted feedback which is being checked too by other users. Untrusted feedback shouldn’t be displayed if there’s no use for it instead just make it hidden completely and shows when the sender becomes a DT.

@Theymos @Powerglove is this a possible feature?

[God Of Thunder]

I am unsure if this is going to work. However, it is one way to eliminate biased feedback. However, I am not inclined to support deleting the feedback. We already have a supporting flag system, in which the community can decide if the flag will be activated or not. I think the admin can also develop a voting system for feedback. If most DT members believe the feedback is biased, they can vote to oppose the feedback, while they can vote to support the input as well if they agree with the feedback.

The current system cannot remove specific feedback if someone does not agree with it. The only way is to exclude them, which actually removes the person from the DT network.

[Catenaccio]

This thread is connected to this How do DT come up with accepting toxic behavior?

Regardless if he is DT or not doesn’t mean a user should be immune to trust abuse violation. He is using it improperly which is wrong and no reason to excuse that behavior.

You firstly can ignore that user, by distrust him with your customize trust list. Then you can create a thread in scam accusation board to inform forum community about this inproper use of trust and feedback. If the community agree with you, many DT members will distrust that user and exclude that user from DT1 or DT2 member gang.

If the community don't agree with you, that negative trust and feedback will stay and show at your profile page with default trust setting.

@Theymos @Powerglove is this a possible feature?

theymos is one of two forum admins.
PowerGlove is even not a forum moderator, what do you expect PowerGlove can change the trust and feedback system?

[noorman0]

Trustlitst is essentially an open vote on whether all your assessments should be trusted or or meet the tagging system criteria. This is what ultimately leads to a user's inclusion on the DT list. Otherwise, your assessment is simply a self reminder made public. You are free to assess someone as a complement to freedom of speech; neither requires approval or vote.

[bitbollo]

@Xiestar few days ago I removed my neutral trust to your profile - related the fact that you're clear an alt account.
I can understand that some DT members can make mistake or maybe they prefer to add immediately some trust comments.
In any cases, they are not fixed members.
Here in the forum, you can just expose your point. You can just ask to others how to react in a specific situation.

The Forum has no moderation on trust/scam.
I like the idea that anyone should make the personal idea by reading and not being forced by someone or by some other entity.
I like the idea that even the worst idea on paper could be the best ever and thus MUST NOT BE CENSORED.

What you propose, even if could sounds legit, it's really the ends of what we need now. It's another central system where someone could say this is good or this is wrong.
Who cares about a neutral/negative trust - if you now already an user or you can just evaluate what happens by yourself?

My vote is no. Just have a look on how many "unjustified" trust feedback I received in my profile since the early times...

[Doan9269]

@Theymos

This is theymos correct spelling  if you don't mind

Regarding the voting system, I want you to believe this that once you're dealing with a number of people, expectnthat some will definitely not reason the same way others do, DT or not shouldn't be a reason for us to do well or abuse power veted, the community on their own could nmade decision without theymos interfering, because this is a challenge from within ourselves, I've seen a condition a DT member was knocked out after being trusted by many members, the same way people noted them in, they can decide as well to take anyone out, especially with the case of obvious abuse, so don't expect anything from theymos, but something members could handle within the community themselves.

[lovesmayfamilis]

OP, I don't think I need to tell you how anyone can abuse anything that initially seems good. AakZaki has been exposing a lot of cheaters in the reputation section lately, calling their farms "the largest." However, I'm sure that the "largest" farms on the forum abuse not only merits but also trust. Therefore, your initiative will only empower all "unidentified" but existing farms to abuse their reputation by deactivating existing tags, since until now, negative tags are the only thing that can somehow stop existing farms from producing "fruit."

[alani123]

If someone is on DT but has left an unjustified piece of feedback there's really no mechanism to combat this behaviour.

In the same way that flags work there could be a mechanism to downgrade DT feedback to untrusted. Is it worth it though? It would create a lot of drama and take time to develop just for a few edge cases.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

The untrusted feedback section is there for a reason. Mostly for feedback of members who are not of the DT network and your trust network so it's usually less important to read it since it may be false which is why;
1. There is even this warning under the untrusted feedback

These ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate.

2. The ratings are folded up/hidden by default
3. The ratings in that section do not affect your trust score

I know admin introduced all this so he could avoid getting involved in moderating trust rating because it can cause a lot of chaos in the future.

Voting system may become useless of less effective with time. I say this because these days people barely create and participate in trust flag voting and yet when they were just introduced, there was a lot of activity.

[ABCbits]

The main argument only is we can’t do anything about it since trust system was decentralized.

FWIW this website (along with trust system) is centralized, where it's controlled by admin.

But Bitcoin itself is decentralized too yet it has a voting system to ask the community for the future development.

If you refer to BIP 8, 9 or similar stuff, it's intended to activate new protocol where signal by miner intended to say that they're support and ready for new protocol. While some people perceive it as voting, note that some miner have more hashrate than others.

I think this system might be applied too on the trust system by having a voting system feature on tags that should be deleted.

Do you expect member (who're eligible to vote) to review each tag before decide to vote?

[The Cryptovator]

Regardless if he is DT or not doesn’t mean a user should be immune to trust abuse violation. He is using it improperly which is wrong and no reason to excuse that behavior.

The main argument only is we can’t do anything about it since trust system was decentralized.

Why do you want to change others' behaviour? You really can't control other users' behaviour anyway. But you can control your trust list. Simply distrust them if you think they are abusing the trust system. Also, you can counter the feedback if someone left it wrong or raise concern on the Reputation board as well.

But Bitcoin itself is decentralized too yet it has a voting system to ask the community for the future development. I think this system might be applied too on the trust system by having a voting system feature on tags that should be deleted.

This will help to remove tags that based on feelings even from some DT that usually have a biased. This will also resolve old tag by previous DT that became inactive instead of distrusting them since their tag still reflects on untrusted feedback which is being checked too by other users. Untrusted feedback shouldn’t be displayed if there’s no use for it instead just make it hidden completely and shows when the sender becomes a DT.

So you want to control my opinion and feedback? Whether I am DT or not, I don't really want to let anyone else control my opinion and feedback. Distrust system is working fine for me, and feedback on the untrusted section won't harm you anyway. Who often sees untrusted feedback from a user? If you left feedback for any users, that will be visible to you, so it's useful for you even if it's not showing by default to all forum members. That's why it's important to display untrusted feedback as well. However, finally, you can create a thread on reputation against wrongly left feedback; other users or DT members would counter that and distrust users or DT.

[Findingnemo]

This thread is another proof that users still ignorant about the trust system. As mentioned @noorman0 you are free to include and exclude anyone from your trust list and if more uses does the same then the user will not be in DT1 or DT2 anymore. Instead of having a voting system that will do the opposite of what we call decentralized system, just learn to use the custom trust list that will eliminate the abuse over the period of time.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

This thread is another proof that users still ignorant about the trust system. As mentioned @noorman0 you are free to include and exclude anyone from your trust list and if more uses does the same then the user will not be in DT1 or DT2 anymore. Instead of having a voting system that will do the opposite of what we call decentralized system, just learn to use the custom trust list that will eliminate the abuse over the period of time.

The problem is, he just doesn't want the "unnecessary" negative ratings to appear on his profile, even when they are from someone who is not on DT or are untrusted feedback. So to him the custom trust list thing is useless.

I have some stupid trust ratings on my profile from some scammers, and I am even bothered at all.

[Satofan44]

The effort to remove a single unjustified trust feedback is significantly greater than it is to leave it. Such ideas can never work because of this. All it would accomplish is create a lot of work for trusted users or all users, but ultimately it would not accomplish anything. I alone can leave thousands of ratings in a day, without using automated tools or spamming, now multiply this with thousands of users. You will die of old age before you can "clean this up".

The problem is, he just doesn't want the "unnecessary" negative ratings to appear on his profile, even when they are from someone who is not on DT or are untrusted feedback. So to him the custom trust list thing is useless.

I have some stupid trust ratings on my profile from some scammers, and I am even bothered at all.

He's just recently joined this club, but he's already complaining. Meanwhile most users are in this position and have at least one rating that they would like to see removed. Of course biased and malicious people do not care about the issues in general, they only care when it affects them.

[Xiestar]

I know all of you just want to protect being uncensored of forum trust system but my suggestion is based on someone being out of control when handling negative or positive feedback.

There’s a voting which means majority opinion will govern. It’s unjustified feedback we are talking.

OP, I don't think I need to tell you how anyone can abuse anything that initially seems good. AakZaki has been exposing a lot of cheaters in the reputation section lately, calling their farms "the largest." However, I'm sure that the "largest" farms on the forum abuse not only merits but also trust. Therefore, your initiative will only empower all "unidentified" but existing farms to abuse their reputation by deactivating existing tags, since until now, negative tags are the only thing that can somehow stop existing farms from producing "fruit."

Such abused on DT power will be noticeable and suicide for them if they try to argue on case that has clear proof account farming.

Btw I created this thread main.ply because I’m bothered to the guy gave me a negative feedback for bullshit reason while he has a positive trust feedback coming from you and other user claiming he shouldn’t be distrusted which means what he is doing for sending baseless negative feedback to whoever he argue is right.

The problem is, he just doesn't want the "unnecessary" negative ratings to appear on his profile, even when they are from someone who is not on DT or are untrusted feedback. So to him the custom trust list thing is useless.

I have some stupid trust ratings on my profile from some scammers, and I am even bothered at all.

He's just recently joined this club, but he's already complaining. Meanwhile most users are in this position and have at least one rating that they would like to see removed. Of course biased and malicious people do not care about the issues in general, they only care when it affects them.

Like you are proud of what you are doing. I don’t personally deal with you and I’m not even retaliating even you are on the wrong side here yet the current version of trust make a cocky self righteous like you still exist and earn through signature campaign by simply being a jerk.

Talking about malicious always while you are the one showing that in your action. You are the most ironic and comical user existing here.

Accusing me of farming merit to join campaign sounds like your only rebuttal while you are the one doing that.

[LoyceV]

I created a topic about this 6 years ago, you should read Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT.

TL;DR: nothing was changed.

[Findingnemo]

This thread is another proof that users still ignorant about the trust system. As mentioned @noorman0 you are free to include and exclude anyone from your trust list and if more uses does the same then the user will not be in DT1 or DT2 anymore. Instead of having a voting system that will do the opposite of what we call decentralized system, just learn to use the custom trust list that will eliminate the abuse over the period of time.

The problem is, he just doesn't want the "unnecessary" negative ratings to appear on his profile, even when they are from someone who is not on DT or are untrusted feedback. So to him the custom trust list thing is useless.

I have some stupid trust ratings on my profile from some scammers, and I am even bothered at all.

We all want something but we don't get that right? Life is always unfair, so is the forum too and we can't please everyone to like who we are and having a system to remove one particular feedback makes the system centralized. I too understand that some of the users who left the forum a long time and few of their trust's are no longer relevant but still they will be there. If it goes into the untrusted feedback then most of the users won't bother at all.

[Mpamaegbu]

You firstly can ignore that user, by distrust him with your customize trust list. Then you can create a thread in scam accusation board to inform forum community about this inproper use of trust and feedback. If the community agree with you, many DT members will distrust that user and exclude that user from DT1 or DT2 member gang.

Distrusting a user doesn't make their red tag on one's profile disappear from sight. It's just that one won't get to see it but it will still be there for others to see. Now, here's where it gets interesting and it's annoying. I've seen profiles tagged for spamming or for poor posting habits or for expressing contrary and dissenting views and opinions which are completely off the reason the trust system was instituted. The trust system is supposed to be a checkmate for financial dealings and scamming activities.

I believe there should be an urgent review of the system. Sadly, I don't think theymos is least interested in that discussion yet.

[Satofan44]

I believe there should be an urgent review of the system.

If it was not urgent for many years, it is definitely nor urgent now.

Sadly, I don't think theymos is least interested in that discussion yet.

Incorrect. He is interested in changing the DT system and likely the overall system, but nobody in recent times has put in the effort to develop a complete solution that is better than what exists -- of course with proper arguments to back it up.

[Erumo]

How do you want this system to work? Receive a negative trust and instantly create a vote to remove it? If the vote fail, created another vote? Who will be able to vote? Same DT members? Then negative trust will never be removed. Let users vote? Then this will be abused. Even if this system starts to work, fail during voting should have consequences. Double negative trust or perma red tag.