I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

[LoyceV]

I prefer to have a Reference link with all feedback, and the Trust system is far from perfect, but I don't think moderation is going to make it better. Who's going to protect us from Moderator abuse if we go down that road? Who's going to decide what is or isn't a valid Reference link?
Users should assess feedback on it's value and decide on their own. If they don't value the feedback, they can exclude the users who left it from their Trust list. If you don't like users who don't post Reference links with their feedback, exclude them.

[rat03gopoh]

Regardless of other members' perspectives or circumstances when tagging, all the red tags I've ever given have had references, which I believe should have substantive and more detailed reasons than comments if I expect other members to support the reason for the tag. The tagging reference may not be important to me (the giver), but others need to know about it especially if the tagging was initiated by me and only me.

Maybe someday I will get into a situation where negative tag references are not really necessary, but so far I haven't, and I support your suggestion for future tagging.

[Kazkaz27]

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.

Valid, well put. I guess the work around method would be what trust abusers resort to. I still think negative trust should be backed with substance but I see your point. I’ll think more on this and perhaps update this response. I would love to hear a solution regarding this work around by others. It would be appreciated.

[Upgrade00]

I still think negative trust should be backed with substance but I see your point.

I think so too, othewise it's just conjecture which can easily lead to abuse. Anyone who makes a habit of doing that should be excluded from your trust list and that of others so they don't get into DT1 or 2. Any other option to fix this that I can think of will need active moderation, opening up a whole new can of worms.

[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?

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.

What do you mean by I don’t understand the trust system, and I’m posting like a newbie about it, just because I said giving a negative feedback should come with a reference link, if the reference link is not important why did the forum put it there, the reference link has a function over their and should be used for what it was created for.
I don’t support moderating the trust system because those who will be moderating the trust system what if they are also biased who will then moderate their decision, so the moderation part is a No, but putting reference link when giving a negative feedback should be a most because the reference is the prove that shows The user actually deserves the tag.

When you tag someone a scam and that people should stay away from him or her, and people come across your feedback on the users account, don’t you think they will like to know why you tagged him or her a scam.

[Btcdeybodi]

At first i thought the trust system was basically for trade related issues and probably scamming/cheating cases but after i saw some unethical feedbacks, i just believed that some DT members gives trust feedbacks according to their ''sixth sense'' and since the trust system is not moderated, it will continue to suffer lapses. However, there's a iota of truth in the OP's petition because a trust feedback without a reference link doesn't make any sense.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

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

It's no doubt that the forum trust system is meant to be backed up with verifiable evidence or proof to justify its outcome before been given to a user.  And when it comes to your case of your claiming to create rare and unique coins and wallet that could be used to store their crypto, that alone is a red flag. And I'm very much sure that could have been one of the motivating factor why you got several negative trusts. Because the forum is yet to see you proof what you claim to offer to be actually genuine.

In the past, many people have claimed to offer coins and wallets to use in storing Bitcoin, but it all ended up as scam, so can you explain to us why you meant by these statements below I saw on your website. Because to be frankly speaking, those 7 negative trust you have is a proof of the forum just trying to take proactive steps towards protecting its users from future potential scams.

Found these below on your website

Rare coin and wallets

We specialize in creating rare and unique coins that can be used to store cryptocurrency. Discover hidden treasures and add to your collection with our expertly curated selection.

Mission Statement

At Bit VIP Coins, our mission is to provide elite physical wallets for cryptocurrencies, ensuring the highest level of security for digital assets. We are dedicated to safeguarding our customers’ investments through advanced cold storage technology, protecting them from online threats and ensuring peace of mind for long-term storage. By combining innovation, quality craftsmanship, and a commitment to excellence, we empower users to confidently manage their cryptocurrency holdings in a secure and reliable manner.

[Ambatman]

they should be deemed invalid and either removed or changed to neutral by moderators or administrators.

I know the trust system was meant for trades
But I don't think it should be that moderated
I don't trust a person doesn't mean another doesn't
It's what I think.
So I don't think it would be a good idea if MOD starts working on it.
It's rare to see red rating without reference
And I doubt people take those without serious
Since most times they are as a result of personal dispute.

[1miau]

In my opinion, a clear evidence should be linked when making use of negative Trust. Negative Trust is a strong and powerful Tool which should be used with caution. 
If in doubt, go with neutral Trust where you link evidence as well.

[Kazkaz27]

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

It's no doubt that the forum trust system is meant to be backed up with verifiable evidence or proof to justify its outcome before been given to a user.  And when it comes to your case of your claiming to create rare and unique coins and wallet that could be used to store their crypto, that alone is a red flag. And I'm very much sure that could have been one of the motivating factor why you got several negative trusts. Because the forum is yet to see you proof what you claim to offer to be actually genuine.

In the past, many people have claimed to offer coins and wallets to use in storing Bitcoin, but it all ended up as scam, so can you explain to us why you meant by these statements below I saw on your website. Because to be frankly speaking, those 7 negative trust you have is a proof of the forum just trying to take proactive steps towards protecting its users from future potential scams.

Found these below on your website

Rare coin and wallets

We specialize in creating rare and unique coins that can be used to store cryptocurrency. Discover hidden treasures and add to your collection with our expertly curated selection.

Mission Statement

At Bit VIP Coins, our mission is to provide elite physical wallets for cryptocurrencies, ensuring the highest level of security for digital assets. We are dedicated to safeguarding our customers’ investments through advanced cold storage technology, protecting them from online threats and ensuring peace of mind for long-term storage. By combining innovation, quality craftsmanship, and a commitment to excellence, we empower users to confidently manage their cryptocurrency holdings in a secure and reliable manner.

Google VIP Physical Bitcoins. It’s a fairly well known trademarked Physical Bitcoin brand. Also, I’m not here to completely defend myself. I shared the previous information to share insight and facts about the trust system as well as my experience. You over generalize when you say “they all turned out to be scams.” that’s simply not true. There’s an entire collectible board with people selling items from various makers on a daily basis. My coins have been featured in Stack Barrow’s galleries auctions. If you go to their site, you can type into their search bar “VIP Bitcoins” and you’ll find them selling for thousands of dollars. I’ve minted thousands of coins and created thousands of collectibles at this point. Zero issues surrounding my keys or collectibles just so you know.—Other than unsubstantiated lies and bruised egos from a few who don’t like me and took words out of context. I’m also not some shady anonymous person on this website. I’m openly public and transparent about my identity. Google, Grox, social media platforms, and my BitcoinTalk threads would be your best friend if you’d like to find out more relevant information.

Now that we veered completely off-topic let’s get back to the real conversation.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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.

Hah?  You've been a member less than a year and have the above to say about two sections--and it might be my own ignorance, but I'm not even sure what it is you meant. 

The trust system is broken and has been for a long time, IMO, and not even just the positive/negative trusts from deals that have gone down here.  I'm talking about DT, the flag system, and who knows what all else there is, but it's way too complicated and far too prone to abuse.  But OP, you should know that this has been a topic of discussion for years now and nothing seems to be moving in the direction you proposed.  It's up to Theymos and I get the feeling he's inclined to just let things be as they are. 

What can you do when that's the case?  Starting a thread like this and keeping the suggestion alive is a good move, regardless of what others might think, because Theymos does read community input even if he doesn't respond quickly, or ever.

[nutildah]

In my opinion, a clear evidence should be linked when making use of negative Trust.

Speaking of clear evidence, any chance you want to sign some kind of message proving that you are the original owner of this account?

The trust system is broken and has been for a long time, IMO, and not even just the positive/negative trusts from deals that have gone down here.  I'm talking about DT, the flag system, and who knows what all else there is, but it's way too complicated and far too prone to abuse.

Its true, it is complicated and prone to abuse. However, I just think about the way things were before the "decentralization" of the trust system, and trust feedback is more meaningful now, IMHO. Not that its perfect but I really wouldn't know how to develop a "better" system.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

There are a lot of people here who don’t seem to have realised the following.



The person who created the system made the reference link an option. If he had wanted to, he could have made it compulsory. We agree that if someone consistently fails to use reference links for red tags, this person will have many distrusts and will not be in DT. However, there are several instances where a red tag without a reference link is acceptable.

Does anyone know of any cases where a DT member has been distrusted and lost their DT status for leaving the occasional red tag without a reference link?

At the moment, I think the vote is pretty much neck and neck.



I don’t think we need to consider any changes at all, especially when the suggestion comes from someone with seven red tags who tries to pass off his personal interest as something beneficial to the forum.

[Kazkaz27]

~Snip (BS)

Yeah, it looks like you have a few negative trusts as well. By your own logic, that means no one should listen to or consider your opinions or suggestions either.

That said, your math isn’t adding up on the poll, no matter how you frame it.

What exactly are you defending?

It seems you prefer a system with no references required for negative feedback. In practice, that position advocates for allowing biased negatives that carry no real validity.

Speaking of clear evidence, any chance you want to sign some kind of message proving that you are the original owner of this account?

Let’s not throw off this topic. Perhaps make your own thread to address this possible debacle.

Its true, it is complicated and prone to abuse. However, I just think about the way things were before the "decentralization" of the trust system, and trust feedback is more meaningful now, IMHO. Not that its perfect but I really wouldn't know how to develop a "better" system.

We could start with something small but effective: making it mandatory to leave a reference for negative feedback, even accounting for the obvious workaround. This adds one extra step for trust abusers. If there’s genuinely nothing to reference, the provided link itself serves as clear evidence of that.

[Revolution2025]

In my opinion, a clear evidence should be linked when making use of negative Trust.

Speaking of clear evidence, any chance you want to sign some kind of message proving that you are the original owner of this account?

the audacity some of you show in this forum is crazy!!!

if someone create a topic about leaving the forum and later they return, what is your problem with that

if you suspect any questionable behavior from the account after they returned, why don't you create a separate thread instead of this off topic

telling someone to sign a message to prove they are the original owner of their account is absurd and to think of it, you are asking someone who changed their password a couple of times to prove ownership of their account when you who have changed your password a thousand times has not been able to prove ownership of your account.

this DT privilege most of you have is making you to feel intoxicated with power

[LoyceV]

There are a lot of people here who don’t seem to have realised the following.

The person who created the system made the reference link an option. If he had wanted to, he could have made it compulsory.

Theymos himself doesn't always leave a Reference link. In some cases, like "Disrupted a forum ad auction by failing to read the rules.", I think a Reference link would have been useful, but for "Sent me a valid signed message, so this account is unlikely to be hacked.", it just comes down to trusting theymos on this.

[_act_]

The trust system is broken and has been for a long time, IMO, and not even just the positive/negative trusts from deals that have gone down here.  I'm talking about DT, the flag system, and who knows what all else there is, but it's way too complicated and far too prone to abuse.

Its true, it is complicated and prone to abuse. However, I just think about the way things were before the "decentralization" of the trust system, and trust feedback is more meaningful now, IMHO. Not that its perfect but I really wouldn't know how to develop a "better" system.

This is what I also think, that the trust system is better the way it is because I am seeing its usefulness.

Anyone that is misusing the trust like Satofan become someone that his trust reviews to people are no more showing. What else do they want?

The OP come with a proposal, but he did not give examples. He gave me a red trust to show that what he is asking is not necessary because his red trust is also not showing.

There are sometimes that some people may not have to leave a reference link. If you think it is wrong, specifically create a thread about it on the reputation board. It is that simple. I am referring to OP.

If I see an user that change hands and not posting like the original owner of the account, I may not have a reference link but give a neutral trust. There are other instances.

[Kazkaz27]

The trust system is broken and has been for a long time, IMO, and not even just the positive/negative trusts from deals that have gone down here.  I'm talking about DT, the flag system, and who knows what all else there is, but it's way too complicated and far too prone to abuse.

Its true, it is complicated and prone to abuse. However, I just think about the way things were before the "decentralization" of the trust system, and trust feedback is more meaningful now, IMHO. Not that its perfect but I really wouldn't know how to develop a "better" system.

This is what I also think, that the trust system is better the way it is because I am seeing its usefulness.

Anyone that is misusing the trust like Satofan become someone that his trust reviews to people are no more showing. What else do they want?

The OP come with a proposal, but he did not give examples. He gave me a red trust to show that what he is asking is not necessary because his red trust is also not showing.

There are sometimes that some people may not have to leave a reference link. If you think it is wrong, specifically create a thread about it on the reputation board. It is that simple. I am referring to OP.

If I see an user that change hands and not posting like the original owner of the account, I may not have a reference link but give a neutral trust. There are other instances.

Almost everyone came forward saying the trust system is flawed or imperfect and has its issues. The majority agrees that negatives should include references and lack validity without them. What ‘examples’ are you referring to—What else is missing to prove what most members already view as a consensus?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Its true, it is complicated and prone to abuse. However, I just think about the way things were before the "decentralization" of the trust system, and trust feedback is more meaningful now, IMHO. Not that its perfect but I really wouldn't know how to develop a "better" system.

As far as one member leaving feedback for another member, on this forum we've got a state of 'anything goes'.  I think OP is suggesting that there be something closer to ebay's structure (which right now has been fucked up relative to how it once was).  In fact, I think most sites where members can leave feedback there has to be proof of a transaction, lest the system be abused to death.  And I mean, come on--can you or anyone say with a straight face that the feedback system here hasn't been abused in every conceivable way?

I get the advantage of leaving a red trust as a warning and that type of thing, but I've long thought that's outweighed by the severe disadvantages of having a system that's completely unrestricted. 

[NotATether]

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.

I support this, but for future tags, so that scammers' accounts aren't cleaned retroactively.