I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

[Kazkaz27]

The trust system on this platform is a serious matter. It is how we fundamentally operate and conduct our businesses. I therefore advocate for a change regarding the legitimacy of negative trusts on accounts. All negative trusts should be accompanied by a clear reference; otherwise, they should be deemed invalid and either removed or changed to neutral by moderators or administrators.

The reason is that any negative trust should be backed by something justifiable — such as evidence or legal grounds.

[retaur]

I think pattern recognition works best. A lot of the lending section ends up full of newbies that don't have the incentive to repay them. The Services and Goods sections are the same too.

[_act_]

You want new rules because of the 7 red trusts that you have already or what?

All negative trusts should be accompanied by a clear reference; otherwise, they should be deemed invalid and either removed or changed to neutral by moderators or administrators.

The trust feedbacks and trust list are not moderated. If anyone thinks he is given an unworthy bad trust (be it red or neural), the person can go to reputation board and report the person on a new thread and let the community decide with individual opinions.

[Kazkaz27]

You want new rules because of the 7 red trusts that you have already or what?

All negative trusts should be accompanied by a clear reference; otherwise, they should be deemed invalid and either removed or changed to neutral by moderators or administrators.

The trust feedbacks and trust list are not moderator. If anyone thinks he is given an unworthy bad trust (which is red or neural) can go to reputation thread and report the person on a new thread and let the community decides.

Ah, you must have missed it.

The reason is that any negative trust should be backed by something justifiable — such as evidence or legal grounds.

The other reason is because it protects against negative trust system abuse.

The last reason would be what you suggest. Yes, I do have an absurd amount of negative trust without justification as do many other respectable members.—It shouldn’t happen.

[_act_]

The reason is that any negative trust should be backed by something justifiable — such as evidence or legal grounds.

I saw it, but I just do not know your plan because of the red trusts that you already have.

Newbies that want to borrow money immediately they create their account is enough as an evidence that the newbies want to scam. Another are high risk offers which are definitely scam but no evidence because the person has not scam anyone but which can be prevented with red trust.

Do not just waste your time because I am very certain that what you want can not be granted.

The trust system is better the way it is. Nothing is perfect.

[Kazkaz27]

The reason is that any negative trust should be backed by something justifiable — such as evidence or legal grounds.

I saw it, but I just do not know your plan because of the red trusts that you already have.

Newbies that want to borrow money immediately they create their account is enough as an evidence that the newbies want to scam. Another are high risk offers which are definitely scam but no evidence because the person has not scam anyone but which can be prevented with red trust.

Do not just waste your time because I am very certain that what you want can not be granted.

The trust system is better the way it is. Nothing is perfect.

The system is trash. 🗑️ — But it could be improved.

[_act_]

The system is trash. 🗑️

It is normal for you to see the trust system of this forum to be trash when this your account is becoming a trash already. It is the other way around. Just calm yourself down to understand that the trust system is not going in your favour is that reason you will prefer to post about it wrongly.

[Kazkaz27]

The system is trash. 🗑️

It is normal for you to see the trust system of this forum to be trash when this your account is becoming a trash already. It is the other way around. Just calm yourself down to understand that the trust system is not going in your favour is that reason you will prefer to post about it wrongly.

It’s normal for you to not want to change a system that you benefit from.—Although, this idea wouldn’t have any impact on you in that regard. If anything it would also protect you from unjustified negative reviews.

Like the one I just gave ya.

Checkmate. ♟️

[EarnOnVictor]

"Where there is no law, there is no crime." And where there is law, there's always some adjustment to improve it.

Therefore, I strongly support your view on this for fairness's sake. I've seen some tagging reasons that are so senseless. And I am sure if you ask them to provide a valid reason for that, they wouldn't. While some people who tagged others later easily changed it because they either had a second thought (emotion) or were later condemned for it. That's because the tag could be reported or became popular somehow, which shifted the decision.

What about those who just accepted it in good faith just because they are voiceless? I think every tag must be worth it 100%. Not allowing a tag to be binding without approval from higher hierarchies, like moderators/admins (after studying the case), might be the right way to go.

[hd49728]

All negative trusts should be accompanied by a clear reference

I think it's like either positive or negative trust feedback, if it does not have a reference link, it basically looks unlikely a good trust feedback. It's same with any negative trust feedback too so the lack of a reference link makes a trust feedback looks less valid or with many people is invalid.

[Kazkaz27]

All negative trusts should be accompanied by a clear reference

I think it's like either positive or negative trust feedback, if it does not have a reference link, it basically looks unlikely a good trust feedback. It's same with any negative trust feedback too so the lack of a reference link makes a trust feedback looks less valid or with many people is invalid.

Negatives are more impactful. While positives also pack a powerful punch, they serve a different purpose.

The difference can be as profound as an innocent person being sentenced to death versus a guilty person being set free.

One is a grave injustice; the other is a failure of justice.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

You want new rules because of the 7 red trusts that you have already or what?

That’s certainly true. If proposals for changes to the trust system usually fall on deaf ears, a proposal from someone with just seven red tags – who is trying to pass off something that would benefit him personally as being good for the forum – is even less likely to be given a second thought.

Generally speaking, it’s rare for an account to be left with only red tags without a reference. If we look at the OP’s own example of the seven tags they have, three of them don’t have a reference, but by visiting the reference threads for those that do, you get a good idea.

If the unreferenced red tags left on his profile constituted abuse, the DTs would have been untrusted, but that is not the case.

What’s more, introducing the rule he’s calling for wouldn’t do him any good. Even if such a rule existed, he’d still have the same seven red tags, but with a reference.

[Kazkaz27]

You want new rules because of the 7 red trusts that you have already or what?

That’s certainly true. If proposals for changes to the trust system usually fall on deaf ears, a proposal from someone with just seven red tags – who is trying to pass off something that would benefit him personally as being good for the forum – is even less likely to be given a second thought.

Generally speaking, it’s rare for an account to be left with only red tags without a reference. If we look at the OP’s own example of the seven tags they have, three of them don’t have a reference, but by visiting the reference threads for those that do, you get a good idea.

If the unreferenced red tags left on his profile constituted abuse, the DTs would have been untrusted, but that is not the case.

What’s more, introducing the rule he’s calling for wouldn’t do him any good. Even if such a rule existed, he’d still have the same seven red tags, but with a reference.

You make heavy assumptions and place too much faith in a failing system. You rely on a circus 🎪 / clown show instead of relevant references to prove guilt or innocence — as does act.

I believe I’m pretty reasonable and fair, although I don’t need to be in order for you to be as well.

Reciprocity in communication builds trust and rapport, reduces resentment, strengthens relationships and influences persuasion and negotiation.

If anyone thinks he is given an unworthy bad trust (be it red or neutral), the person can go to the reputation board and report the person on a new thread and let the community decide with individual opinions.

This is just theatrical nonsense. 🤦‍♂️ (Driven by flawed logic and incentivized hierarchy groups — which I assume are the likes of you.)

Would the rule change be beneficial to me? Yes, the same as it would be for EVERYONE else.

For reference and relevance, evaluate this thread and the users who commented then confidently tell me the trust system isn’t broken:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5581376.0

[SuperBitMan]

I no the trust system is self moderated but giving someone a negative feedback without a reference link is actually not civil, if you think someone is a scammer or a cheat and you don’t have evidence that the individual or member is actually a scammer why should you give the person a negative feedback just because of your believe, if every DT members are giving people negative feedback because their instinct believes they deserve it, will the reason for creating the trust system be achieved?
Just imagine you were sent to court for a criminal offense and there’s no evidence that you committed the crime but the judge says his or her instinct tells him or her that you committed the crime and for that reason he or she has decided to sentence you for 10 years imprisonment or life imprisonment, will you say the judge is right and has done well?
Please let be civil in everything we do I think theymos should look into this matter of tag without reference.
However some DT members don’t give negative feedback without a reference and I respect them for always being civil, they will never give you a negative feedback without a reference link, I know a lot of them very civil I really admire them, others should emulate from them.

[_act_]

Therefore, I strongly support your view on this for fairness's sake. I've seen some tagging reasons that are so senseless. And I am sure if you ask them to provide a valid reason for that, they wouldn't. While some people who tagged others later easily changed it because they either had a second thought (emotion) or were later condemned for it. That's because the tag could be reported or became popular somehow, which shifted the decision.

What about those who just accepted it in good faith just because they are voiceless? I think every tag must be worth it 100%. Not allowing a tag to be binding without approval from higher hierarchies, like moderators/admins (after studying the case), might be the right way to go.

On what fairness sake? The trust system is better the way it is. You did not even check the trust feedbacks of this user, but you blindly supporting him. Just because of my post is against him, he gave me red trust. But am I bothered about it? No because the trust system is well designed.

Another person is Satofan, a good poster but poor in tagging people. He gave many trustworthy users red tag including me, but we are all not bothered because the trust system is good.

If you are given a bad review, you can post about it on the reputation board. I first gave Satofan a neutral tag because someone brought his red tag to reputation board, also the DT1 member that added him to become the DT2 removed him.

So I just do not know what you people are saying. I think many of you may not even know how the trust system is.

I no the trust system is self moderated but giving someone a negative feedback without a reference link is actually not civil, if you think someone is a scammer or a cheat and you don’t have evidence that the individual or member is actually a scammer why should you give the person a negative feedback just because of your believe, if every DT members are giving people negative feedback because their instinct believes they deserve it, will the reason for creating the trust system be achieved?

You post like you know what you are saying. You can come up with evidence. Learn more about this forum trust system before posting like a newbie about it.

[EarnOnVictor]

Therefore, I strongly support your view on this for fairness's sake. I've seen some tagging reasons that are so senseless. And I am sure if you ask them to provide a valid reason for that, they wouldn't. While some people who tagged others later easily changed it because they either had a second thought (emotion) or were later condemned for it. That's because the tag could be reported or became popular somehow, which shifted the decision.

What about those who just accepted it in good faith just because they are voiceless? I think every tag must be worth it 100%. Not allowing a tag to be binding without approval from higher hierarchies, like moderators/admins (after studying the case), might be the right way to go.

On what fairness sake? The trust system is better the way it is. You did not even check the trust list of this user, but you blindly supporting him. Just because of my post is against him, he gave me red trust. But am I bothered about it? No.

You should hold it right there, you have your opinion, I have mine, so cut it. It's your headache if my opinion doesn't align with yours please, and not trying to make it look as if you want to suppress someone's opinion, just don't try it. And whether the OP has a bad tag or not is none of my business, what he said agrees with my own view, and there's nothing you can do about it because it's mine opinion, man! Even a mad man can still talk sense, why not the OP?

[test2026]

It is just sometimes ego that results in negative trust. Something that the staff cannot measure or check I think. However, if a member has too many negative trust from lot of members, that does mean there is something wrong on his end for sure.

[_act_]

You should hold it right there, you have your opinion, I have mine, so cut it. It's your headache if my opinion doesn't align with yours please, and not trying to make it look as if you want to suppress someone's opinion, just don't try it. And whether the OP has a bad tag or not is none of my business, what he said agrees with my own view, and there's nothing you can do about it because it's mine opinion, man! Even a mad man can still talk sense, why not the OP?

I posted that because I do not support the OP, he gave me a red trust but you said you are in support of his opinion, I do not know what this meta board is turning into. He may want to use it to show that what is he saying is true, but I have already posted that his red trust is not having any effect on my account which still shows how the trust system is good. Humans can not be satisfied at all, even if a system is perfect, they will still be complaining.

I just know that theymos will not listen to this request which is not useful. You can also see that the DT members are not posting on this thread because they do not see it useful.

Meta is now full of members that will be in support of opinions from someone that has a very bad red trusts which is more than bad.

[Kazkaz27]

There are 13 total red remarks on my trust report.

11 of the 13 come from different accounts (not necessarily different users): CasMan, Timelord2067, Lesbian Cow, SPAM SCAM BUSTER, DireWolfM14, hybridsole, anonymousminer, DaveF, owlcatz, btchodl101, and MoparMiningLLC.

Of these 11 accounts:

Two are alternate accounts belonging to users who had already left red trust from their main accounts and participated in a coordinated attack against me and another member after we exposed corruption on the forum (CasMan and SPAM SCAM BUSTER, both of whom were subsequently banned).

One is an outright scammer I publicly exposed (btchodl101).

Four remarks have no reference or justification at all (Lesbian Cow, hybridsole, and DaveF ×2).

The remaining four remarks contain unsubstantiated claims about my keys and collectibles, along with personal disagreements (primarily from MoparMiningLLC, anonymousminer, owlcatz, and DireWolfM14). Lesbian Cow and DaveF also joined the coordinated attack but did not bother to leave references.

My current trust score of -7 is not an accurate reflection of my reputation or conduct. It appears to be an organized effort to suppress the truth regarding false statements made by Mopar and associated accounts.

These users attempted to damage my reputation and business through repeated lies and baseless accusations. They successfully had me removed from the DT1 pipeline, but ultimately failed in their broader goal. Throughout the conflict, I consistently protected other forum members from similar coordinated attacks and attempts to dominate auctions, sales, and the overall narrative. All which led to stronger attacks against me.

This entire matter is fully documented across multiple public threads and is verifiable.

Here is the most relevant non bias public link to threads supporting the claims:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_93ec064b-6f9b-438c-90d1-3312fedef11a


I encourage you all to dig. 🪏

I conclude the system is gamed, corrupt, unfair, egotistical and broken.—If you’re going against me simply because of my current trust ratings you are completely unaware of the reality of the situation.

My suggestion would only go towards preventing about 1/4 of the problems (possibly more) currently occurring with the trust system.—Better than nothing in my view. It definitely would have an impact on a chunk of the trust abuse occurring.

Those that can’t see it, refuse to acknowledge it, or verify it themselves are complicit and apart of the problem making them completely untrustworthy IMO.

Hence, the reason I often go against the status quo and make suggestions/efforts towards improvements.—I care about the issue and do not condone the mistreatment of members.


Also, I considered removing my red trust I gave you act but now more then ever I think it’s valid. I only gave it initially to prove a logical point.

I have moved past caring about my account and will use the same “dirty” tactics used against me to point out the problems in efforts to fix them. It’s not fair but in extreme circumstances sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire.

[Upgrade00]

There is an easy work around for this, the user who wants to abuse the system with no reference feedback will get a random link which doesn't directly imply what they are saying, to review the reference will now be moderating trust feedbacks which the forum is not going to do. Such feedbacks will still be considered valid in this scenario.

Unmoderated as it is, anyone abusing feedbacks by giving wrong tags on members will not be part of the team for their tag to matter. Note that you not agreeing to a feedback that was sent does not categorically make it wrong neither does a feedback not having a reference.