I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

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

You know, I wasn't really all that suspicious earlier, but I am now.

[Z_MBFM]

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.

There is a DT system in the forum that no one gets the powers easily. To be selected as DT-1, many criteria have to be met and only those DT-1 members trust a user, then only that user gets DT-2 powers and those who can achieve these must be qualified to moderate this forum. So think of them as feedback moderators.

And here of course no one is given negative tags without any valid proof. Your profile has -7. If you think that you were given these ons without any valid proof of how and why they were given, then instead of changing the negative trust rules today, open an open topic and prove there that you were given negative tags unfairly. Then of course your tags will be removed. And anyone can do that.

[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.

There is a DT system in the forum that no one gets the powers easily. To be selected as DT-1, many criteria have to be met and only those DT-1 members trust a user, then only that user gets DT-2 powers and those who can achieve these must be qualified to moderate this forum. So think of them as feedback moderators.

And here of course no one is given negative tags without any valid proof. Your profile has -7. If you think that you were given these ons without any valid proof of how and why they were given, then instead of changing the negative trust rules today, open an open topic and prove there that you were given negative tags unfairly. Then of course your tags will be removed. And anyone can do that.

If only you read my prior points. You’d see why I view this as problematic. Not going to exhaust myself by repeatedly re-explaining the flawed logic/logistics of this.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

If only you read my prior points. You’d see why I view this as problematic. Not going to exhaust myself by repeatedly re-explaining the flawed logic/logistics of this.

The main point here, which you seem determined not to grasp is that if including a reference link were mandatory, you would have 7 red tags with references, rather than 4 with references and 3 without.

[Curious T]

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. 

I also support that something should be done to improve it, if there is something that can be done, but there is simply no system that cannot be exploited. From my time on this forum, I have seen how people are very quick to give negative trust but are very slow to give positive trust. In fact, in some cases, instead of giving a positive trust, they will rather give a neutral tag.

The OP may have raised a good point, but he is also part of what is wrong with the system. One thing I don't like is hypocrisy. He talks about a system where tags should be given with a clear reason and evidence, but he has a couple of tags he gave for reasons that, in my opinion, don't deserve tags. From reading, most of them were giving out of frustration, because he gives to people who disagree with him on a matter or people who are not nice to him.

I have seen the bias on the forum; anyone who argues there is no bias is just lying to themselves. Things like that don't surprise me because that is clear human behaviour. I have seen some users do or say things that deserve to be red-trusted, but he doesn't get it, or at least the people whose trust matters don't give it, but when it happens to another user, they receive a negative trust immediately. Things like this will happen in whatever system, at least in this one, there is a method to plead your case, and even though it's still not perfect, it makes things a little fairer. We would never get a perfect system, as long as we don't live in a utopian society.

[Kazkaz27]

If only you read my prior points. You’d see why I view this as problematic. Not going to exhaust myself by repeatedly re-explaining the flawed logic/logistics of this.

The main point here, which you seem determined not to grasp is that if including a reference link were mandatory, you would have 7 red tags with references, rather than 4 with references and 3 without.

That’s certainly not the ‘main point here.’ It’s your point, to which I say: perhaps.

[PrimeNumber7]

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.

I think your rational is valid, and your concerns are real. However, the forum administration does not want to risk moderator bias when making these types of decisions. Perhaps some kind of community notes implementation could work, but I am unsure how good of an idea this would be for the trust system (financial transactions), and I am not sure if the forum has a large/diverse enough network for a community notes system to work at all.

[nutildah]

Its considered proper forum etiquette to have a reference link accompany positive & negative trust. If the majority of someone's sent feedback is unreferenced, they probably shouldn't be in DT. But of course these are both just rules of thumb and ultimately their inclusion depends on more people trusting their feedback than distrusting it. The freedom to leave feedback or not is one of many that we enjoy on this forum.

[philipma1957]

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.

 In your words  I could give you a negative trust and refer to this thread and you would be okay with the negative trust.


Mind you I won't give a negative trust for asking.


I do want to understand do you want trust judging?

Like the supreme court and the vote is done by them.


I for one want to tell theymos I will act as a trust judge we only need 8 more of us.

[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.

 In your words  I could give you a negative trust and refer to this thread and you would be okay with the negative trust.


Mind you I won't give a negative trust for asking.


I do want to understand do you want trust judging?

Like the supreme court and the vote is done by them.


I for one want to tell theymos I will act as a trust judge we only need 8 more of us.

I want the system refined slightly to improve it by making abuse one step more difficult. The goal is to make abusing it a bit harder, less convenient, and more obvious.

I find it beneficial to make it mandatory to leave references. Especially, for negative feedback.

As I said…and I quote:

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.

It’s apparently already “forum etiquette” to due so. There is validity to make it mandatory.

[dkbit98]

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

As far as I know most negative trust feedback usually have attached a link with more explanations, but nobody should be forced to do that.
For example, I remember several cases in the past when someone tried to scam me with phishing links to hack my account, or there was obvious scam service created, or someone lied and betrayed my trust.
On the other hand I don't think giving negative feedback should be done easily for everything because it looses it's value.

[OgNasty]

Good luck bringing change to the trust system… There are people who center their entire lives around trying to game the system. They create alts, spread lies, obsess over 3rd party trust websites… Trying to get these people to actually provide value instead of spending their lives gaming the system is a near impossibility in my opinion.

[mcdouglasx]

Well, I think that even if you receive many negative ratings, you can always raise each case individually in the reputation section. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea for this rating system to be pre-evaluated by a moderator, as happens when you report a post; it's reviewed beforehand by an impartial moderator.

But even so, the system hasn't failed completely, since people can see the references for the cases and whether they're verifiable or not. It's something that can be easily checked, although it can be somewhat subjective at times.

[philipma1957]

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.

 In your words  I could give you a negative trust and refer to this thread and you would be okay with the negative trust.


Mind you I won't give a negative trust for asking.


I do want to understand do you want trust judging?

Like the supreme court and the vote is done by them.


I for one want to tell theymos I will act as a trust judge we only need 8 more of us.

I want the system refined slightly to improve it by making abuse one step more difficult. The goal is to make abusing it a bit harder, less convenient, and more obvious.

I find it beneficial to make it mandatory to leave references. Especially, for negative feedback.

As I said…and I quote:

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.

It’s apparently already “forum etiquette” to due so. There is validity to make it mandatory.

So if the software of the forum is to allow the neg the reference link must be provided.

the problem is the person getting the neg could delete before the reference links is give.


I e

I could say "blah blah blah terrible threats to whomever"

then go back and delete the post so the person trying to give a neg has nothing to refer to.

[Vod]

There are people who center their entire lives around trying to game the system.

Those people are being dealt with, even as they try to have their perverted crimes hidden.  Not talking about Trump. 

[Kazkaz27]

So if the software of the forum is to allow the neg the reference link must be provided.

the problem is the person getting the neg could delete before the reference links is give.


I e

I could say "blah blah blah terrible threats to whomever"

then go back and delete the post so the person trying to give a neg has nothing to refer to.

Check your trust.

Go ahead and delete what you want.

Try and delete this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5581704.msg66671564#msg66671564

If you’re concerned that a user will attempt to delete evidence, you have the ability and incentive to document the matter—by taking screenshots, archiving the page, or using any other method—and present your case on the reputation board.


Some say my suggestion ignores existing remedies like the Reputation Board, excluding users from your own trust list, and the DT meritocracy. But those remedies don’t really alter standing negative trusts without references. My suggestion acts upon that flaw in the system.

No one overlords it. It’s automated in the system — you simply have to add a reference to negative feedback. Can this be gamed? Some yes. But it adds another mandatory step (a reference), which would make it slightly harder for trust abusers and more evident in cases where negative trust is not justified or no real reference is provided.

The remedies we have now don’t work. This is evident in the fact that a DT1 named Holydarkness just gamed the system, got caught red handed and remains on DT1 despite his abuse of the negative feedback system.

If you think I am being biased, then grandfather in the existing feedback as is. But moving forward, make the rulings more fair into the future.

This isn’t about deleting anyone’s trust or heavy moderation. It’s a simple, automated rule: negative feedback needs a reference link/field, or it doesn’t count. That’s it. It protects the integrity of the trust system without giving power to any single person or group.

[Sandra_hakeem]

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?

If a hundred can't fix the system, a few can't either. Mods are not immune to human error. They hold grudges and deal with vendettas as well.

It's up to Theymos and I get the feeling he's inclined to just let things be as they are.

I can't actually recall if Theymos said he was currently working on this or the Merit System, but I read something related. Idk.
Edit:

There are people who center their entire lives around trying to game the system.
Edit:

Those people are being dealt with, even as they try to have their perverted crimes hidden.  Not talking about Trump.  

C'monn Vod.  

[Kazkaz27]

Good luck bringing change to the trust system… There are people who center their entire lives around trying to game the system. They create alts, spread lies, obsess over 3rd party trust websites… Trying to get these people to actually provide value instead of spending their lives gaming the system is a near impossibility in my opinion.

I agree with you. Anyone with their eyes open can see right through them. Too many people are spineless suck-ups, terrified of calling them out because they know they’ll get mistreated and mobbed. These groups and their cronies don’t just control the narratives here — they get applauded and rewarded for their toxic shitposting and status-quo defenses. Not to mention the shameless lies, unsubstantiated claims, unfounded conspiracies, hypocrisy, and blatant biases. Most members are hyper-superstitious. Many are anonymous and self-righteously shadier than the people they accuse.

Not being part of that actually brings more value to the space. It’s far better to avoid the mindless Bitcointalk crony cookie-cutter thinking — it just results in a lot of abuse and sore knees.

The system once started with good logic, solid foundations, and good intentions, but has since been compromised. It’s in desperate need of repair, but semantics, hierarchies, and corruption kill any ability to make meaningful change in a system that is now CHEWING members up and SPITTING them out.

[ibminer]

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?

3 pages of replies and 27 votes (13 yes, 13 no, 1 other) and you want to claim "majority", smh.

Let's ask SpazSpaz's AI bot if there is any trust system for bitcointalk that would make every group happy.
No matter what you change it to, there will be some group of people (or groups of alts) that will "come forward" to oppose or support various opinions.

Here's a summary of what my AI said:

Different users mean completely different things by “trust”:

Some want strict, evidence-based fraud tagging only
Others want reputation + behavior + ethics included
Some prioritize financial risk only
Others care about character, history, or ideology

These directly conflict. A system optimized for one group will frustrate another.

^ I'd add some just want it easier to manipulate and not get caught.

So, welcome to decentralization. Stop trying to dismantle it to satisfy your own personal vendettas.

I'm sorry you're upset that you got called out for doing shady shit with selling keys by many members, then doubled-down defending it, then went after the members who said something, and then petitioning to change the entire system. It's actually not an uncommon progression.

You're of course welcome to keep going with it, but there are always going to be potential consequences in a decentralized system by others in the community (good or bad).

They've already split off "flags", which requires the reference link.

Requiring reference links on feedback is bad. We'll just end up with a bunch of ridiculous threads with essentially the same sentence that the feedback states. There are other reasons this is a bad idea, but stating them here could possibly help other shady people so I'll stop there.

Requiring moderators to moderate and/or validate the "proof" is also bad. We'd be moving back towards a centralized system in control of a central authority, and really, nobody in an official position of the forum should ever even want this responsibility because it puts themselves at risk for making a mistake and appearing like an accomplice in various scenarios.
 
There's no easy solution in a decentralized manner, the only solutions that might be viable would create a very complex set of multiple systems, and people already complain about the current complexities.

TLDR: I voted "other" because your poll answers are slightly misleading, but to be clear, I don't agree with these bad ideas.

[nutildah]

Here's a summary of what my AI said:

Different users mean completely different things by “trust”:

Some want strict, evidence-based fraud tagging only
Others want reputation + behavior + ethics included
Some prioritize financial risk only
Others care about character, history, or ideology

These directly conflict. A system optimized for one group will frustrate another.

Off-topic but I want to thank you for quoting AI in a transparent manner -- if everyone did this my AI spam report thread would be a ghost town.

I'm sorry you're upset that you got called out for doing shady shit with selling keys by many members, then doubled-down defending it, then went after the members who said something, and then petitioning to change the entire system. It's actually not an uncommon progression.

I lol'd at this because its true -- I can think of at least 5 instances of this happening in the last 6 years or so. To think all of this could have been avoided if this guy at any point said "OK, I see where your concerns are coming from, I'll stop selling private keys."