I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

[Rating Place]

[...]
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.

Apparently editing a post can bypass TG bot and ninja-mentioned someone [thus, supposedly made the person in subject aware of it] safely.


Uhh... why do my name being referenced here and my tag got dragged to that thread? It's a fallacy, IMO. The tag, as you specifically use me as an example, directly contradict the point you're trying to raise on your thread because my tag has reference, an accurate one too as I edit and update it to the simplest case of what I describe on the tag-comment.

I said and warn people to take Rating Place's word with heavy consideration and fact check due to his tendency to twist words.

Reference link? A post where I inquire him I said something I didn't say on 27th June 2025, as recorded by my own post history and bitlist.

You want that to be neutral? Ask him to prove that I said what he tried to paint me in certain color on the said date.

You want that to be removed? Get him to learn facts and stop peer pressuring other forum members to pay others by his outdated knowledge and/or discourage others to engage with me [and thus resulting in chance of financial loss to one party or reputational loss to other member] while I am trying to get to the bottom of a matter where I heavily need both parties to work and be transparent with me.

holy, you made a guy with 10 merits DT so that negative trust would show on my account. A DT1 should know better.


You’ve sided with the sportsbook 100% of the time in the last 2 years when players are accused of arbitrage with no proof other than flag. Proving arbitrage is impossible. You wrongly side with the book on value bets (good bets with CLV).  You shouldn’t give me negative trust because I side with players. That’s the essence of your reference.



I would go stronger on negative trust abuse. An over site committee is needed to force negative trust to neutral trust when abused. The trust is being used as a weapon against those that a person dislikes rather than a warning.

Edited

[Z_MBFM]

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

Op want to implement new rules for negative trust because he/she have -7 and also op distrust users because of disagree with his advise 


https://loyce.club/trust/2026-05-02_Sat_05.18h/2716227.html

[PrivacyG]

Kazkaz27, you have a total of 7 Trusted red tags.

-The first was from MoparMiningLLC, with a reference.
-The second was from anonymousminer, with a reference.
-The third and fourth was from 27th to 28th of December 2025 for the same matter.  One out of two included reference, so in my opinion the other does not require one any more.
-The fifth, sixth and seventh were from this March and for the same matter.  The sixth included reference, which is enough for the seventh.  I do not know if it also fits the fifth and I do not care to spend time looking to check.

Even if the fifth is the 'unexplainable' tag, my point is you still have 6 TAGS LEFT with reference.  I do not see where this system fails.  It works in a very simple and efficient way.  If by benefiting from the system you mean we can join a Signature Campaign, I have seen enough people here with negative tags participating in them so to me we have pretty much the same benefits.  The only difference is that they are less Trusted.  And hell.  If I wanted to trade with someone here, I sure as hell would want to know if they fought to sell Private Keys before initiating a Transaction with them.

How is this ALWAYS only a problem to people who have legitimate red tags on their account?  How do I not have any legitimate one?  I did not do something special to be in this position, I simply followed the rules and where I ever went wrong I tried to fix things up.  I do not remember seeing one single member having unfair red tags.  Sorry.

[Kazkaz27]

I have already shared my past history in comment #19 and have eliminated any and all biases regarding my own trust feedback related to this proposal in comment #56 and #61.

Here is a non-bias analysis confirmation of this fact: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_c1e0073e-d5ef-47e3-b924-ce422beb2a23

Do better.

Op want to implement new rules for negative trust because he/she have -7 and also op distrust users because of disagree with his advise  

This is factually and unequivocally false.

I’ve disagreed with many members before, and they are not on my distrust list. I can easily provide you with an example (there are countless of them).

Here is a very recent example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5581376.40

Comment #50

[...]

Hmm... you caugt me on time as I take a quick trip back home before hitting gym.

You're one of the top 5 people on the forum whose opinion I weight with utmost regards, and you wrote me a long explanation that I digest with 30 chews. As such, I won't be ashamed to say that I stand corrected and there might be bias in exercising inclusion and exclusion on my TL. Removing him now.

You should definitely still be removed from DT1 so LoyceV doesn’t have to keep you on a short leash, considering he’s your master, despite everyone else here having first and essentially said the same thing. Contrary to what he thinks, I don’t think you should be DT1 because you view it as a burden or a microscope, which prevents you from doing whatever you want like normal members, as you suggested. I feel the majority is drinking a major cocktail of BS. I’ve had it all the way up to my ears. I respect LoyceV, but the complicity and sore knees on this platform is disturbing.

Not that you deserve any explanation, but your false accusations, mindless hive-mind behavior, and bizarre bias against reason are exactly why I distrusted you from the start. Your latest response only confirms it.

I do not remember seeing one single member having unfair red tags.  Sorry.

You are very clearly unaware or blind. — Sorry.

Like I said and encouraged members previously.

Dig. 🪏

[nutildah]

I have already shared my past history in comment #19 and have eliminated any and all biases regarding my own trust feedback related to this proposal in comment #56 and #61.

Nobody is impressed with your analysis of your red trust except for yourself. This is why your initial trust issues never got resolved: you are either unable or unwilling to absorb information that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs.

mindless hive-mind behavior

Your posts are literally unaccredited hive mind posts and you think you're being brave lol. As if we can't train chimpanzees to also use AI.

Hey, its coming.

I'm talking about literal chimps using AI.

Pretty soon they will be posting on the forum and getting paid in bananas. Sorry but a lot of you are gonna be out of the job.

How is this ALWAYS only a problem to people who have legitimate red tags on their account?  ...  I do not remember seeing one single member having unfair red tags.  Sorry.

This is because one of the beautiful things about the trust system is we can always delete the tags that were wrong or are no longer correct. Take a look at what happened with 1miau the other day: I woke up to see they had 5 red tags. The next day they had zero. A bit of an initial over-response? Maybe. But it was quickly corrected.

Ideally, DT always corrects itself into removing negative feedback that is objectively "wrong." This may not happen as swiftly or thoroughly as some people might hope, but it does happen.

[Kazkaz27]

I have already shared my past history in comment #19 and have eliminated any and all biases regarding my own trust feedback related to this proposal in comment #56 and #61.

Nobody is impressed with your analysis of your red trust except for yourself. This is why your initial trust issues never got resolved: you are either unable or unwilling to absorb information that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs.

mindless hive-mind behavior

Your posts are literally unaccredited hive mind posts and you think you're being brave lol. As if we can't train chimpanzees to also use AI.

Hey, its coming.

I'm talking about literal chimps using AI.

Pretty soon they will be posting on the forum and getting paid in bananas. Sorry but a lot of you are gonna be out of the job.

How is this ALWAYS only a problem to people who have legitimate red tags on their account?  ...  I do not remember seeing one single member having unfair red tags.  Sorry.

This is because one of the beautiful things about the trust system is we can always delete the tags that were wrong or are no longer correct. Take a look at what happened with 1miau the other day: I woke up to see they had 5 red tags. The next day they had zero. A bit of an initial over-response? Maybe. But it was quickly corrected.

Ideally, DT always corrects itself into removing negative feedback that is objectively "wrong." This may not happen as swiftly or thoroughly as some people might hope, but it does happen.

Everyone who gave me a red trust was a scammer, an alt, or an idiot/crony who hurled an accusation they can’t prove—or simply acted on a pre-existing belief they’ll never be able to justify.

You protect them because you’re “unable or unwilling to absorb any information that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs.”

Is all you do cry about AI? — You constantly make it far more relevant than it actually is.

Do us all a favor and stop derailing/fucking up/throwing off threads by whining about AI.

I can’t even count all the unrelated threads/topics you and your cronies have hijacked and turned into AI disputes.

We get it. It’s your tactic to muddle facts. If you don’t like AI. — Get over it.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Op want to implement new rules for negative trust because he/she have -7 and also op distrust users because of disagree with his advise 

Yeah, right, this troll is just laughable. Some bloke with a bloody terrible reputation, who wants to tinker with the trust system by selling it off as something good for the forum, when the real reason is the red tags on his profile. To top it all off, he goes round distrusting people just because they don’t buy into his spiel.

 

[Daniel91]

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.

I Think that you have already received enough answers to your question that you have already understood that this is not a question for all forum members, but it is a question that needs to be resolved between you and the forum members who gave you negative trust.
If my personal experience can help you, I remember that a long time ago, 5-6 years ago, I received a negative trust from a DT1 member due to a problem in a joint business venture that had nothing to do with this forum or even crypto.
Of course, the only way to resolve it was through a conversation with that member, and in the end we resolved that misunderstanding.
There is no other way or shortcut for you either, and you will have to solve your problem directly with the members from whom you received the negative trust.

[Kazkaz27]

Not sure how to make it any clearer. Despite my own personal experiences and negative trust ratings, this thread isn’t about me specifically. It’s about the system itself. I’d appreciate it if members would stay on topic rather than diverting the discussion to my personal reputation. I’ve already clearly stated that I have nothing to gain from this, as I believe past trust feedback should be grandfathered in. That said, I strongly believe this rule would have a positive impact if implemented moving forward.

Even those who disagree with me on this appear to acknowledge I have nothing to gain, yet some still use every opportunity to attack rather than address the actual proposal.




If you’re on my distrust list there is a reason. — I seldom trust idiots, grifters, or cocksuckers.

That’s a hard thing to reverse.

If you’re not on my distrust list you can be certain that I still view you with all due respect.

[nutildah]

Well I vote No, don't change the trust system with Kaz's suggestion.

Apparently including a ref link in a trust rating used to be a requirement and now no longer is. It was probably changed for a good reason.

Nobody can stop you from putting on as big an AI clown show as you want, primarily because you're not in a signature campaign. It doesn't make you any more believable, earnest, or trustworthy, but you're right, nobody really cares. If you were in a sig campaign and started using AI to churn out spam posts as 99% of AI use on the forum entails, your posts would be deleted at the bare minimum.

[OgNasty]

If you’re on my distrust list there is a reason. — I seldom trust idiots, grifters, or cocksuckers.

That’s a hard thing to reverse.

If you’re not on my distrust list you can be certain that I still view you with all due respect.

I think you've done a pretty good job at pinpointing the problems with the trust system and the response to you has been telling.  I don't follow all this drama because it is just too much for anyone to spend their time sifting through, but that is sort of how they get away with this manipulation.  They just team up and overwhelm people with nonsense until it looks like they're in the right because they have more numbers.  It works especially well to manipulate this community because it is full of lone wolves who don't want to step in trouble.  This is where typically someone in charge would step in and right the wrongs the community is fostering, but we don't have leadership in this community either.  So the only real justice is knowing how miserable these people's lives must be that they spend years tormenting others who share the same interest (Bitcoin).

[Kazkaz27]

Well I vote No, don't change the trust system with Kaz's suggestion.

Apparently including a ref link in a trust rating used to be a requirement and now no longer is. It was probably changed for a good reason.

Nobody can stop you from putting on as big an AI clown show as you want, primarily because you're not in a signature campaign. It doesn't make you any more believable, earnest, or trustworthy, but you're right, nobody really cares. If you were in a sig campaign and started using AI to churn out spam posts as 99% of AI use on the forum entails, your posts would be deleted at the bare minimum.

Well, the same can be said about being a sell-out. Nobody can stop you from shilling in signature campaigns either. The real ‘clown show’ is pretending that being in a signature campaign is somehow more noble. It doesn’t make those posts any more believable, earnest, or trustworthy — but you’re right, nobody really cares.

AI is just a tool. What matters is the quality and honesty of the content, not how it was written. Nobody’s forcing you to read it — if it’s useful, the method shouldn’t matter. If it’s spam, report it regardless.

I stand by my own principles.

On a separate, more on-topic note, I’d like to know the reason behind the change — A reference link in a trust rating used to be a requirement, but now it’s no longer needed. If it was updated for a good reason, I’d be curious what that was. And how would requiring a reference on negative feedback now have any negative impact?

If you’re on my distrust list there is a reason. — I seldom trust idiots, grifters, or cocksuckers.

That’s a hard thing to reverse.

If you’re not on my distrust list you can be certain that I still view you with all due respect.

I think you've done a pretty good job at pinpointing the problems with the trust system and the response to you has been telling.  I don't follow all this drama because it is just too much for anyone to spend their time sifting through, but that is sort of how they get away with this manipulation.  They just team up and overwhelm people with nonsense until it looks like they're in the right because they have more numbers.  It works especially well to manipulate this community because it is full of lone wolves who don't want to step in trouble.  This is where typically someone in charge would step in and right the wrongs the community is fostering, but we don't have leadership in this community either.  So the only real justice is knowing how miserable these people's lives must be that they spend years tormenting others who share the same interest (Bitcoin).

Thank you, Og. — I appreciate the kind words. In regards to the rest, well said.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Not that its perfect but I really wouldn't know how to develop a "better" system.

Since I've been a member here, the trust system has become more complex, presumably as a result of Theymos's incremental changes/additions to it.  I certainly don't know how I'd go about making it anywhere near a perfect system, but simplifying it would go a long way I think.  

I'm not sure there's anything decentralized about the trust system, nor do I think that word is even applicable to a discussion forum that is, by its nature, centralized.  In fact, as I've always said:  Just because 'something' is decentralized doesn't mean it has an advantage over a centralized version of that 'something'.  Yes it matters a lot when we're talking about bitcoin or an altcoin's structure, but I've seen on bitcointalk how people like to bow at the altar of decentralization in all things, and IMO when that's the case not enough thought has gone into those things.

Op want to implement new rules for negative trust because he/she have -7 and also op distrust users because of disagree with his advise 

https://loyce.club/trust/2026-05-02_Sat_05.18h/2716227.html

Since I haven't been following the drama surrounding you, Kazka27, I don't have enough info to hold anything against you.  However, you've put a ~ in front of some of the most trusted members we've got (especially in the Collectibles section).  Retaliatory exclusion/negative trust/etc. isn't a good thing to do in general--and the fact that anyone can do it is, IMO, one of the biggest and longest-standing flaws of the trust system.  Don't think that's going to change anytime soon however.

[holydarkness]

Not that its perfect but I really wouldn't know how to develop a "better" system.

Since I've been a member here, the trust system has become more complex, presumably as a result of Theymos's incremental changes/additions to it.  I certainly don't know how I'd go about making it anywhere near a perfect system, but simplifying it would go a long way I think.  

I'm not sure there's anything decentralized about the trust system, nor do I think that word is even applicable to a discussion forum that is, by its nature, centralized.  In fact, as I've always said:  Just because 'something' is decentralized doesn't mean it has an advantage over a centralized version of that 'something'.  Yes it matters a lot when we're talking about bitcoin or an altcoin's structure, but I've seen on bitcointalk how people like to bow at the altar of decentralization in all things, and IMO when that's the case not enough thought has gone into those things.

[...]

I'm not going to touch the second part of your post, as it is your opinion that I am not going to argue or support or take any stance as I don't have time for it, said in non offensive way [I'm here for a break from a v.2 thread full with bbcode I am currently compiling] as weekdays means I am back to business in bridging between players and casinos or sportsbook, but...

I think the better term for our DT election system is "democracy" instead of "decentralization". Similar, but different. Decentralization transfer power of administrative and political matter from central being [theymos and the high-end-staffs], democracy elects the "leader" through, well, election, of which equivalent to our DT pipeline and trust and distrust list, namely the ~

The opposite of decentralization is authoritarian, namely power reside in singular beings on top of the system [namely the forum owner]. On the contrary, democracy's is autocracy, of which power are given to selected few, of which... similar to our DT system prior to theymos's "upgrade".

[Vod]

I see it as a simple conflict:  The need to protect newbies vs the interpersonal conflicts.    The solution is not so simple.

[LoyceV]

However, you've put a ~ in front of some of the most trusted members we've got (especially in the Collectibles section).  Retaliatory exclusion/negative trust/etc. isn't a good thing to do in general--and the fact that anyone can do it is, IMO, one of the biggest and longest-standing flaws of the trust system.

Allow me to disagree on the last part: I'd argue it's not a problem that anyone can exclude whoever they like. Exclusions are very simple: the moment you exclude someone from your Trust list, everything on their Trust list becomes completely irrelevant to you. But it'll always be relevant to the creator of that list. This part is actually quite beautiful

[nutildah]

Its time for the segment of the show we call New Rules



New Rule: If you want to be an advocate for reform, don't be an ass. I'm just sayin.



A donkey was never the people's champion, not even in Shrek.



And getting banned was no great PR move either. You're now as relevant to the conversation as Kamala Harris is to the Democrats -- you both blew your big chance and frankly we'd rather forget you happened.



New Rule: A little respect goes a long way. It shouldn't have to be a rule but a reminder isn't good enough. Just like reminding Trump to make the nepotism and graft less obvious... You can say it as many times as you want but he won't listen.



New Rule: If everyone in the room is trying to give you the same advice, on whatever subject it may be, maybe consider taking it?



I think this is where the expression "read the room" comes from. We're not secretly conspiring behind your back to gaslight you and turn you into the villain. By being so unlikable, you've managed to do that on your own.



Besides, as it was once so adequately expressed, "ain't nobody got time for that."

That's our time, thanks for watching folks, and goodnight.