Replacing DefaultTrust

[theymos]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

[1715086052]

1715086052

[TECSHARE]

How is the suggested list selected? At random?

EDIT: to clarify, is this a list of anyone who meets those qualifications selected at random, or do the higher weighted members get displayed more often than the lesser weighted members?

[theymos]

Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:

theymos         |     471.3498 |
Tomatocage      |     192.7250 |
dooglus         |     181.7917 |
BadBear         |     180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine |     153.0830 |
HostFat         |     144.6331 |
gmaxwell        |     133.5581 |
Akka            |     109.1663 |
BCB             |     104.3748 |
escrow.ms       |     101.2499 |
phantastisch    |      99.6915 |
ghibly79        |      65.8998 |
Michail1        |      65.2249 |
Maidak          |      62.5085 |
Sampey          |      61.8499 |
BigBitz         |      58.6833 |
ziomik          |      58.1333 |
malevolent      |      52.4748 |
sublime5447     |      52.4665 |
Stemby          |      51.0416 |
Dabs            |      48.2251 |
Nightowlace     |      47.6417 |
klintay         |      46.5750 |
Raize           |      44.0998 |
bitpop          |      43.7249 |
fhh             |      40.5083 |
zefir           |      39.2083 |
squall1066      |      38.5001 |
philipma1957    |      38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy    |      35.5750 |
KWH             |      35.5581 |
terrapinflyer   |      34.8666 |
binaryFate      |      33.8332 |
Bicknellski     |      33.5084 |
DebitMe         |      30.1501 |
elasticband     |      29.8501 |
TECSHARE        |      29.3915 |
LouReed         |      28.9249 |
2weiX           |      28.6999 |
ManeBjorn       |      27.5749 |
miaviator       |      27.3333 |
androz          |      26.2500 |
bobsag3         |      25.9415 |
nachius         |      25.2916 |
CoinHoarder     |      23.3749 |
mrbrt           |      23.1249 |
EnJoyThis       |      22.5167 |
WEB slicer      |      20.3749 |
Rub3n           |      20.0251 |
Ente            |      18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+

[TECSHARE]

I see TECSHARE is in there.  Maybe he'll stop crying and actually support the forum again.

I never stopped supporting the forum. "The forum" stopped supporting me.

[Vod]

The only problem I see with this system is the top xx people will continue to gain more trust and will pull ahead of the rest of the users.  You're basically replacing the DefaultTrust with those people.

[BadBear]

Actually he wouldn't since he isn't in the top 30.

I'd expect the list to change fairly dramatically once people need to make their own lists instead of relying on default trust though.

I like it. Most people aren't going to stop using default until they have to.

The only problem I see with this system is the top xx people will continue to gain more trust and will pull ahead of the rest of the users.  You're basically replacing the DefaultTrust with those people.

Only if they stay on their lists, and if they do stay on it, then they deserve it don't they?

[dserrano5]

The only problem I see with this system is the top xx people will continue to gain more trust and will pull ahead of the rest of the users.  You're basically replacing the DefaultTrust with those people.

That's my opinion as well, although I concede it's an improvement over the current DefaultTrust as people will have to manually choose who they trust. I'm not sure how randomizing the list helps though, since the page will be displayed only once.

Instead of showing always the 30 best scorers, an alternative would be to show some random 30 among the 50 top, so people blindly ticking all the boxes don't end up trusting the same set of users.

[Vod]

Only if they stay on their lists, and if they do stay on it, then they deserve it don't they?

I don't think most people will actively modify their list.  They will choose it once, when they are forced to, and forget about it.

The top people will eventually pull away from everyone else.

Such an important decision shouldn't be pressed on users right when they join, IMO.

[theymos]

The only problem I see with this system is the top xx people will continue to gain more trust and will pull ahead of the rest of the users.  You're basically replacing the DefaultTrust with those people.

I can make it so people won't have their vote counted if they've only ever used the checkbox thing for modifying their trust list. The suggested people will still have an advantage, but hopefully it should be surmountable.

[adamas]

I don't think most people will actively modify their list.  They will choose it once, when they are forced to, and forget about it.

The top people will eventually pull away from everyone else.

Such an important decision shouldn't be pressed on users right when they join, IMO.

That's what I think.

[theymos]

BTW: I'll probably keep the default trust depth at 2 after this change, which will cause ratings to travel further than they do now. Trust exclusions will be more important.

For example, if someone trusts CanaryInTheMine, then they'll also trust CanaryInTheMine(0) -> bitpop(1) -> El Cabron(2). But if someone trusts both me and CanaryInTheMine, then they'll get theymos(0) -> El Cabron(1), which will exclude El Cabron because it is at a lower depth. I think that this sort of thing will cause the trust system to function more naturally.

[TECSHARE]

The only problem I see with this system is the top xx people will continue to gain more trust and will pull ahead of the rest of the users.  You're basically replacing the DefaultTrust with those people.

That's my opinion as well, although I concede it's an improvement over the current DefaultTrust as people will have to manually choose who they trust. I'm not sure how randomizing the list helps though, since the page will be displayed only once.

Instead of showing always the 30 best scorers, an alternative would be to show some random 30 among the 50 top, so people blindly ticking all the boxes don't end up trusting the same set of users.

Randomizing it within a list of people that meet the basic requirements ensures some users aren't displayed more often than others ensuring that statistically people even picking users at random, those on the displayed list will still get trusted more and therefore more trust points.

Over all I think this is moving in the right direction, but the exclusions almost have the same polar opposite effect as the existing default trust list, only via exclusion instead of inclusion. Having higher ranked users override the trust of others that are trusted pretty much keeps the default trust in effect in that sense. Basically, some one could contribute a lot to the community, but if one person with lots of trust excludes them, then all the lower ranked trusts are overridden, basically negating the decentralized component.

[Parazyd]

I agree with Vod, newbies will probably forget about it when it's set. Perhaps writing up a thread about the trust system and forcing newbies to read it? The text on the current suggest page looks good, but it's important and should be made looking more important.
Maybe a sticky in trust-enabled sections too?

[dserrano5]

Randomizing it within a list of people that meet the basic requirements ensures some users aren't displayed more often than others

But that's not the case right now, the same 30 users are always shown.

[TECSHARE]

Randomizing it within a list of people that meet the basic requirements ensures some users aren't displayed more often than others

But that's not the case right now, the same 30 users are always shown.

In that case all this will do is ensure those 30 users will get high trust rankings and everyone else will be left in the dust. This as you describe it is just another form of the default trust list with a small amount of potential randomization.

[Parazyd]

Randomizing it within a list of people that meet the basic requirements ensures some users aren't displayed more often than others

But that's not the case right now, the same 30 users are always shown.

In that case all this will do is ensure those 30 users will get high trust rankings and everyone else will be left in the dust.

The trust depth is still set at 2. Those 30 people have other people in their trust lists.

[TECSHARE]

Randomizing it within a list of people that meet the basic requirements ensures some users aren't displayed more often than others

But that's not the case right now, the same 30 users are always shown.

In that case all this will do is ensure those 30 users will get high trust rankings and everyone else will be left in the dust.

The trust depth is still set at 2. Those 30 people have other people in their trust lists.

Yes, but my point is that if those are the only 30 displayed they will be the ones getting funneled all of the new user trust (increasing their trust rating) and it will be an endless cycle of more people trusting them producing a huge rift, and basically just reproducing the default trust list in a slightly modified form.

[Parazyd]

Randomizing it within a list of people that meet the basic requirements ensures some users aren't displayed more often than others

But that's not the case right now, the same 30 users are always shown.

In that case all this will do is ensure those 30 users will get high trust rankings and everyone else will be left in the dust.

The trust depth is still set at 2. Those 30 people have other people in their trust lists.

Yes, but my point is that if those are the only 30 displayed they will be the ones getting funneled all of the new user trust (increasing their trust rating) and it will be an endless cycle of more people trusting them producing a huge rift, and basically just reproducing the default trust list in a slightly modified form.

That's maybe why it isn't good for newbies to choose this. You can and should add people you trust to your trust list.
And do/should newbies trust anyone?

[dserrano5]

Yes, but my point is that if those are the only 30 displayed they will be the ones getting funneled all of the new user trust (increasing their trust rating) and it will be an endless cycle of more people trusting them producing a huge rift, and basically just reproducing the default trust list in a slightly modified form.

That's why I suggest to show not the 30 best, but 30 among the X best.

That's maybe why it isn't good for newbies to choose this. You can and should add people you trust to your trust list.

That requires thinking, something a lot of people find so hard that they won't do it.

[haploid23]

It has been mentioned already, but I see this new system only slightly better than DefaultTrust, but not by much. The trust gap between those 30 people and the rest of the forum members will widen over time.

Newbs can't just arbitrarily trust someone they haven't done transactions with or read enough posts to determine who to trust. If they're being forced to pick someone, they'll just pick these "default" suggested 30 people. In principle, see how this is not much different than the current DefaultTrust list? These 30 people will get free boosts without actually having to do anything, they're just simply riding on their preexisting reputation.

[Beastlymac]

Probably one of the better solutions that I have seen for this. Although I agree that a potential issue will be faced of having the 30 trusted members increasing and creating a gap.

Edit: just to clarify these 30 users will act as the new default trust and the rest of the trust system will remain the same so these 30 users will be the new level one. Will we keep oldscammertag?

[TECSHARE]

 I think it might be better to have the suggested list from the qualifying individuals be randomized for one. I agree that having new users do this might not be the best idea, which is why I think randomizing it might help so lazy people just clicking the first few names in front of them don't pick the same users all the time. At least in this manner users can work to earn a trust level to be included in the randomized default choice pool.

I also don't like the idea of a higher trust ranked member being able to exclude completely the trust of a lower ranked members. This is in effect no different than burning a users account with a negative rating via the default trust for nothing more than a personal choice not to trust a user. The trust system shouldn't be a tool of moderation of trust ratings, individuals should be making these distinctions via ratings and trust settings. If someone is out of line they should be appealing to the public of the forum to take action, not using their superior position of trust to negate the trust of others UNLESS there is sufficient evidence they are engaged in fraudulent trade activity and done so in the form of a negative trust rating. The use of exclusions IMO should be averaged out between the 2 users ratings at least, but not completely negated otherwise all that will happen is those with the highest ranks will use exclusions instead of negatives to take non-trade related retribution upon users.

As far as I know there are no standards for exclusions anywhere, so users could therefore make them for any reason and have a significant negative impact on a lower ranked account regardless of how hard they work or how many successful trades they make, they will never be able to recover from it.

Yes, but my point is that if those are the only 30 displayed they will be the ones getting funneled all of the new user trust (increasing their trust rating) and it will be an endless cycle of more people trusting them producing a huge rift, and basically just reproducing the default trust list in a slightly modified form.

That's why I suggest to show not the 30 best, but 30 among the X best.

This sounds like a more reasonable solution to me. Furthermore making the higher weighted users have more likelihood of being displayed is another feedback mechanism that favors higher ranked users over anyone within the acceptable parameters. I think a randomly generated list selected from the users within the acceptable rating, then explained to the user might be more efficient instead of forcing new users to pick from lists of people they likely don't know. They can always update it to include or exclude users later.

[dserrano5]

On a different direction, taking into account the sent feedback could be useful to personalize the list. E.g. if I've given positive feedback to user BitAddict and he's not currently among my trusted users, he could appear in the list.

[theymos]

I changed it so that the 60 users with the most points are selected (minimum 20 points), and then 30 of these are randomly chosen to be displayed. The random sort is now weighted according to points, though, so people with more points are more likely to appear in the list and to appear higher in the list. Otherwise there'd be a good chance that the list would be filled mostly with people who aren't so widely trusted. 20 points isn't really that many.

[Parazyd]

I changed it so that the 60 users with the most points are selected (minimum 20 points), and then 30 of these are randomly chosen to be displayed. The random sort is now weighted according to points, though, so people with more points are more likely to appear in the list and to appear higher in the list. Otherwise there'd be a good chance that the list would be filled mostly with people who aren't so widely trusted. 20 points isn't really that many.

Are we talking about the same point system? 1 point = 1 positive trust rating you got?

[theymos]

Are we talking about the same point system? 1 point = 1 positive trust rating you got?

No.

Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member.

"Trust" here means "added to someone's trust list", not "received a positive trust rating".

[Magic8Ball]

Thing is, its impossible to make the perfect system. The current system makes everybody aware that somebody else has set it. In the new system it will feel like the users themselves have set it all the while it will effectively remain set by somebody else.

I will not take time to go through any list. I will find it annoying and try to click as fast as possible to get it out of the way. I am confident 99% of the members will do the same.

[MadZ]

One of the problems I see with this is how liable it is to be manipulated by purchased accounts, given how numerous they are. It appears that it would be quite easy to add or remove someone from the suggested list with 10 or so accounts with decent activity, if someone wished to do so. It seems to be much more exploitable than the current system, since many people will assume that anyone in the suggested list should be trusted. Also, since trust lists are not public, it will be much harder to tell if someone is manipulating the system than it is right now.

[hilariousandco]

I dunno. I commend you for trying to come up with something better but no system is ever going to be perfect and people will always complain whatever happens. This proposal seems much more confusing than the current one and I'm sure it will be much worse for newbs but I'll need to study it a bit more. I think certain people will be biased for and against each. Those currently on the default list will likely want to stay there with the old system and those not or recently removed will likely want this new one. I'd probably need to see it in action to say whether it's better or not, but I think at the moment I'd rather stick with the current version but am open to change my mind or to other completely different systems or suggestions. One suggestion I would make for the current system is to limit the amount of users people can add to their trust list. Maybe 10-20, and I think this will cut down on people adding masses of people just to boost their own rep.

[Blazed]

Personally I think the current system works fine if we keep allowing public disputes like we have seen lately. When bad feedback is given have it posted in Meta and let the community decide if the feedback was bad/warranted. For a new member to join and be presented with a random list would be pretty confusing imo.

[hilariousandco]

Personally I think the current system works fine if we keep allowing public disputes like we have seen lately. When bad feedback is given have it posted in Meta and let the community decide if the feedback was bad/warranted. For a new member to join and be presented with a random list would be pretty confusing imo.

That's how I feel and that's what I like about the current system as it does work well in these situations. If someone has left an unjust or harsh feedback the recipient of it can bring it up and others can comment on it and it'll usually get removed by the person who left it if it is indeed unjust or harsh. As long as we have rational, decent people in the default trust I think it polices itself pretty well. That being said, I am always open to new ideas or system proposals.

[Blazed]

Personally I think the current system works fine if we keep allowing public disputes like we have seen lately. When bad feedback is given have it posted in Meta and let the community decide if the feedback was bad/warranted. For a new member to join and be presented with a random list would be pretty confusing imo.

That's how I feel and that's what I like about the current system as it does work well in these situations. If someone has left an unjust or harsh feedback the recipient of it can bring it up and others can comment on it and it'll usually get removed by the person who left it if it is indeed unjust or harsh. As long as we have rational, decent people in the default trust I think it polices itself pretty well. That being said, I am always open to new ideas or system proposals.

I agree some changes would not hurt...maybe double check who all is in the initial list. I think anyone being in default level 1 should maintain their lists very carefully since they are very powerful on the forums.

[hilariousandco]

Personally I think the current system works fine if we keep allowing public disputes like we have seen lately. When bad feedback is given have it posted in Meta and let the community decide if the feedback was bad/warranted. For a new member to join and be presented with a random list would be pretty confusing imo.

That's how I feel and that's what I like about the current system as it does work well in these situations. If someone has left an unjust or harsh feedback the recipient of it can bring it up and others can comment on it and it'll usually get removed by the person who left it if it is indeed unjust or harsh. As long as we have rational, decent people in the default trust I think it polices itself pretty well. That being said, I am always open to new ideas or system proposals.

I agree some changes would not hurt...maybe double check who all is in the initial list. I think anyone being in default level 1 should maintain their lists very carefully since they are very powerful on the forums.

Yep. I also concur. Should be very difficult to get on the list and very easy to be removed but if you're an active and decent member there should be no problems. I think the number of people you can add should be limited as I mentioned above. Maybe 20 for level 1 members and 10 for level two or something. These people with the massive trust lists full of nobodies and newbs do nothing but dilute it in my opinion and open the list up to abuse. If you don't have very good reason to trust a person and aren't partially willing to stake your rep on them don't add them to your list.

[BadBear]

I've actually been adding more people lately, I think default trust should have more and a wider variety of people, and more people deserve a chance, and it should be more indicative of the community (though still needs to be accurate). I used to add people regularly but it kept falling off the to do list. Issues will arise but they're easy enough to solve.

I do think we need to move away from default trust though. Yeah some will be lazy and just use the suggestions and forget about it, but no getting around that.

[Blazed]

I am guilty of just using the default list..I find it easier when I see what everyone else sees. I rely on looking at peoples feedback and posts to decide if I should deal with them or not.

Edit: I guess I will start assembling my list once again...I had one, but the mismatch of what others see made me remove it.

[hilariousandco]

I've actually been adding more people lately, I think default trust should have more and a wider variety of people, and more people deserve a chance, and it should be more indicative of the community (though still needs to be accurate). I used to add people regularly but it kept falling off the to do list. Issues will arise but they're easy enough to solve.

I'm all for more people, just not 2-post newbs and users only being put on there to seemingly bolster that persons feedback score.

I am guilty of just using the default list..I find it easier when I see what everyone else sees. I rely on looking at peoples feedback and posts to decide if I should deal with them or not.

I stick to it because I like to see what pretty much everyone else sees. Can be misleading when people see vastly different scores, though I tend to trust people on their role in the community more than feedback points anyway, though the trust system is a good additional guide and is useful for newbs to take into consideration.

[hashie]

Add a 31th checkbox with a free style input, to make it clear to the user you can trust people outside of the list.

Most people will not read that 2 paragraphs you have, they will look and click some boxes and completely ignore the advanced section. You will need to express the concept through design, not through text.

-Queen Elsa (also the person on the forum with the lowest trust score as per DefaultTrust) aww

[Blazr]

(also the person on the forum with the lowest trust score as per DefaultTrust)

Inaba/BFL is lower.

[Vortex20000]

TF is lower, right?

Nah, he's around the same.

Dangit, I'm an avid TF hunter. Loud sigh.

I've actually been adding more people lately, I think default trust should have more and a wider variety of people, and more people deserve a chance, and it should be more indicative of the community (though still needs to be accurate). I used to add people regularly but it kept falling off the to do list. Issues will arise but they're easy enough to solve.

I do think we need to move away from default trust though. Yeah some will be lazy and just use the suggestions and forget about it, but no getting around that.

Perhaps remind users regularly until they achieve a certain activity level to double-check their trust list?

[TECSHARE]

Personally I think the current system works fine if we keep allowing public disputes like we have seen lately. When bad feedback is given have it posted in Meta and let the community decide if the feedback was bad/warranted. For a new member to join and be presented with a random list would be pretty confusing imo.

That's how I feel and that's what I like about the current system as it does work well in these situations. If someone has left an unjust or harsh feedback the recipient of it can bring it up and others can comment on it and it'll usually get removed by the person who left it if it is indeed unjust or harsh. As long as we have rational, decent people in the default trust I think it polices itself pretty well. That being said, I am always open to new ideas or system proposals.

I agree some changes would not hurt...maybe double check who all is in the initial list. I think anyone being in default level 1 should maintain their lists very carefully since they are very powerful on the forums.

Yep. I also concur. Should be very difficult to get on the list and very easy to be removed but if you're an active and decent member there should be no problems. I think the number of people you can add should be limited as I mentioned above. Maybe 20 for level 1 members and 10 for level two or something. These people with the massive trust lists full of nobodies and newbs do nothing but dilute it in my opinion and open the list up to abuse. If you don't have very good reason to trust a person and aren't partially willing to stake your rep on them don't add them to your list.

This kind of sums up why I don't think moderators and staff should have the ability to single handedly burn a users reputation just because they have a high trust rating via exclusion or otherwise. It is clear you see anyone that is not in you clique as being not worthy of being able to make their own determinations in trust, and god forbid they build some authority outside your own.

Moderators and staff serve a function here enforcing general rules, and as a result develop a sort of callousness and hostility to anyone who questions their judgement as a result of this daily grind of dealing with scammers/trolls/spammers etc. Furthermore, as admitted they don't have the time to review each case carefully, yet under this proposed system they are given EVEN MORE ability to completely negate the reputations of users simply by outranking them and excluding them. I was hoping that the dropping of the default trust list also meant an end to the staff lead witch hunts, but the way it is sounding to me they still intend to make moderating trust a primary concern of theirs. STAFF SHOULD NOT BE MODERATING TRUST for any reason - period. They are admittedly unable to give the individual cases proper attention, penalties are nearly impossible to recover from, and any system where people have to defend their trust ratings under penalty of losing their own trust will never be able to be fair because a small handful of individuals are STILL DICTATING to lower level users on the trust list under threat of their own destruction.

Also there will still continue to be endless drama over negative trusts left because these trolls/scammers/extortionists now have a very clear path to harass and extract revenge from trusted users via these requests for trust moderation. Individuals should be making their case to the community, and the community should be making these choices. NOT THE STAFF. They already have massive amounts of authority via the regular forum moderator functions. Giving them complete dominion over the trading system as well is a DISASTER. There should not be a policy of official trust moderation FOR ANY REASON. This should be left up to the user making the claim and the community.

[marcotheminer]

Personally I think the current system works fine if we keep allowing public disputes like we have seen lately. When bad feedback is given have it posted in Meta and let the community decide if the feedback was bad/warranted. For a new member to join and be presented with a random list would be pretty confusing imo.

Seconding this thought.

[hilariousandco]

This kind of sums up why I don't think moderators and staff should have the ability to single handedly burn a users reputation just because they have a high trust rating via exclusion or otherwise.  

lolwut. Staff shouldn't have the ability to single-handedly burn a users reputation(?) but yet that's exactly what you did and want to be able to do again and that's why you're a hypocrite. You need to get out of this mentality that you earned your right to abuse your position of power. Even if we went to your system what happens when people abuse it? You leave neg feedback because someone told you you're selling something that you can get cheaper elsewhere then you ruin their feedback because they 'harass' you when you act like an arse because you can because you're on default trust and they're not? Then I leave you feedback for abusing the system and you return the favour. I tell you I will remove my feedback only when you remove yours and the other but you stubbornly wont remove either until I remove mine and I do the same then we're both ruined and deadlocked with negative. Then someone else leaves us both feedback for being idiots etc.

It is clear you see anyone that is not in you clique as being not worthy of being able to make their own determinations in trust, and god forbid they build some authority outside your own.

No. I just don't think people should use the default trust as a blackmailing tool to get someone who isn't in their clique to shut up and someone shouldn't be adding a newb with three posts just because they left them feedback. That feedback should quite rightly be untrusted but they add that person to their list so it becomes trusted and both cases are abuse of the system. You loved this trust clique and the power it gave you all up until the point you were removed. Tired of explaining this and reading your same old argument.

Actually, can we implement this new system to shut techshare up. No doubt it'll backfire on him somehow and he'll still complain.

[Parazyd]

^^ On top of this, I'd personally implement not being able to remove feedback and being able to leave multiple points/feedback.
If someone deserves a negative, you can give one to them. And if they, for example, stop scamming and become a better user - you leave them another +1 feedback and get them back on track, while leaving their scamming history and allowing users to see what happened in the past. Because what's stopping you from scamming someone when you have +10 trust points?
I for one think we should be able to see the entire account history and see what they did - trust-wise - the entire time they've been registered on BT.

[Lauda]

The solution doesn't (can't) have to be perfect, only better than what we currently have, right?
Well this is worth a shot, although I do agree with what Vod said.

[hilariousandco]

^^ On top of this, I'd personally implement not being able to remove feedback?

Why? What if you're wrong or you change your mind? Feedbacks aren't always for scamming and people can always change or improve over time.

[DiamondCardz]

A recommended trust list should still remain and be copied from DefaultTrust, but not automatically enabled, if you're going to do this. I don't want to have to build an entire trust list from scratch, and having some kind of trust list like DefaultTrust does help to make most members on the board have a general idea of who is trustworthy and who isn't.

Unfortunately a basic reputation system like the ones on MyBB forums can't work due to the vast amount of Newbie trolls/scammers. It's a shame.

[takagari]

Well I'm glad my threads have started a bit of a discussion.
regardless that it only somewhat helped me

Why have a default anyway? why is one needed at all?

The issue with not being able to counter or argue feedback, (Especially to the trusted members) is a huge one.

If a noob leaves a BS comment, that's one thing.
If a trusted member does, there should be a method to counter or argue and if the person is found to be leaving BS feedback, they should be removed from the list.

[dogie]

What happens with the other side of the abuse, such as BFL's trust competition abuse? A modern day version would be one person making multiple smurfs and hammering people they don't like using many accounts. Now unless someone more powerful comes in and red's all those accounts, it hurt's that user's rating inappropriately.

I also echo the messages that these core members will simply get stronger and stronger ratings and its virtually impossible for anyone to ever catch up with them or replace one of them. I don't have a solution, I'm just not sure if its a good thing.

[Parazyd]

^^ On top of this, I'd personally implement not being able to remove feedback?

Why? What if you're wrong or you change your mind? Feedbacks aren't always for scamming and people can always change or improve over time.

If you change your mind, you'd simply leave another +1 or -1, respectively.

[hilariousandco]

^^ On top of this, I'd personally implement not being able to remove feedback?

Why? What if you're wrong or you change your mind? Feedbacks aren't always for scamming and people can always change or improve over time.

If you change your mind, you'd simply leave another +1 or -1, respectively.

But what if what you left is completely wrong? Or you made a typo  .

[Parazyd]

^^ On top of this, I'd personally implement not being able to remove feedback?

Why? What if you're wrong or you change your mind? Feedbacks aren't always for scamming and people can always change or improve over time.

If you change your mind, you'd simply leave another +1 or -1, respectively.

But what if what you left is completely wrong? Or you made a typo  .

You'd be smart enough to check, and state your error in the next feedback you post.
OR
Allowing feedback to be deleted within 5-10 minutes of leaving it.

[Beastlymac]

^^ On top of this, I'd personally implement not being able to remove feedback?

Why? What if you're wrong or you change your mind? Feedbacks aren't always for scamming and people can always change or improve over time.

If you change your mind, you'd simply leave another +1 or -1, respectively.

But what if what you left is completely wrong? Or you made a typo  .

You'd be smart enough to check, and state your error in the next feedback you post.
OR
Allowing feedback to be deleted within 5-10 minutes of leaving it.

You can already leave multiple trust ratings. So you can already do what you have described. I think that changing it so that feedback can't be altered would cause to many issues.

[TECSHARE]

This kind of sums up why I don't think moderators and staff should have the ability to single handedly burn a users reputation just because they have a high trust rating via exclusion or otherwise.  

lolwut. Staff shouldn't have the ability to single-handedly burn a users reputation(?) but yet that's exactly what you did and want to be able to do again and that's why you're a hypocrite. You need to get out of this mentality that you earned your right to abuse your position of power. Even if we went to your system what happens when people abuse it? You leave neg feedback because someone told you you're selling something that you can get cheaper elsewhere then you ruin their feedback because they 'harass' you when you act like an arse because you can because you're on default trust and they're not? Then I leave you feedback for abusing the system and you return the favour. I tell you I will remove my feedback only when you remove yours and the other but you stubbornly wont remove either until I remove mine and I do the same then we're both ruined and deadlocked with negative. Then someone else leaves us both feedback for being idiots etc.

It is clear you see anyone that is not in you clique as being not worthy of being able to make their own determinations in trust, and god forbid they build some authority outside your own.

No. I just don't think people should use the default trust as a blackmailing tool to get someone who isn't in their clique to shut up and someone shouldn't be adding a newb with three posts just because they left them feedback. That feedback should quite rightly be untrusted but they add that person to their list so it becomes trusted and both cases are abuse of the system. You loved this trust clique and the power it gave you all up until the point you were removed. Tired of explaining this and reading your same old argument.

Actually, can we implement this new system to shut techshare up. No doubt it'll backfire on him somehow and he'll still complain.

It is really amazing to me that with all the ACTUAL ABUSE of the trust system by people like VOD and other "scambusters" going completely ignored, you feel as if my one use of trust that you didn't approve of personally was "blackmail" and and unforgivable attempt to "extort" another user to "shut up". You are taking quite a few liberties with your narrative, in addition to claiming the psychic abilities to know what happens in my mind. You aren't explaining anything, just making up some bullshit narrative to justify your overreaction, vitriol, and attempt to invalidate any of my valid complaints. It is very clear that you are unable to control your emotional state regarding this issue and this has become a personal mission for you.

Furthermore you act as if there is no gap between "a noob with three posts" and the trust list level, this is another glaring misrepresentation. You take everything I say and apply the most extreme interpretation of it as possible to attempt to invalidate the idea. People should be able to make trust networks outside of the clutches of jaded angry children like hilariousandco and VOD. 

If you bothered to actually consider what I said in my posts between your hyperventilating, you would see I am asking for people on the "default list" to have LESS POWER to completely destroy people, and along with that there should be a corresponding removal of any officially staff run trust moderation. This lessens a single individuals ability to burn a user singlehandedly, and also removes the ability for random trolls to create infighting and extort trusted users simply trying to protect their HARD EARNED trust by making endless false complaints.

You claim you don't want the default trust used as a blackmailing tool, but you only want to stop the abuse from ONE DIRECTION, and it just to happens to be a form of abuse you will never personally suffer from because you have all kinds of fun moderator buttons at your fingertips. The REST OF US have to use the tools we have available. If the default trust can be used by more powerful members to negate a users trust ratings, and if trust is moderated IN ANY WAY, then the default trust can ACTUALLY be used to extort users into compliance by ANYONE making a complaint about a rating. Of course since you are staff that will never be a issue for you because you are in the boys club, so why should anyone else be protected from this form of extortion? 

[theymos]

I don't usually do this, but I'm very unsure about whether DefaultTrust or this new system is better, so I added a poll. My decision will be significantly influenced by the poll, but not absolutely decided by it. I will disregard votes by people below a certain member rank. I might also publish the votes.

If someone only ever uses the checkboxes to edit their trust list, then I will make it so that this doesn't increase the "suggestion points" of the people they select. (This isn't implemented yet.)

[Vod]

FYI, I added the top 15 people in your list to my trust settings, and accounts that were proven scammers were showing up in my trusted feedback list.   

I like using just DefaultTrust as it shows me what the community thinks about a person.  I will probably never add individual users to my trust list, and therefore I won't qualify to be on your top 30. 

[Gyfts]

I think this will benefit people in the forums who aren't new. In my opinion, the trust system should be used more towards newbies because they are the most vulnerable to scams. When they're redirected to that page and forced to choose new users to add to their trust circle, most likely they'll blindly pick members which won't serve a use for them. It's improvement, but I'm not sure if it will be used to its full extent by new users. It's their loss nonetheless.

[Beastlymac]

Its not an easy thing to change as both systems do help the community but are easily exploitable by certain people.

[Vod]

I think this will benefit people in the forums who aren't new. In my opinion, the trust system should be used more towards newbies because they are the most vulnerable to scams. When they're redirected to that page and forced to choose new users to add to their trust circle, most likely they'll blindly pick members which won't serve a use for them. It's improvement, but I'm not sure if it will be used to its full extent by new users. It's their loss nonetheless.

Gyfts has a good idea.  What if you made the new system pop up once a user reached Member or some other status?  That way newbies are protected by DefaultTrust but as they get to know the forum better they can choose who they trust.

[TECSHARE]

I think this will benefit people in the forums who aren't new. In my opinion, the trust system should be used more towards newbies because they are the most vulnerable to scams. When they're redirected to that page and forced to choose new users to add to their trust circle, most likely they'll blindly pick members which won't serve a use for them. It's improvement, but I'm not sure if it will be used to its full extent by new users. It's their loss nonetheless.

Gyfts has a good idea.  What if you made the new system pop up once a user reached Member or some other status?  That way newbies are protected by DefaultTrust but as they get to know the forum better they can choose who they trust.

This is just the same abusable system repackaged. Furthermore it doesn't serve real newbies at all. By the time they have reached member status they likely don't need the trust system any more to decide who is reliable.

[hilariousandco]

It is really amazing to me that with all the ACTUAL ABUSE of the trust system by people like VOD and other "scambusters" going completely ignored, you feel as if my one use of trust that you didn't approve of personally was "blackmail" and and unforgivable attempt to "extort" another user to "shut up". You are taking quite a few liberties with your narrative, in addition to claiming the psychic abilities to know what happens in my mind.

Other instances of abuse doesn't validate yours or invalidate the decision against you. I think vod has over-stepped the mark a few times recently but he will usually do something to remedy it. You didn't. 

You aren't explaining anything, just making up some bullshit narrative to justify your overreaction, vitriol, and attempt to invalidate any of my valid complaints. It is very clear that you are unable to control your emotional state regarding this issue and this has become a personal mission for you.

The only person here with a bullshit narrative and who is 'unable to control their emotional state' is you and I don't have a personal mission (unlike you) but I'm just responding to your bullshit.  You just can't look at this from any other angle and attempt to pass the blame on to others who may or may not be abusing the system. Regardless of that, you still abused it. Is it unforgivable? No, but you could've sorted this out all by yourself but you acted stubbornly and immaturely and are continuing to do do. 

Furthermore you act as if there is no gap between "a noob with three posts" and the trust list level, this is another glaring misrepresentation.

You can add a 3-post newb to your trust list if you want, but I don't think that's the sort of behaviour people on the default trust list should have, especially when it is quite clear that person has only been trusted to boost their own feedback. Stop trying to distract from the point at hand. 

If you bothered to actually consider what I said in my posts between your hyperventilating[...]

jaded angry children

No, I've considered it. You're the only hyperventilating jaded, angry child here. One that by the looks of it is never going to stop throwing a temper tantrum all over the place until he gets his own way. 

you would see I am asking for people on the "default list" to have LESS POWER to completely destroy people, and along with that there should be a corresponding removal of any officially staff run trust moderation.

I don't see how this system would work. The current one works fine as long as we have rational people who can handle their position responsibly and when they can't they get rightfully removed, but of course people will either love or hate certain staff or people being in control when things do or don't go their way. Armis is probably quite thankful they stepped in for this instance. 

This lessens a single individuals ability to burn a user singlehandedly, and also removes the ability for random trolls to create infighting and extort trusted users simply trying to protect their HARD EARNED trust by making endless false complaints.

This is your biggest mistake. You think you earned the right to abuse your position and it's irrelevant because your trust and trade history has been left untouched only your ability to leave such trusted feedbacks has been revoked, but that was your own wrong doing. 

You claim you don't want the default trust used as a blackmailing tool, but you only want to stop the abuse from ONE DIRECTION, and it just to happens to be a form of abuse you will never personally suffer from because you have all kinds of fun moderator buttons at your fingertips. The REST OF US have to use the tools we have available. If the default trust can be used by more powerful members to negate a users trust ratings, and if trust is moderated IN ANY WAY, then the default trust can ACTUALLY be used to extort users into compliance by ANYONE making a complaint about a rating. Of course since you are staff that will never be a issue for you because you are in the boys club, so why should anyone else be protected from this form of extortion?  

What fun buttons are those? The ability to move threads? Whoop-de-doo. Moderators can't do much on this forum apart from that and if we abused our power in even the slightest infraction I'm sure we'd have to account for it.  And besides, I have - or you had - the same power as me as does anyone who is on defaultrust and if I abused it in the same fashion as you did I would likely be removed from the list and maybe even as a moderator, that is of course unless I would be willing to see the error of my ways and compromise, which you didn't do. The difference between me and you is I can likely handle the situation maturely without having to resort to feedback abuse in an attempt to get somecone to do what I want (which is what you did by your own admission). Someone wants to troll or harass or state I'm selling something overpriced? Go right ahead. I can rise above it or deal with it without resorting to the feedback system. 

Maybe we should just agree to disagree because this isn't going to ever go anywhere. You think you're right and hard done by and I think you over-reacted and used the system as blackmail and clearly neither of us are going to change our opinion on the subject but I'm getting bored of rephrasing the same old argument to your rehashed points especially over such a petty matter and I'm sure you feel the same. 

[Quickseller]

My major concern is that there are very few people who give negative trust to scammers and potential scammers. I would say that tomatocage and Vod are generally the only users that do this on a regular basis (I believe that John K. is also somewhat active in doing this but not as much). Looking at Vod's sent feedback, it looks like most of the users he has given negative trust to have a the 2nd number of -1 (meaning they only have one trusted scam report). The same holds true with Tomatocage's sent feedback (although there did seem to be more users with a -2 for their second score). Especially concerning is that tomatocage has given negative trust to a lot of imposters that have a 2nd trust number of -1. The new system is obviously a work in progress but it does not seem that it would even be a guarantee that either Vod or tomatocage would even be an option to use the checkboxes to add them to your trust list (a user would need to manually do this). I would say this will result in a lot of newer traders potentially only trusting people who are not very active in giving trust (positive or negative) or that no one who works hard in calling out scammers will be in their trust list.

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer. Under the current system (especially with the addition of the new feature of being able to exclude someone from your trust list), if say TF were to suddenly scam (if you were to look at this as of prior to the inputs 'hack') he could quickly and easily be removed from anyone who uses the default settings' trust network. With the proposed system, each user would need to manually remove TF (in this example) from their trust network which will probably not be updated very often. Users may or may not set a trust network and "forget it" but I don't think they will, as a general rule check places like scam accusations on a regular basis to make sure a new scammer who was previously trusted is removed from their network.

I would say that the people who are trusted by default trust should have a somewhat large trust network and be active in adding (and removing as necessary) users to their trust network. I don't think it is necessary to have people like OgNasty and SaltySpitoon on level 1 default trust because they have a very small trust network, having them there doesn't accomplish very much (although they both should certainly be trusted enough to be on level two default trust aka default trust network). I also think we shouldn't have people like CanaryInTheMine who add everyone and their brother they have ever done business with as this will result in people in default trust network that should realistically not be there.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

[Quickseller]

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

To clarify, under the current system if someone wants to purchase an account on default trust list, they need to invest (and risk) a lot of money they will potentially lose if they are caught scamming. They will get one chance before they are called out as a scammer and likely removed from default trust list. Under the proposed system the initial investment would likely be somewhat higher however you would have many more chances to attempt to pull off a scam as the incremental cost to scam with a 2nd account would be very low.

Additionally it would be easy for the seller to keep track of what a default trust list account is doing under the current system while under the new system this would not be possible.

[TECSHARE]

It is really amazing to me that with all the ACTUAL ABUSE of the trust system by people like VOD and other "scambusters" going completely ignored, you feel as if my one use of trust that you didn't approve of personally was "blackmail" and and unforgivable attempt to "extort" another user to "shut up". You are taking quite a few liberties with your narrative, in addition to claiming the psychic abilities to know what happens in my mind.

Other instances of abuse doesn't validate yours or invalidate the decision against you. I think vod has over-stepped the mark a few times recently but he will usually do something to remedy it. You didn't. 

Usually? Why is it that "usually" is ok for VOD with stacks of accusations against him while a single accusation against me was grounds for my removal? He CONTINUES to make these "mistakes" and often goes even further by insulting and antagonizing users who make claims against him instead of fixing the situation like he should. Furthermore I have seen MANY complaints against VOD go COMPLETELY IGNORED by staff.

You aren't explaining anything, just making up some bullshit narrative to justify your overreaction, vitriol, and attempt to invalidate any of my valid complaints. It is very clear that you are unable to control your emotional state regarding this issue and this has become a personal mission for you.

The only person here with a bullshit narrative and who is 'unable to control their emotional state' is you and I don't have a personal mission (unlike you) but I'm just responding to your bullshit.  You just can't look at this from any other angle and attempt to pass the blame on to others who may or may not be abusing the system. Regardless of that, you still abused it. Is it unforgivable? No, but you could've sorted this out all by yourself but you acted stubbornly and immaturely and are continuing to do do. 

So I see, me responding is a bullshit narrative, but when you respond it is just responding. You were more than willing to fling accusations against me from the very first moment I objected to this logic. Additionally I see your replies to me filled with insults, exaggerations, slander, and flat out lies against me. I have not treated you in the same manner regardless of how offensive you find me questioning your authority. Furthermore, the entire reason I was in the situation I was in was because of users like VOD being allowed to use the system in the way he does, with no explicit rules posted anywhere. Some how I am just supposed to know this is ok for him, but not ok for anyone else.

This isn't passing the blame, this is pointing out the ambiguity and double standards of policy enforcement around here. I admitted my mistake in placing a value to the trust and CORRECTED IT IMMEDIATELY upon request. No one ASKED me to agree to be on the default trust. I never agreed to represent the community, I was just placed there one day without explanation for conducting myself exceptionally over 3 years. Yet some how I am supposed to know these unwritten rules only apply to people like me and do not apply to people like VOD. I could have sorted this all out, but instead the staff got involved and left myself and Armis in a worse state that than when we started. Nothing was restored for either of us. Instead of restorative justice being worked out between Armis and myself, the staff got involved and metered out punishment leaving us both in a worse position, end of story.

Furthermore you act as if there is no gap between "a noob with three posts" and the trust list level, this is another glaring misrepresentation.

You can add a 3-post newb to your trust list if you want, but I don't think that's the sort of behaviour people on the default trust list should have, especially when it is quite clear that person has only been trusted to boost their own feedback. Stop trying to distract from the point at hand. 

Here you go again with your application of extremist ideas to me that I do not support. I do not want to add 3 post newbs to my trust list, but you act as if there is nothing between new ignorant misguided users and the untouchable infallible royalty making decisions such as yourself. If anyone is misrepresenting things it is you.

If you bothered to actually consider what I said in my posts between your hyperventilating[...]

jaded angry children

No, I've considered it. You're the only hyperventilating jaded, angry child here. One that by the looks of it is never going to stop throwing a temper tantrum all over the place until he gets his own way. 

 What am I jaded from? I don't have to police the forum all day, you do. Any time some one questions your decisions it is always the same accusations of "conspiracy", "paranoia", and claims of ulterior motives. No one is allowed to react to posts except for you, and if anyone else does well it simply is not legitimate. Me vociferously arguing my points is not equivalent to a temper tantrum, but please make some more accusations against me while you insult, slander, and blow everything I say out of proportion, maybe someone will be convinced you do not have trouble controlling yourself, and you aren't jaded from all the bullshit that you are forced to deal with on this forum on a daily basis.

you would see I am asking for people on the "default list" to have LESS POWER to completely destroy people, and along with that there should be a corresponding removal of any officially staff run trust moderation.

I don't see how this system would work. The current one works fine as long as we have rational people who can handle their position responsibly and when they can't they get rightfully removed, but of course people will either love or hate certain staff or people being in control when things do or don't go their way. Armis is probably quite thankful they stepped in for this instance. 

Clearly that is true, because VOD is clearly rational, can handle his position responsibly, and is very clearly checked by the staff when he is out of line /sarc

What does Armis have to be thankful for? Al you did was remove me from the default trust, he still has a negative rating and red on his name. YOU DIDN'T FIX ANYTHING, you just caused more damage. If however you didn't give him the impression you were going to "fix" the feedback for him he wouldn't have tried to hard to slander me to try to get his trust "fixed", and he would have negotiated with me and removed his slander, and I would have removed his negative rating, a solution which I PUBLICLY OFFERED HIM. Why should he even have a discussion with me if he was under the belief you would fix it for him, and he would get his way anyway?

This lessens a single individuals ability to burn a user singlehandedly, and also removes the ability for random trolls to create infighting and extort trusted users simply trying to protect their HARD EARNED trust by making endless false complaints.

This is your biggest mistake. You think you earned the right to abuse your position and it's irrelevant because your trust and trade history has been left untouched only your ability to leave such trusted feedbacks has been revoked, but that was your own wrong doing. 

What you define as abuse I define as a justified use of trust. I never once tried to lie about why I left the trust, and in fact I took several steps to try to deescalate the situation while Armis only escalated from his very first contact with me. He had no desire to do anything but harass me, and the staff helped him rather than asking him to account for his behavior. Of course if he hurts my ability to sell that does not affect you, so why should you care or even respond to my reports against him? It is much easier to just burn down my trust as an example to other to obey the staff dictates or else. Meanwhile people like VOD build whole pages full of complaints against him that go ignored. Sounds like uniform enforcement of policy to me.

You claim you don't want the default trust used as a blackmailing tool, but you only want to stop the abuse from ONE DIRECTION, and it just to happens to be a form of abuse you will never personally suffer from because you have all kinds of fun moderator buttons at your fingertips. The REST OF US have to use the tools we have available. If the default trust can be used by more powerful members to negate a users trust ratings, and if trust is moderated IN ANY WAY, then the default trust can ACTUALLY be used to extort users into compliance by ANYONE making a complaint about a rating. Of course since you are staff that will never be a issue for you because you are in the boys club, so why should anyone else be protected from this form of extortion?  

What fun buttons are those? The ability to move threads? Whoop-de-doo. Moderators can't do much on this forum apart from that and if we abused our power in even the slightest infraction I'm sure we'd have to account for it.  And besides, I have - or you had - the same power as me as does anyone who is on defaultrust and if I abused it in the same fashion as you did I would likely be removed from the list and maybe even as a moderator, that is of course unless I would be willing to see the error of my ways and compromise, which you didn't do. The difference between me and you is I can likely handle the situation maturely without having to resort to feedback abuse in an attempt to get somecone to do what I want (which is what you did by your own admission). Someone wants to troll or harass or state I'm selling something overpriced? Go right ahead. I can rise above it or deal with it without resorting to the feedback system. 

Maybe we should just agree to disagree because this isn't going to ever go anywhere. You think you're right and hard done by and I think you over-reacted and used the system as blackmail and clearly neither of us are going to change our opinion on the subject but I'm getting bored of rephrasing the same old argument to your rehashed points especially over such a petty matter and I'm sure you feel the same. 

As a moderator you have the ear of people with the ability to destroy trust ratings and ban people. Of course they will take your word EVERY TIME over any one else making a complaint. Staff are chosen to police the forum, but when that same police like attitude is applied to the trust system is becomes EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE. It is almost an OCD like need to demand perfection in the trust system while you yourself admit you have no time to properly examine these cases, yet you have no problems making conclusions about them with a superficial review. This should be left up to the user base, not staff who can easily rally mobs with little or no effort simply by making a hasty conclusion. All this behavior does is burns precious honest users while scammers, trolls, and extortionists laugh at how easy you have made it for them to rip out the core of the community over unforgivable technical infractions.

[takagari]

Could dipshits like VOD get off the list?

Than I'm all for it.
If your going to be on the default list, you should have SOME sort of responsibilities.

[BadBear]

Sweet a bunch of new posts, there should be lots of good discussion about replacing defaulttru...oh.  

Good job guys.

[koshgel]

The only way to gain trust points is by adding 10 people to your trust list?

What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?

[Vod]

The only way to gain trust points is by adding 10 people to your trust list?

What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?

At least 10 people.

Then you have to add the person you don't trust with a ~ in front of their name.

[koshgel]

The only way to gain trust points is by adding 10 people to your trust list?

What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?

Then you have to add the person you don't trust with a ~ in front of their name.

Can't believe I never knew this. Thanks!

Don't really see how the new system would be an advantage over the old one. Prone to the same abuses.

The only change would be forcing people to add users to their trust? Most will probably add Theymos, Badbear etc and they rarely leave negative trust as it is. Not really combating scammers.

[Vod]

Don't really see how the new system would be an advantage over the old one. Prone to the same abuses.

[CanaryInTheMine]

has anyone put together a concise pros and cons between current and proposed systems?

expanding the defaulttrust is a very good idea, whether this is achieved by expanding current list or by implementing the proposed system,  the forum will be better off.  More honest folks should get into deftrust.

[freedomno1]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

It seems like an interesting system since people will be able to choose from a list of active users whom they wish to trust
New Users will get a blank slate and people can still view Trust for additional information
Only burden I see is that people are lazy enough to not look at show other comments in the trust pane otherwise I think its worth a shot myself.

As for the intricate details surviving a BFL attack of a lot of trust ratings being sent that are false
Or the case of having a powerful user marking a new user and destroying their reputation prematurely this system still has similar pros and cons to default trust, the main difference being that the main users with weighting remain influential in this one for a while even if they get scammer ratings from other members.

If I read this correctly that would be only occur as long as their points are not pushed down rapidly by others, but if I read it correctly in the worst case if there are 3 people on the trust list, and one of them becomes a scammer then the list is effectively two but the person keeps the scammer in question in their default trust for a long duration of time, even if the point value goes down and the members they trusted doesn't seem like it would be a large issue if those trades were trustworthy up to that point though.

As it is Oldscammer Tag/Default Trust could be users as well, perhaps using an extended trust list + personal selections.

Still on the trust no one by default view
(Except Theymos since it put you in the list by default hehe)

[kcud_dab]

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:

Why do you want to suggest members that the user will probably not know?
User shouldn't be force to select 3 random people that he never has interaction with!
Trust list should be empty at the beginning without any suggestion...

[Vod]

Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.

I think the vocal people are the minority.  Most people are happy with the way things are being handled.

[hilariousandco]

Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.

How can we view the results or is it just admins?

[freedomno1]

Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.

How can we view the results or is it just admins?

Well I can't see it as well H@C and since your at staff level it must be an admin only poll.
Will just need to trust Badbear on this one.

[Lauda]

I think that in this case it actually matters who voted for what.
One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?

[hilariousandco]

Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.

How can we view the results or is it just admins?

Well I can't see it as well H@C and since your at staff level it must be an admin only poll.
Will just need to trust Badbear on this one.

What if BadBear is feeding us false information in an attempt to swing the vote in his favour so he can keep hold of his defaulttrust tyranny?  

I think that in this case it actually matters who voted for what.
One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?

They could and I'm sure theymos will take that into consideration and/or look out for abuse.

[freedomno1]

What if BadBear is feeding us false information in an attempt to swing the vote in his favour so he can keep hold of his defaulttrust tyranny?  

Then it is all moving in accordance with the grand master plan  H@C

I think that in this case it actually matters who voted for what.
One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?

Well I'm sure they will unlock the results later
I guess its possible if your bored enough to modify a meta polls result seems like a pain though, best way around that is a very large sample size.

[EFS]

It's not the best solution but still better than Default Trust. I voted for Yes.

[Mitchell]

It's not better than Default Trust, so I voted for No. Forcing newbies to pick people to add to their trust list isn't the way to go.

[BadBear]

How can we view the results or is it just admins?

Must be, oops. Looks like any other poll to me.

[MadZ]

It's not better than Default Trust, so I voted for No. Forcing newbies to pick people to add to their trust list isn't the way to go.

This. Default Trust might not be perfect, but I don't believe the proposed changes would be an improvement.

[EFS]

Newbies already forced with Default Trust depth 2 if they don't change it, that's why its default. How couldn't it be better?

[hilariousandco]

Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.

How can we view the results or is it just admins?

Must be, oops. Looks like any other poll to me.

Ha, nice try covering your tracks  . Seriously, was wondering whether you didn't realise everyone else couldn't see it.

It's not better than Default Trust, so I voted for No. Forcing newbies to pick people to add to their trust list isn't the way to go.

This. Default Trust might not be perfect, but I don't believe the proposed changes would be an improvement.

Same. I am all for suggestions for improvements or even an entirely new system, but I don't think this is it. I commend theymos for trying though. It's not an easy task to try create a new system workable/ideal or not but even with its few flaws the current system is probably the best solution.

Newbies already forced with Default Trust depth 2 if they don't change it, that's why its default. How couldn't it be better?

But the list is already compiled of (largely) trustable people from the community so it's hard to go wrong. Newbs just joining wont know who to add at all, but once they get the gist of the current system they can add and remove people as they like.

[SaltySpitoon]

I'd just make it simpler, and remove all scores and numbers and trust lists, and just have it as a feedback system. Before you deal with someone, you check what people have to say, be it that they are a jerk, or that they aren't trustworthy with money. A huge problem is that people don't read what people were left feedback for. If I have a -1 for scamming someone and a -1 for being an unpleasant businessperson those two things shouldn't hold equal weight. With the numeric system, people see that -1 that someone recieved for a personality issue, and internalize that they are a scammer. If its just a list of feedback with trusted/untrusted gone, people will have to read through the list, see what feedback they find important to their situation, and judge based on the person leaving the feedback.

Or perhaps have a default trust system until members have X activity so newbies can be somewhat protected, but people will be forced to get off of the default trust system by the time they know how things work around here. I am pretty indifferent about the trust system as it is, because I use it entirely differently than most people. But, it has been pretty effective for its original intentions thusfar in helping out new members and allow early warning of scammy behavior for those that might not see the signs themselves. The majority of issues that have arose are with lists, how large/small they should be, how often they should be updated, who should do the updating, etc. Get rid of all trusted lists, and its not a problem.

[TECSHARE]

I'd just make it simpler, and remove all scores and numbers and trust lists, and just have it as a feedback system. Before you deal with someone, you check what people have to say, be it that they are a jerk, or that they aren't trustworthy with money. A huge problem is that people don't read what people were left feedback for. If I have a -1 for scamming someone and a -1 for being an unpleasant businessperson those two things shouldn't hold equal weight. With the numeric system, people see that -1 that someone recieved for a personality issue, and internalize that they are a scammer. If its just a list of feedback with trusted/untrusted gone, people will have to read through the list, see what feedback they find important to their situation, and judge based on the person leaving the feedback.

Or perhaps have a default trust system until members have X activity so newbies can be somewhat protected, but people will be forced to get off of the default trust system by the time they know how things work around here. I am pretty indifferent about the trust system as it is, because I use it entirely differently than most people. But, it has been pretty effective for its original intentions thusfar in helping out new members and allow early warning of scammy behavior for those that might not see the signs themselves. The majority of issues that have arose are with lists, how large/small they should be, how often they should be updated, who should do the updating, etc. Get rid of all trusted lists, and its not a problem.

This

[medUSA]

I think trust depth should always be zero. I trust one member, it doesn't mean other members he trusts are trustworthy to me.

There is a new concept I wish to propose, not sure if it is possible: Trust can expire
(Updated like the activity score every 2 weeks)

Let's say some member is trusted 2 years ago for doing one trade and have not completed another trade since. He is no longer active on the forum. Should this member still be trusted? and those he trusted are still trustworthy? I believe there are problems when members are trusted once, becomes trusted "forever".

[redsn0w]

I think the new improvement of theymos will be better than the actual , and maybe all the users will learn to "compile" their own list.

[dogie]

It's not the best solution but still better than Default Trust. I voted for Yes.

Why don't we / others brainstorm different models and vote on all of them? There doesn't have to be just one alternative.

[Parazyd]

I think the new improvement of theymos will be better than the actual , and maybe all the users will learn to "compile" their own list.

That said, members should be reminded of the trust system with a sticky or an announcement in the trust-enabled sections.

[hilariousandco]

It's not the best solution but still better than Default Trust. I voted for Yes.

Why don't we / others brainstorm different models and vote on all of them? There doesn't have to be just one alternative.

Nothing to stop you or anyone else. I encourage the discussion of alternative models but people will ever agree on one and there will always be issues. I can't envision any feedback system that will work anywhere near perfectly here.

[TECSHARE]

It's not the best solution but still better than Default Trust. I voted for Yes.

Why don't we / others brainstorm different models and vote on all of them? There doesn't have to be just one alternative.

This is why I haven't voted for the current system as it is. I like the suggestion of removing default trust lists completely. The whole trust system was a partial success but is causing more problems in other ways that must be addressed. I think a step backward is what we need , and then remind users they are responsible for vetting their own trading partners. Red and green numbers oversimplify things and make it easy to abuse the system in many ways.

[dogie]

It's not the best solution but still better than Default Trust. I voted for Yes.

Why don't we / others brainstorm different models and vote on all of them? There doesn't have to be just one alternative.

Nothing to stop you or anyone else. I encourage the discussion of alternative models but people will ever agree on one and there will always be issues. I can't envision any feedback system that will work anywhere near perfectly here.

Yeah I'll make up some ratings so we can evaluate the ideas we currently have, to see what they do well and what they do badly. Then we can modularise some of those elements to come up with more ideas.

[MadZ]

Newbies already forced with Default Trust depth 2 if they don't change it, that's why its default. How couldn't it be better?

There are two main reasons why I think Default Trust is the better alternative. First of all, it is fairly transparent, and this provides for accountability. The trust lists of everyone at depth 1 are public, which has historically kept Default Trust mostly comprised of reputable members. This is not the case with the "suggested trust" list under the new system. People are added onto this list based on the trust lists of everyone over full member. These lists are entirely private and anonymous, unlike direct positive/negative feedback, which I think is dangerous. It would be fairly easy to manipulate the "suggested trust" list as an individual, and even easier as a group. One could essentially buy their way onto the "suggested trust" list by purchasing or creating a decent number of accounts and adding themselves to the accounts' trust lists/negatively trusting other accounts to lower their comparable trust values. People complain that Default Trust is an "old boys network", this will be even more true under the proposed system. It will be very easy for a group of high activity accounts to trust one another and solidify their places in the trust network without actually earning them. Activity has nothing to do with trading and should not be the basis for the underlying trust values accounts hold, which this system seems to suggest it should.

The other issue I see is how difficult it is to actually build one's own trust network from scratch. This isn't an issue to most people debating over the two systems, since we already have a good idea of who we do and do not trust on the forums, regardless of which system is used. This isn't true of a new user. Take a look at someone like Vod's trust without anyone on your trust list (everyone's feedback is untrusted and they are at +0/-0) and no knowledge of the users' histories who have left him trust. I would not add Vod to my personal trust list if I was a new user, since the majority of his feedback is negative, and I have no reason to believe that his positive feedback carries a lot of weight. Obviously, Vod is a very trustworthy user, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't have a history on the forums.

My point here is that Default Trust gives a new user a good starting point about who to trust and who not to trust, while this new system asks them to pick their own "Default Trust" pretty much at random, since they will probably have little reason to pick one name over another. After a few months here, most people have decided in their own minds who they trust and who they don't, whether they have bothered to edit their trust list or not. Forcing people to edit their trust list (which is what the proposed system essentially does) will hurt new users and change nothing for longtime users, so why make this change?

[dogie]

Okay, modified some code I had so we can compare different ideas as they arrive. Its a pretty arbitrary system to pick up on 9 points we may want to optimise for. Every criteria is "No" =1, "Sort of" =5 or "Yes" =10 - I don't believe we need to go deeper. Titles should be self explanatory but let me know if they're not.

Please DON'T quote the code as it will keep changing and there will be confusing fragments and ratings everywhere.

___________________________________________________________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _
Default Trust

___________________________________________________________________________
Rating: 58	Decentralised Power? Varied Weighting? Feedback Comments?	No No Yes	1/10 1/10 10/10	Prevents Alt Abuse? Prevents Trusted Abuse? Displays Ratings?	Sort of Yes Yes	5/10 10/10 10/10	Uses All Ratings? Newbie Friendly? No Snowball?	No Yes Yes	1/10 10/10 10/10

___________________________________________________________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _

___________________________________________________________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _
Theymos #1

___________________________________________________________________________
Rating: 44	Decentralised Power? Varied Weighting? Feedback Comments?	Sort of Yes Yes	5/10 10/10 10/10	Prevents Alt Abuse? Prevents Trusted Abuse? Displays Ratings?	No No Yes	1/10 1/10 10/10	Uses All Ratings? Newbie Friendly? No Snowball?	Sort of No No	5/10 1/10 1/10

___________________________________________________________________________	_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _

[rugrats]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

<snip>

What do you think of this?

Theymos, why do we need a DefaultTrust list in the first place, either the existing one or the proposed modified one?
Why do we need to create a class of users who are more equal than the rest?
What practical purpose does it serve? Shouldn't all of our ratings be equal?
I can understand (and in fact support) if you and BadBear are given extra trust privileges.
But for everyone else, shouldn't we have a level playing field?

Simplify the trust system. Let all trust ratings be equal.
'Trade with extreme caution' should appear only when members accumulate more negative than positive ratings.
Don't leave the power in the hands of a few select individuals.

[Mitchell]

Theymos, why do we need a DefaultTrust list in the first place, either the existing one or the proposed modified one?
Why do we need to create a class of users who are more equal than the rest?
What practical purpose does it serve? Shouldn't all of our ratings be equal?
I can understand (and in fact support) if you and BadBear are given extra trust privileges.
But for everyone else, shouldn't we have a level playing field?

Simplify the trust system. Let all trust ratings be equal.
'Trade with extreme caution' should appear only when members accumulate more negative than positive ratings.
Don't leave the power in the hands of a few select individuals.

Welp, I'm off creating a puppet army to give everyone that I don't like a negative rating!

[Beastlymac]

@dogie

That looks like a good idea but how would it be automatically implemented? And if people know how it is automatically inputted they can alter past feedback use to bluster their score. It is a good idea but it looks like a lot of it you have implemented manually and is determined by a person on criteria that will be hard to implement automatically as they take a person to determine things such as:
Prevents Alt Abuse?
Prevents Trusted Abuse?
Newbie Friendly?

These things are dependent (unless you have criteria for them) on the person giving the score and make it hard to implement automatically.


Although i think it is a great idea it may just need to adjust some of the criteria to make it easier to implement.

Just my view

[rugrats]

Theymos, why do we need a DefaultTrust list in the first place, either the existing one or the proposed modified one?
Why do we need to create a class of users who are more equal than the rest?
What practical purpose does it serve? Shouldn't all of our ratings be equal?
I can understand (and in fact support) if you and BadBear are given extra trust privileges.
But for everyone else, shouldn't we have a level playing field?

Simplify the trust system. Let all trust ratings be equal.
'Trade with extreme caution' should appear only when members accumulate more negative than positive ratings.
Don't leave the power in the hands of a few select individuals.

Welp, I'm off creating a puppet army to give everyone that I don't like a negative rating!

What makes you think its not happening now - but instead of an army, only involving a handful of people? Because that's all it takes.

[Mitchell]

What makes you think its not happening now - but instead of an army, only involving a handful of people? Because that's all it takes.

The same reason why having a puppet army wouldn't work for me. It gets noticed and people that abusive their ratings will be removed from the Default Trustlist (and most of the positive feedback they have gets removed).

[iCEBREAKER]

Dear Brother Thermos, will you please admit that Trust Ranking has utterly failed in its ostensible purpose of scam prevention?

XPOST:

In the end why are you so bothered? Your buyers can see your feedback and see that you are a reputed seller.

If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does.  Especially not that begging, hectoring collectivist Bitchnellski.

I'm not bothered, but rather amused at the absurdity of the fiasco which is the BTCT Trust ranking system.

Satoshi, after years of others trying to fine-tune and prevent gaming of decentralized online trust consensus systems, cut that Gordian Knot with his PoW blockchain.

What incendiary irony that His Holy Forum struggles with and bickers over its centralized, politicized, at-best minimally useful Trust ranking system.

Yes, yes.  We know.  It's For The Children^TM (IE noobs).  Of course.

How's that working out for us?  Are we free from the Paycoins of the world yet?  Has the trust system done anything but sow conflict and create rancorous distractions?

Did Satoshi teach us nothing about the unworkability of such systems?

Please trash the stupid thing and be done with it.  Let those who haven't learned use the WOT, and those who have the appropriate feedback threads. 

You cannot automate this.  Nobody can, although many have tried.  Stop wasting (y)our time and pissing people off with these vain high-maintenance attempts.

[rugrats]

What makes you think its not happening now - but instead of an army, only involving a handful of people? Because that's all it takes.

The same reason why having a puppet army wouldn't work for me. It gets noticed and people that abusive their ratings will be removed from the Default Trustlist (and most of the positive feedback they have gets removed).

It gets noticed alright, but does anything actually happen mate?
I could be wrong, but in my time here, I've never seen anyone on the DefaultList removed.
But on a more fundamental level, aren't you the least bit uncomfortable by the very presence of a super class of users?

[Mitchell]

It gets noticed alright, but does anything actually happen mate?
I could be wrong, but in my time here, I've never seen anyone on the DefaultList removed.
But on a more fundamental level, aren't you the least bit uncomfortable by the very presence of a super class of users?

I have seen it before, yes. The last time wasn't that long ago and was about some people that  CanaryInTheMine had on his trust list / that he rated. And no, I don't feel uncomfortable with a "super class" of users "above" me. I have been here for over 1.5 years and I never had any problem with the "super class", even though I don't always agree with them.
In fact, I joined the "super class" yesterday, because BadBear added me to his list. Does that make me a better human? Not at all.

[rugrats]

It gets noticed alright, but does anything actually happen mate?
I could be wrong, but in my time here, I've never seen anyone on the DefaultList removed.
But on a more fundamental level, aren't you the least bit uncomfortable by the very presence of a super class of users?

I have seen it before, yes. The last time wasn't that long ago and was about some people that  CanaryInTheMine had on his trust list / that he rated. And no, I don't feel uncomfortable with a "super class" of users "above" me. I have been here for over 1.5 years and I never had any problem with the "super class", even though I don't always agree with them.
In fact, I joined the "super class" yesterday, because BadBear added me to his list. Does that make me a better human? Not at all.

Aah, so you are not an impartial observer. You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For the record though, you are not on the DefaultList - just depth level 2. You're not in the super class league. Since you brought up CanaryInTheMine, has his status changed yet with all the notice he received?


Edit:

I have seen it before, yes.

Can you link me to the profile of the referred DefaultTrust member?

[Mitchell]

Aah, so you are not an impartial observer. You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For the record though, you are not on the DefaultList - just depth level 2. You're not in the super class league. Since you brought up CanaryInTheMine, has his status changed yet with all the notice he received?

Why would I have a vested interest in maintaining my depth level 2 status? I don't care about it. I will voice my opinion anyway if I feel that it's necessary. As far as I know, CanaryInTheMine has removed the bad members from his trust list and the issue was resolved.

More about this can be found: here.

[rugrats]

Aah, so you are not an impartial observer. You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For the record though, you are not on the DefaultList - just depth level 2. You're not in the super class league. Since you brought up CanaryInTheMine, has his status changed yet with all the notice he received?

Why would I have a vested interest in maintaining my depth level 2 status? I don't care about it. I will voice my opinion anyway if I feel that it's necessary. As far as I know, CanaryInTheMine has removed the bad members from his trust list and the issue was resolved.

Why are you asking an obvious question? Also, we are not talking about 'bad members'. We are talking about DefaultTrust members.
Can you please link me to the profile of the DefaultTrust member you claim to have seen being removed?

More about this can be found: here.

CanaryInTheMine is still on the DefaultList. What is your point?

[dserrano5]

Please take that argument elsewhere, it's off topic here.

[Mitchell]

Why are you asking an obvious question?

Apparently that is obvious to you, but it's not to me.

Also, we are not talking about 'bad members'. We are talking about DefaultTrust members.
Can you please link me to the profile of the DefaultTrust member you claim to have seen being removed?

I thought you were talking about the DefaultTrust in general and not about someone being removed from level 1. I've no idea about that, sorry.

Please take that argument elsewhere, it's off topic here.

I'm done. Sorry for the derail.

[rugrats]

Please take that argument elsewhere, it's off topic here.

No argument. I gave my opinion to Theymos, and someone challenged one of points I brought up.

[OgNasty]

Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:

theymos         |     471.3498 |
Tomatocage      |     192.7250 |
dooglus         |     181.7917 |
BadBear         |     180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine |     153.0830 |
HostFat         |     144.6331 |
gmaxwell        |     133.5581 |
Akka            |     109.1663 |
BCB             |     104.3748 |
escrow.ms       |     101.2499 |
phantastisch    |      99.6915 |
ghibly79        |      65.8998 |
Michail1        |      65.2249 |
Maidak          |      62.5085 |
Sampey          |      61.8499 |
BigBitz         |      58.6833 |
ziomik          |      58.1333 |
malevolent      |      52.4748 |
sublime5447     |      52.4665 |
Stemby          |      51.0416 |
Dabs            |      48.2251 |
Nightowlace     |      47.6417 |
klintay         |      46.5750 |
Raize           |      44.0998 |
bitpop          |      43.7249 |
fhh             |      40.5083 |
zefir           |      39.2083 |
squall1066      |      38.5001 |
philipma1957    |      38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy    |      35.5750 |
KWH             |      35.5581 |
terrapinflyer   |      34.8666 |
binaryFate      |      33.8332 |
Bicknellski     |      33.5084 |
DebitMe         |      30.1501 |
elasticband     |      29.8501 |
TECSHARE        |      29.3915 |
LouReed         |      28.9249 |
2weiX           |      28.6999 |
ManeBjorn       |      27.5749 |
miaviator       |      27.3333 |
androz          |      26.2500 |
bobsag3         |      25.9415 |
nachius         |      25.2916 |
CoinHoarder     |      23.3749 |
mrbrt           |      23.1249 |
EnJoyThis       |      22.5167 |
WEB slicer      |      20.3749 |
Rub3n           |      20.0251 |
Ente            |      18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here? That's somewhat shocking to me. I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community.  Very disturbing because I thought the trust system we had in place was working out great and holding up well as evidenced by BFL_Josh's failed trust sabotage experiment. If you pay close attention to your trust network and use it appropriately, it is quite accurate in my opinion. I worry that this new method is already off to a bad start when I see known repeat scammers on the list who would give newbies a positive trust rating for companies like Black Arrow. Again, I just took a quick glance.

[shorena]

Please bear with me [2] when reading this as I might repeat things others have said, but I binge reply to 6 pages here.

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

While I like the basic idea of people creating  their own list, I find this:

If you don't know any of the users listed, you should pick 10-20 users at random...

very troubling. A new user would have no idea who to trust so why make them select 10-20 users at random?
IMHO its perfectly fine to trust no one in the beginning and start creating your trust list over time. I visit the board almost daily for over a year now and I couldnt pick 10 trustworthy people out of the list, hence my short list I trust. This might be because I am not as active in the marketplace section as others, but consider how this is for someone completetly new, knowing no one.

-snip-
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member.

This greatly favours account farmers. While this would be a great idea if we somehow could ensure one account per physical entitiy (human, feline overlord, dog, etc.) anyone can create new accounts, farm the accounts for 120 days and use them to boost trust of a single account. This could even be sold as a service to others in need of a little trustboost. There are probably people farming accounts for sales allready.

I agree with Vod, newbies will probably forget about it when it's set. Perhaps writing up a thread about the trust system and forcing newbies to read it? The text on the current suggest page looks good, but it's important and should be made looking more important.
Maybe a sticky in trust-enabled sections too?

As we allready see people do not read stickies and you cant actually force someone to read something. You can force them to load the page and wait a certain amount of time before clicking something, but they might as well bounce a ball[1] while they have to wait.

-snip-

That's maybe why it isn't good for newbies to choose this. You can and should add people you trust to your trust list.

That requires thinking, something a lot of people find so hard that they won't do it.

Which is fine for them, isnt it? I dont think this board should try (and fail) to force people into anything. People invest in HYIP and Ponzies all the time.

-snip-
If someone only ever uses the checkboxes to edit their trust list, then I will make it so that this doesn't increase the "suggestion points" of the people they select. (This isn't implemented yet.)

I like this, but someone gameing the system would obviously work around this and edit the list by hand.

My major concern is that there are very few people who give negative trust to scammers and potential scammers.
-snip-

IMHO this can be prevented by a good amount (~50 should do currently) of old timers adding those in question (e.g. Vod) to their trust list. Thus the "scam busters" stay on top of the new points system. At least until the shill armada arrives.

-snip-
With the proposed system, each user would need to manually remove TF (in this example) from their trust network which will probably not be updated very often. Users may or may not set a trust network and "forget it" but I don't think they will, as a general rule check places like scam accusations on a regular basis to make sure a new scammer who was previously trusted is removed from their network.

While this is true it also decentralizes trust.

I would say that the people who are trusted by default trust should have a somewhat large trust network and be active in adding (and removing as necessary) users to their trust network.
-snip-
I also think we shouldn't have people like CanaryInTheMine who add everyone and their brother they have ever done business with as this will result in people in default trust network that should realistically not be there.

While I understand your point I see no way to moderate this. You cant encurage people to be active (which can be gamed as well btw) and at the same time punish them if they are over a certain, arbitrary point.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

Thanks for bringing this up again. As I wrote above you dont even have to buy accounts, but could farm them yourself. 120 days might be worth spending on 50+ accounts for a long con or as a service.
If I may ask: how many accounts do you currently control that could influence this? Just to get an impression how much "power" youd have under the new system. A sum of all activity points >120 would be nice to compare it easily.

-snip-

I think that in this case it actually matters who voted for what.
One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?

They could and I'm sure theymos will take that into consideration and/or look out for abuse.

Theymos stated that only certain votes will count. E.g. no fresh/youngs accounts etc.

-snip-
You cannot automate this.  Nobody can, although many have tried.  Stop wasting (y)our time and pissing people off with these vain high-maintenance attempts.

IMHO this is a valid point. Id still set the default trust list "for the children" and suggest they create their own list as initiation ritual (e.g. after reaching member rank or maybe sr. member rank) which does not suggest any user. Allow any informed Newbie to do set up a list earlier and let those undecided get accustomed with the board first.



[1] http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/RcG/7G4/RcG7G4A4i.gif
[2] http://imgdonkey.com/big/VGE1MHlVWg/bear-with-me.gif

[TECSHARE]

Dear Brother Thermos, will you please admit that Trust Ranking has utterly failed in its ostensible purpose of scam prevention?

XPOST:

In the end why are you so bothered? Your buyers can see your feedback and see that you are a reputed seller.

If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does.  Especially not that begging, hectoring collectivist Bitchnellski.

I'm not bothered, but rather amused at the absurdity of the fiasco which is the BTCT Trust ranking system.

Satoshi, after years of others trying to fine-tune and prevent gaming of decentralized online trust consensus systems, cut that Gordian Knot with his PoW blockchain.

What incendiary irony that His Holy Forum struggles with and bickers over its centralized, politicized, at-best minimally useful Trust ranking system.

Yes, yes.  We know.  It's For The Children^TM (IE noobs).  Of course.

How's that working out for us?  Are we free from the Paycoins of the world yet?  Has the trust system done anything but sow conflict and create rancorous distractions?

Did Satoshi teach us nothing about the unworkability of such systems?

Please trash the stupid thing and be done with it.  Let those who haven't learned use the WOT, and those who have the appropriate feedback threads. 

You cannot automate this.  Nobody can, although many have tried.  Stop wasting (y)our time and pissing people off with these vain high-maintenance attempts.

I have been trying to say this for a while but all I get is attacks for it. I wish Theymos would start fixing things BEFORE people attack me instead of always after and just pretending like the flawed system didn't contribute. I do appreciate the fact that you are at least trying to do something, not that it really helps me at this point beyond not having to watch the community destroy itself. We don't need default trust. We don't need "scambusters". People should be taking responsibility for themselves.

[CanaryInTheMine]

Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:

theymos         |     471.3498 |
Tomatocage      |     192.7250 |
dooglus         |     181.7917 |
BadBear         |     180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine |     153.0830 |
HostFat         |     144.6331 |
gmaxwell        |     133.5581 |
Akka            |     109.1663 |
BCB             |     104.3748 |
escrow.ms       |     101.2499 |
phantastisch    |      99.6915 |
ghibly79        |      65.8998 |
Michail1        |      65.2249 |
Maidak          |      62.5085 |
Sampey          |      61.8499 |
BigBitz         |      58.6833 |
ziomik          |      58.1333 |
malevolent      |      52.4748 |
sublime5447     |      52.4665 |
Stemby          |      51.0416 |
Dabs            |      48.2251 |
Nightowlace     |      47.6417 |
klintay         |      46.5750 |
Raize           |      44.0998 |
bitpop          |      43.7249 |
fhh             |      40.5083 |
zefir           |      39.2083 |
squall1066      |      38.5001 |
philipma1957    |      38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy    |      35.5750 |
KWH             |      35.5581 |
terrapinflyer   |      34.8666 |
binaryFate      |      33.8332 |
Bicknellski     |      33.5084 |
DebitMe         |      30.1501 |
elasticband     |      29.8501 |
TECSHARE        |      29.3915 |
LouReed         |      28.9249 |
2weiX           |      28.6999 |
ManeBjorn       |      27.5749 |
miaviator       |      27.3333 |
androz          |      26.2500 |
bobsag3         |      25.9415 |
nachius         |      25.2916 |
CoinHoarder     |      23.3749 |
mrbrt           |      23.1249 |
EnJoyThis       |      22.5167 |
WEB slicer      |      20.3749 |
Rub3n           |      20.0251 |
Ente            |      18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here? That's somewhat shocking to me. I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community.  Very disturbing because I thought the trust system we had in place was working out great and holding up well as evidenced by BFL_Josh's failed trust sabotage experiment. If you pay close attention to your trust network and use it appropriately, it is quite accurate in my opinion. I worry that this new method is already off to a bad start when I see known repeat scammers on the list who would give newbies a positive trust rating for companies like Black Arrow. Again, I just took a quick glance.

I think you raise a valid question: who benefits from the new approach? If shady characters and scammers can benefit from this, forget the system.

They are crying about the current system anyways and desperately trying to subvert it?

[SaltySpitoon]

Putting in a system that can be gamed is worse than no system at all. A lot of the anti feedback sentiment is coming from hardend BCT members. Just because the 5% of people that have been around here 2+ years know how not to get scammed, doesn't mean that the 50,000 newbies aren't going to be lending their money to the people who's dogs need operations offering a 50% return per day compounded continuously for a week. I'm all for self responsibility, which I'd say all in all the userbase here does by % pretty well, but there is still a massive population that would get ripped off at every given turn. There are some scam busters that are 100% necessary, I can't think of a single time where Tomatocage has had a thread opened against him, Vod on the other hand is just a more aggressive scam buster and makes more enemies. We need people to take responsibilty for themselves, but we can't forsake the newbies either.

I still support my no trust lists, no numbers, just a straight feedback system where people can leave their thoughts/opinions. If people create an alt army to spam someone's trust, it will be very apparent and people will value those 30 identical reviews much less than a single -1 showing up next to someones name. If someone has a valid feedback claim, it will be typed in a legible matter, it will be accurate in the amount of BTC risked, and there will be a reference link where a reasonable person could read through the evidence and make an informed judgement call over whether that person is trustworthy. Having to search someone's name in scam accusations is not the way to go, but an unmoderated, unweighted, spreadsheet/list of a person's feedback with the day, btc risked, reference link, and comment is the most hands off yet stilll useful approach. If I see a review by Tomatocage on someone's profile that says they are scammy, I'm going to think for myself how much I value tomatocage's feedback, rather than relying on a big red negative number to do it for me.

 

[Gleb Gamow]

Will the new system have the negative trust indexable via the search engines, for as it stands now nary a negative comment has ever been indexed, only found on this forum via jumping through hoops depending on what settings are ticked?

Try this example on for size: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Buying+trust+and+other+sketchy+things%22

Like I've said, not a single negative comment has ever been indexed by Google or any other search engine.

[dogie]

If people create an alt army to spam someone's trust, it will be very apparent and people will value those 30 identical reviews much less than a single -1 showing up next to someones name. If someone has a valid feedback claim, it will be typed in a legible matter, it will be accurate in the amount of BTC risked, and there will be a reference link where a reasonable person could read through the evidence and make an informed judgement call over whether that person is trustworthy.

You may be able to tell the difference, but 95% of members won't. They'll just see a wall of red and close that window, never to trade with that person again.

[SaltySpitoon]

If people create an alt army to spam someone's trust, it will be very apparent and people will value those 30 identical reviews much less than a single -1 showing up next to someones name. If someone has a valid feedback claim, it will be typed in a legible matter, it will be accurate in the amount of BTC risked, and there will be a reference link where a reasonable person could read through the evidence and make an informed judgement call over whether that person is trustworthy.

You may be able to tell the difference, but 95% of members won't. They'll just see a wall of red and close that window, never to trade with that person again.

Right, but dont make it red, just feedback, and it will force them to read it.

[MadZ]

Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:

theymos         |     471.3498 |
Tomatocage      |     192.7250 |
dooglus         |     181.7917 |
BadBear         |     180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine |     153.0830 |
HostFat         |     144.6331 |
gmaxwell        |     133.5581 |
Akka            |     109.1663 |
BCB             |     104.3748 |
escrow.ms       |     101.2499 |
phantastisch    |      99.6915 |
ghibly79        |      65.8998 |
Michail1        |      65.2249 |
Maidak          |      62.5085 |
Sampey          |      61.8499 |
BigBitz         |      58.6833 |
ziomik          |      58.1333 |
malevolent      |      52.4748 |
sublime5447     |      52.4665 |
Stemby          |      51.0416 |
Dabs            |      48.2251 |
Nightowlace     |      47.6417 |
klintay         |      46.5750 |
Raize           |      44.0998 |
bitpop          |      43.7249 |
fhh             |      40.5083 |
zefir           |      39.2083 |
squall1066      |      38.5001 |
philipma1957    |      38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy    |      35.5750 |
KWH             |      35.5581 |
terrapinflyer   |      34.8666 |
binaryFate      |      33.8332 |
Bicknellski     |      33.5084 |
DebitMe         |      30.1501 |
elasticband     |      29.8501 |
TECSHARE        |      29.3915 |
LouReed         |      28.9249 |
2weiX           |      28.6999 |
ManeBjorn       |      27.5749 |
miaviator       |      27.3333 |
androz          |      26.2500 |
bobsag3         |      25.9415 |
nachius         |      25.2916 |
CoinHoarder     |      23.3749 |
mrbrt           |      23.1249 |
EnJoyThis       |      22.5167 |
WEB slicer      |      20.3749 |
Rub3n           |      20.0251 |
Ente            |      18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here? That's somewhat shocking to me. I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community.  Very disturbing because I thought the trust system we had in place was working out great and holding up well as evidenced by BFL_Josh's failed trust sabotage experiment. If you pay close attention to your trust network and use it appropriately, it is quite accurate in my opinion. I worry that this new method is already off to a bad start when I see known repeat scammers on the list who would give newbies a positive trust rating for companies like Black Arrow. Again, I just took a quick glance.

While I dislike the proposed system, I will explain why you are not in the top 50 under the example theymos posted, and there is a legitimate reason for it. People gain points on that list by being added to someone's trust list manually. Since you are at depth 1, few people have had any reason to add you to their personal trust lists, so you have a very low score. As you can see, many users who are high up in the top 50, such as Maidak, simpey, and BigBitz are not in default trust at all. The reason they are so high on this list at the moment is because a lot of people have manually added them to their own trust lists, since they are trusted traders but not in default trust. Their scores would be much lower if they were in default trust, since people would have no reason to manually add them. All trust lists would be reset if the new system was put in place, and you would almost certainly be in the top 10 once you are no longer automatically in people's trust lists.

[Reynaldo]

Why don't you add to the formula that people get 30 random people from the most visited area that the user visits, that means that you'll need a formula to determine the most used forum by an user and then that it poops up 30-50 people from the 5 most visited area of the forums..

[theymos]

FYI, I added the top 15 people in your list to my trust settings, and accounts that were proven scammers were showing up in my trusted feedback list.   

That's because not enough people use trust exclusions. Under the new system, people will need to get into the habit of excluding people who leave bad feedback.

If someone has a trust network like this:

ExamplePerson
  Idiot
    Scammer
  Guy
  Dude

Then either ExamplePerson or Guy and Dude together can cause Scammer to be excluded. So if a decent number of people are excluding people who give bad ratings (or who trust such people), then bad ratings are likely to be excluded.

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer.

If someone directly trusts a a scammer, then they are indeed in a bad situation, and they'll need to remove the person manually. I might add a warning to trust pages for people who directly trust a scammer if this ever happens.

It's not a big deal at lower depths due to exclusions.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

You'd need a lot of accounts for that. 20 full members to make the list, ~100 to get reasonably high in it (currently -- the requirements will probably become higher if this system is adopted). And I'd stop this from happening once I'd notice it, so people buying these accounts would be spending a lot of money on only a very short-term advantage.

has anyone put together a concise pros and cons between current and proposed systems?

New system pros:
- More people in the typical trust network, so more default-visible ratings, more accurate scores, etc.
- Newbies will be more aware of how the trust system works, so they'll be more likely to use it properly.
- Everything will be less complicated for everyone involved. You won't be able to know what everyone else sees, so all you'll be able to do is maintain your ratings and trust list according to your own feelings. This is how I intended the trust system to work.
- There won't be people who are clearly "at the top" of the trust system. Furthermore, I will no longer need to carefully ensure that the default trust network is OK for everyone.

New system cons:
- More people in the typical trust network, so inaccurate ratings might happen more often, though they should hopefully be balanced by an increase in accurate ratings.
- People who in practice tend to be at the top of the trust system might feel less accountability/responsibility for maintaining their trust lists than they would if they were listed in DefaultTrust.
- It will be difficult to get a picture of how well someone is trusted for the typical forum user.
- People will need to interact with the trust list system at least a little bit, and not just leave it to DefaultTrust.

I like the suggestion of removing default trust lists completely.

Then newbies will be getting scammed left and right. Newbies need some sort of guidance.

The trust lists of everyone at depth 1 are public, which has historically kept Default Trust mostly comprised of reputable members. This is not the case with the "suggested trust" list under the new system.

All trust lists are public. You can see anyone's trust list by trusting them and then looking at the hierarchical view of the trust network on the Trust Settings page.

My point here is that Default Trust gives a new user a good starting point about who to trust and who not to trust, while this new system asks them to pick their own "Default Trust" pretty much at random, since they will probably have little reason to pick one name over another.

I think that it's OK to trust users at random as long as:
- None of them are creating new accounts to inflate their own trust. The trust score algorithm relies on everyone in a trust network being a separate person. People at depth 0 can trust additional users without consequence if the user trusting them isn't paying attention.
- More of the randomly-trusted users have actively good trust lists than actively bad ones.
- At least a few randomly-trusted users have actively good trust lists.

If these conditions are met, then any incorrect ratings will be excluded by the people with good trust lists.

I think that the suggestion system is likely to result in lists meeting the above criteria. And if a highly-trusted user who was previously suggested starts creating and trusting fake accounts, I'll do something to stop him, or at least warn users.

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here?

You don't meet the criteria for suggested users. You only have two users on your trust list. You would have 154 points otherwise.

I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community.

He's still quite widely trusted. Users will be able to avoid selecting him on the suggestion page.

I could manually exclude people like him, but doing that would likely be controversial in itself, and I'd prefer to keep this as automated as possible.

Will the new system have the negative trust indexable via the search engines, for as it stands now nary a negative comment has ever been indexed, only found on this forum via jumping through hoops depending on what settings are ticked?

Trust pages are entirely customized per user, so they can't be viewed by non-users such as search engines.

[Beastlymac]

@theymos is it possible to view a list of the top 100 or more people in the list?

[theymos]

Here are the points without any of the other restrictions. establishedTrusters = the number of full members and above who trust that person. People are only counted as trusting DefaultTrust if they have edited their trust list at least once.

Code:

+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| realName           | establishedTrusters | points    |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| DefaultTrust       |                1110 | 3525.7408 |
| theymos            |                 104 |  509.8577 |
| John (John K.)     |                  84 |  392.0999 |
| BadBear            |                  43 |  229.0416 |
| Tomatocage         |                  51 |  226.0915 |
| dooglus            |                  45 |  206.4081 |
| Gavin Andresen     |                  30 |  174.4667 |
| Maged              |                  27 |  162.1331 |
| CanaryInTheMine    |                  44 |  161.7747 |
| HostFat            |                  32 |  155.6164 |
| gmaxwell           |                  29 |  154.1247 |
| OgNasty            |                  35 |  154.0579 |
| casascius          |                  25 |  151.5666 |
| DannyHamilton      |                  32 |  139.2000 |
| SaltySpitoon       |                  29 |  135.1082 |
| Blazedout419       |                  26 |  114.2748 |
| ThickAsThieves     |                  23 |  111.3583 |
| escrow.ms          |                  24 |  111.1747 |
| BCB                |                  22 |  110.5665 |
| yxt                |                  23 |  110.1749 |
| Akka               |                  21 |  109.8831 |
| friedcat           |                  24 |  109.7498 |
| phantastisch       |                  20 |  106.1249 |
| burnside           |                  25 |  103.0582 |
| Stunna             |                  24 |  102.5416 |
| tysat              |                  17 |  101.7332 |
| satoshi            |                  19 |   96.7750 |
| SebastianJu        |                  21 |   93.5168 |
| sirius             |                  19 |   89.4330 |
| DeaDTerra          |                  17 |   82.1833 |
| nanotube           |                  12 |   79.8498 |
| qwk                |                  14 |   74.8585 |
| Luke-Jr            |                  20 |   73.4914 |
| Blazr              |                  12 |   71.7498 |
| ghibly79           |                  15 |   71.6500 |
| ckolivas           |                  13 |   69.1250 |
| Carnth             |                  14 |   68.8415 |
| LoweryCBS          |                  10 |   67.8999 |
| jgarzik            |                   9 |   67.6667 |
| bertani            |                  11 |   67.6083 |
| paci               |                  11 |   67.1083 |
| Maidak             |                  20 |   66.3416 |
| dree12             |                   9 |   66.0332 |
| Michail1           |                  12 |   65.6500 |
| El Cabron          |                  22 |   65.5582 |
| diego1000          |                  11 |   64.5499 |
| BigBitz            |                  15 |   62.5416 |
| Sampey             |                  20 |   62.1666 |
| Stemby             |                  10 |   61.0750 |
| malevolent         |                  11 |   58.5415 |
| ziomik             |                  10 |   58.4833 |
| OldScammerTag      |                  12 |   56.5998 |
| xetsr              |                  14 |   55.4666 |
| Raize              |                   9 |   55.1832 |
| mikegogulski       |                   8 |   53.8999 |
| Pieter Wuille      |                   7 |   53.2000 |
| Vod                |                  23 |   52.8914 |
| sublime5447        |                  17 |   52.6166 |
| Kluge              |                  11 |   52.5332 |
| devthedev          |                  11 |   52.4582 |
| BayAreaCoins       |                  10 |   51.9832 |
| bitpop             |                  13 |   50.8417 |
| dwdoc              |                   9 |   50.7499 |
| DiamondCardz       |                   8 |   50.4666 |
| johnniewalker      |                  12 |   50.2749 |
| ercolinux          |                   7 |   50.1083 |
| DeathAndTaxes      |                  11 |   50.0916 |
| rb1205             |                   6 |   49.8583 |
| alexrossi          |                   9 |   49.0583 |
| Benson Samuel      |                  10 |   48.6998 |
| Dabs               |                  11 |   48.4584 |
| bitcoininformation |                  12 |   48.3249 |
| serp               |                  12 |   48.2833 |
| fhh                |                  10 |   48.0916 |
| Nightowlace        |                  14 |   47.7167 |
| klintay            |                  11 |   46.9250 |
| PsychoticBoy       |                  13 |   46.4250 |
| cooldgamer         |                  14 |   46.4084 |
| squall1066         |                  10 |   45.8500 |
| GIANNAT            |                  10 |   45.8167 |
| Cripto             |                   6 |   44.1416 |
| Mushroomized       |                   7 |   43.5582 |
| Bees Brothers      |                   8 |   43.0917 |
| ineededausername   |                   9 |   42.6415 |
| 2weiX              |                   8 |   42.5832 |
| etotheipi          |                   8 |   40.9084 |
| Menig              |                  13 |   40.2667 |
| dozerz             |                  10 |   39.6667 |
| molecular          |                   8 |   39.6417 |
| zefir              |                   9 |   39.3250 |
| KWH                |                  10 |   39.2915 |
| sushi              |                  10 |   39.1249 |
| ssinc              |                   9 |   39.1083 |
| twbt               |                   7 |   39.0167 |
| Rassah             |                   8 |   38.9333 |
| sveetsnelda        |                   7 |   38.8833 |
| philipma1957       |                  12 |   38.7750 |
| evoorhees          |                   6 |   38.5167 |
| TheButterZone      |                  13 |   38.3414 |
| Damnsammit         |                   8 |   37.9500 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+

[Muhammed Zakir]

Here are the points without any of the other restrictions. establishedTrusters = the number of full members and above who trust that person. People are only counted as trusting DefaultTrust if they have edited their trust list at least once.

Code:

+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| realName           | establishedTrusters | points    |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| DefaultTrust       |                1110 | 3525.7408 |
| theymos            |                 104 |  509.8577 |
| John (John K.)     |                  84 |  392.0999 |
| BadBear            |                  43 |  229.0416 |
| Tomatocage         |                  51 |  226.0915 |
| dooglus            |                  45 |  206.4081 |
| Gavin Andresen     |                  30 |  174.4667 |
| Maged              |                  27 |  162.1331 |
| CanaryInTheMine    |                  44 |  161.7747 |
| HostFat            |                  32 |  155.6164 |
| gmaxwell           |                  29 |  154.1247 |
| OgNasty            |                  35 |  154.0579 |
| casascius          |                  25 |  151.5666 |
| DannyHamilton      |                  32 |  139.2000 |
| SaltySpitoon       |                  29 |  135.1082 |
| Blazedout419       |                  26 |  114.2748 |
| ThickAsThieves     |                  23 |  111.3583 |
| escrow.ms          |                  24 |  111.1747 |
| BCB                |                  22 |  110.5665 |
| yxt                |                  23 |  110.1749 |
| Akka               |                  21 |  109.8831 |
| friedcat           |                  24 |  109.7498 |
| phantastisch       |                  20 |  106.1249 |
| burnside           |                  25 |  103.0582 |
| Stunna             |                  24 |  102.5416 |
| tysat              |                  17 |  101.7332 |
| satoshi            |                  19 |   96.7750 |
| SebastianJu        |                  21 |   93.5168 |
| sirius             |                  19 |   89.4330 |
| DeaDTerra          |                  17 |   82.1833 |
| nanotube           |                  12 |   79.8498 |
| qwk                |                  14 |   74.8585 |
| Luke-Jr            |                  20 |   73.4914 |
| Blazr              |                  12 |   71.7498 |
| ghibly79           |                  15 |   71.6500 |
| ckolivas           |                  13 |   69.1250 |
| Carnth             |                  14 |   68.8415 |
| LoweryCBS          |                  10 |   67.8999 |
| jgarzik            |                   9 |   67.6667 |
| bertani            |                  11 |   67.6083 |
| paci               |                  11 |   67.1083 |
| Maidak             |                  20 |   66.3416 |
| dree12             |                   9 |   66.0332 |
| Michail1           |                  12 |   65.6500 |
| El Cabron          |                  22 |   65.5582 |
| diego1000          |                  11 |   64.5499 |
| BigBitz            |                  15 |   62.5416 |
| Sampey             |                  20 |   62.1666 |
| Stemby             |                  10 |   61.0750 |
| malevolent         |                  11 |   58.5415 |
| ziomik             |                  10 |   58.4833 |
| OldScammerTag      |                  12 |   56.5998 |
| xetsr              |                  14 |   55.4666 |
| Raize              |                   9 |   55.1832 |
| mikegogulski       |                   8 |   53.8999 |
| Pieter Wuille      |                   7 |   53.2000 |
| Vod                |                  23 |   52.8914 |
| sublime5447        |                  17 |   52.6166 |
| Kluge              |                  11 |   52.5332 |
| devthedev          |                  11 |   52.4582 |
| BayAreaCoins       |                  10 |   51.9832 |
| bitpop             |                  13 |   50.8417 |
| dwdoc              |                   9 |   50.7499 |
| DiamondCardz       |                   8 |   50.4666 |
| johnniewalker      |                  12 |   50.2749 |
| ercolinux          |                   7 |   50.1083 |
| DeathAndTaxes      |                  11 |   50.0916 |
| rb1205             |                   6 |   49.8583 |
| alexrossi          |                   9 |   49.0583 |
| Benson Samuel      |                  10 |   48.6998 |
| Dabs               |                  11 |   48.4584 |
| bitcoininformation |                  12 |   48.3249 |
| serp               |                  12 |   48.2833 |
| fhh                |                  10 |   48.0916 |
| Nightowlace        |                  14 |   47.7167 |
| klintay            |                  11 |   46.9250 |
| PsychoticBoy       |                  13 |   46.4250 |
| cooldgamer         |                  14 |   46.4084 |
| squall1066         |                  10 |   45.8500 |
| GIANNAT            |                  10 |   45.8167 |
| Cripto             |                   6 |   44.1416 |
| Mushroomized       |                   7 |   43.5582 |
| Bees Brothers      |                   8 |   43.0917 |
| ineededausername   |                   9 |   42.6415 |
| 2weiX              |                   8 |   42.5832 |
| etotheipi          |                   8 |   40.9084 |
| Menig              |                  13 |   40.2667 |
| dozerz             |                  10 |   39.6667 |
| molecular          |                   8 |   39.6417 |
| zefir              |                   9 |   39.3250 |
| KWH                |                  10 |   39.2915 |
| sushi              |                  10 |   39.1249 |
| ssinc              |                   9 |   39.1083 |
| twbt               |                   7 |   39.0167 |
| Rassah             |                   8 |   38.9333 |
| sveetsnelda        |                   7 |   38.8833 |
| philipma1957       |                  12 |   38.7750 |
| evoorhees          |                   6 |   38.5167 |
| TheButterZone      |                  13 |   38.3414 |
| Damnsammit         |                   8 |   37.9500 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+

IMHO this list is better than earlier one.

   ~~MZ~~

[Vod]

IMHO this list is better than earlier one.

I don't even know how I am on this new list.  I only have "DefaultTrust" in my trust list.

- At least 10 people listed in their trust list

[Beastlymac]

IMHO this list is better than earlier one.

I don't even know how I am on this new list.  I only have "DefaultTrust" in my trust list.

- At least 10 people listed in their trust list

That list doesn't have any of the requirements, it is just based on how many people have you in your trust list.

[theymos]

IMHO this list is better than earlier one.

It's basically the same list  -- it's just that some users were removed from the earlier one because they were inactive or didn't have much of a trust list. (I think that a few people became full members in the interim or something, so the numbers are also slightly different.)

I could require that people have 37 points to be suggested...

[GreekBitcoin]

Something i was thinking and after reading a post here (i didnt read all posts yet) i think i will write about it just for the sake of discussion.

So, no we have plus points for people that we have traded successfully and minus points for people that have scammed us.

I propose a third point (lets call it warning points) that it is not correlated with the previous one, which is something like 'i believe that guy is a scammer or is saying bullshit or he is not going to deliver but i have no proofs for that'. And maybe have the option to give different weight each time you leave someone those points. And of course a small comment of why you leave those points.
I propose that because many times i wouldnt trade with someone as i think i am going to get scammed but since i didnt traded with him i dont want to call him a scammer. Or i would like to warn people about him but because his thread is moderated and i cant warn others or because i am not 100% sure again i dont want to call him a scammer.

Over all my thinking is that some of us understand when someone looks shady so we just ignore him but he still exists for the noobs that dont have enough experience.

Of course anyone would get points. And it will be personal. But i believe that after a while it will start showing with the combination of the current system who should one avoid till he gathers more experience. Those who would have less warning points and zero scam points would be with high confidence legit members.

It would also be expected for members with warning points to persuade others to take the points they left back by showing them why. And there should again be a small comment why along with the first allegation.

There are many examples. Like i would like to point out that people should not overtrust the operator of a major exchange but that doesnt mean he is a scammer now. Or maybe that we are pretty sure that this is a sockpuppet member but i cant  prove it again 100%. Maybe we understand that a specific member is a bought account which raises questions but again it doesnt mean 100% he is a scammer...
 

[dogie]

Even though my asshole is currently bigger than my head from dooglus' penis on this account which i personally think is huge abuse...
I still think the default trust system is harder to be abused than this suggestion.

That's where I'm leaning. This version becomes too much of a popularity contest, as everyone's vote (within reason) counts, even if they're trolls or smurfs. It doesn't take into account how trusted that person is, for example my trust rating from Inaba:

quote

Lies about hardware manufacturers. Cons newbies into buying from scam companies. Likely gets kick backs from scammers. DO NOT TRUST THIS PERSON.

counts for 4x as much as a trust rating Olly_K even though that was actually a transaction with a 30 risk.

Not to mention that many of my trust ratings, with Sztef89 for example for 100 risked, shbtc for 210 risked [just the first ones I checked] are not counted under the new system because they have <120 activity. And on top of that, the BFL trust competition ratings (all ~300 of them) would actually get magnified under the proposed system.

[dogie]

Why don't you add to the formula that people get 30 random people from the most visited area that the user visits, that means that you'll need a formula to determine the most used forum by an user and then that it poops up 30-50 people from the 5 most visited area of the forums..

Its a dangerous game as it then adds an incentive for scammers to post / make threads, but if used properly could augment another system. I dont think its a system on its own, but sort of represents some of the community-ness of the forums.

[MrTeal]

Just a couple comments.
First, in forums where the trust list is visible it might be handy to have a "Trust User" and "Exclude User" button added.
Second, this should be apparent but in the transition the existing trust settings should be kept (as shown in the test page)
Third, if we do transition to a new system based on this it might be a good idea to prompt users to add people they have sent feedback for (positive or negative) to their trust/exclude list in a simple way (radio buttons, checkbox, etc). I would imagine a great number of people aren't aware that they can and should add people to their trust list outside of the feedback system.


Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

Edit: Off the cuff suggestion, not well thought through. For the current system, what about adding the ability to moderate feedback left by/for others? The weighting would have to be very light, but in the current cases we see like the recent spats between Vod and other users it could be useful. If Vod leaves a negative trust for someone like iCEBREAKER and the preponderance of people think it is inappropriate, they could partially negate its effect on iCEBREAKER's trust rating. If you have (as an example) a dozen people in your trusted list that disagree with Vod's feedback of iCEBREAKER, the feedback would still remain but it wouldn't display in red as a potential scammer. It might allow default trust to stay while mitigating some of the potential abuses people complain about.

[Mitchell]

First, in forums where the trust list is visible it might be handy to have a "Trust User" and "Exclude User" button added.

This would be a nice thing to have. Adding someone to my trust list is a bit of a hassle. Not much, but having two buttons, makes it a lot easier.

Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

[DiamondCardz]

I think this is very idea.

Such good.

But yes, I think that would be useful. Better than the current "Risked BTC" implementation, at least.

[TECSHARE]

I wanted to comment on the "trust exclusions". In my opinion this is EVEN WORSE than negatives on the default trust. At least if someone leaves an unjust negative rating the community can see it easily and can confront the user who left it. With trust exclusions it is completely in the dark, and it is FAR MORE destructive than a simple negative rating.

I got to be the first test case for trust exclusions. I at least understood after the fact why I was removed from the default trust list, but the punitive punishment of 2 times of trust exclusion applied to me by high ranking members now means the 3 people who are currently trusting me count as -2 trusting me, because clearly the higher ranking person deserves to be able to negate my ability to ever regain trust again under this system and hold me there permanently if they care to, because no lower ranking members, no matter how numerous can cancel that rating out because they sit at the top of the trust rank. The trust exclusions are FAR MORE EXPLOITABLE than even the current system alone. This is NOT an improvement, but instead centralizes power at the top EVEN MORE. It sounds superficially as if exclusions just remove users from your trust, but in reality it creates a negative trust negating any lower level existing trust listings totally.

[dogie]

First, in forums where the trust list is visible it might be handy to have a "Trust User" and "Exclude User" button added.

This would be a nice thing to have. Adding someone to my trust list is a bit of a hassle. Not much, but having two buttons, makes it a lot easier.

Oh that reminds me, can we get the trust page added to the same page which holds profile and the other settings? Its in a bit of a weird place at the moment:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

[Wardrick]

I think the trust system should only be used for trading and nothing else. As it's starting to be used for other things you can see many problems arising and conflict around the forum. People's personal opinions should be kept to themselves as it may not reflect the majority of people's opinions a lot of the time. With a few exceptions to this such as feedback being given for people who are actively stopping scammers or participating in activities that require trust, I think the feedback system should primarily be used just for trading. I don't like how it's being used as a form of attack or punishment in unnecessary situations from users with more feedback weight and how it affects a persons ability to trade, when the feedback being given doesn't really have to do with trust at all. If there is a way for the feedback system to only be used for trading I think it would actively prevent all the complaints around the community where people claim abuse, corruption, etc. After all, it's the trust system and is supposed to be used to gauge someone's trust when trading and not reflect the personal opinions, which are often bias, of members around the forum.

[dogie]

Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

The problem is that people will abuse it. Don't like someone? -10. Do a good trade? +10. Its the same reason that neutrals really get used on here already, and why youtube swapped to a binary voting system.

[redsn0w]

Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

The problem is that people will abuse it. Don't like someone? -10. Do a good trade? +10. Its the same reason that neutrals really get used on here already, and why youtube swapped to a binary voting system.

Yes , let do an example : Now I have two negative feedback but I didn't scam anyone. Have these two feedback the same weight as  other two negative feedback of another user that have scammed someone ?

[MrTeal]

Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

The problem is that people will abuse it. Don't like someone? -10. Do a good trade? +10. Its the same reason that neutrals really get used on here already, and why youtube swapped to a binary voting system.

Yes , let do an example : Now I have two negative feedback but I didn't scam anyone. Have these two feedback the same weight as  other two negative feedback of another user that have scammed someone ?

Depends, if BadBear had left a negative feedback with 1000BTC risked, it would have counted for more. In this case, I think the system is actually working pretty well. You don't show up as a scammer, but it does give someone pause that while you've successfully escrowed many transactions, there has been a problem.

Edit: By the same token, if you continue to offer escrow services and do so for a good period of time without incident, I would contact BB if I were you and ask him to change the feedback to a neutral.

[Lauda]

First, in forums where the trust list is visible it might be handy to have a "Trust User" and "Exclude User" button added.

This would be a nice thing to have. Adding someone to my trust list is a bit of a hassle. Not much, but having two buttons, makes it a lot easier.

Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

I will have to agree with this one. This system is much better and he's right.
The amount of trust differs a lot.

This is a very excellent example and I can't even think of a better one.

[redsn0w]

Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

The problem is that people will abuse it. Don't like someone? -10. Do a good trade? +10. Its the same reason that neutrals really get used on here already, and why youtube swapped to a binary voting system.

Yes , let do an example : Now I have two negative feedback but I didn't scam anyone. Have these two feedback the same weight as  other two negative feedback of another user that have scammed someone ?

Depends, if BadBear had left a negative feedback with 1000BTC risked, it would have counted for more. In this case, I think the system is actually working pretty well. You don't show up as a scammer, but it does give someone pause that while you've successfully escrowed many transactions, there has been a problem.

Ok , the defaultTrust works better. Let see if theymos will add this new improvement to the trus system, because  the other users when see a negative/orange number under your name/avatar  (I'm sure) they will think firstly that you are a scammer and I'm (again) sure they will not read why do you have these orange/red number. *At the end this is the problem of the defaultTrust* no one know at 100% how it should work.

[Tomatocage]

I'm skipping past all the replies, so forgive me if these concerns have already been brought up. First, I'll go on record as saying this system appears cumbersome and somewhat annoying. I'm not just saying that because I'm in the DefaultTrust group and this change would affect my status quo (in fact Theymos even points out that I'd rank #2 for points in this proposed implementation of forum Trust). Right now there's a 1-click barrier to reading a thread, and that's actually clicking the thread link. The new proposed system would increase that click count by at least 300% and possibly by as much as 2000%+. Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

That's just my $.02 from an end-user perspective.

[theymos]

Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.

[Tomatocage]

Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I misread it as having to do this every time you wanted to view a new thread

[Tomatocage]

Also, some people who I consider very trustworthy, like DannyHamilton, John K, or DeathAndTaxes didn't make the list simply because they don't spam up every thread with their unsolicited opinion like I do

[Gleb Gamow]

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on January 06, 2015, 03:42:38 PM
Will the new system have the negative trust indexable via the search engines, for as it stands now nary a negative comment has ever been indexed, only found on this forum via jumping through hoops depending on what settings are ticked?

Trust pages are entirely customized per user, so they can't be viewed by non-users such as search engines.

Great! I'm having trouble finding the settings so that my customized posts won't be indexed by non-users such as search engines. Also, I desire to set some settings so that those who speak ill of me in their customized posts are also not indexable, as I'm sure others desire to have access to them same settings.

I'm having a tad bit of trouble getting my heard wrapped around as to how the thousands of negative trust comments penned by those who've taking their valuable time to warn the Bitcoin community and others worldwide of nefarious activities stemming from bad actors is compressed while BCT benefits via the sale of ads to some of the very same bad actors.

Ergo, it reads to me that this trust thingy is only benefiting our little club here, doing a grave disservice to the rest of the world stumbling upon bad actors because due to somebody's infinite wisdom the vital information needed for them to make an informed decision was nowhere to be found unless they came here and read such under an ad espousing the very entity we're trying to warned them about, e.g., GAW comes to mind, of which I'm sure you've heard of them.

For a prime example, here's an entity with 4,059 negative comments that placed an ad or two on this forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366



Is it possible that nary a one of them 4,059 posters cared less if the search engines indexed their customized comments or not as long as we in our own little club here are made aware, or did a majority of them now falsely assumed that their vital comments about a bad actor would be available to most anybody outside the BCT Country Club? I'm safely assuming it's the latter, probably not giving it a second thought that their comments would be available on the entire internet, them having complete faith in the administrators of this forum that such was truly the case, again, never taking the time to think otherwise.

Thus, by your comment, the trust system thingy was broken, and that this aspect in question will remain in place regardless of what the new trust system thingy will be, correct?

Will the new trust system thingy have its comments like the following found elsewhere on the internet?: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Failure+to+refund+and+deliver+product+for+over+1+year.+Lies+continually+about+availability+of+their+products.%22

[dogie]

Also, some people who I consider very trustworthy, like DannyHamilton, John K, or DeathAndTaxes didn't make the list simply because they don't spam up every thread with their unsolicited opinion like I do

John K is on the list, he's 3rd?

[takagari]

The only issue I see once some picks a person. If that person falls from grace. What than? You have thousands of people with them ticked,  and most won't know to remove him or her.
Sorry if mentioned, I read the 7 pages quickly buta have misses.it.
reading off.phone

[ABitNut]

I share the concern that the list of suggestions is too easy to game. Others have mentioned it before, but I didn't see the issue being addressed anywhere. There are already entities "farming" signature campaigns with multiple accounts. There will be entities seeding feedback to several accounts to get themselves on the suggested list. Legendary / Hero accounts are for sale.

New users are the easy fruit for scammers. New users are most likely to use the suggested list. Thus it becomes very attractive to get yourself in the suggested list. You target audience will actually be encouraged to trust you by the system!

So, I'm voting for the current default trust system.

Edit: I would like to note that the difference between feedback (I trust/do not trust this account) and trust lists (I want to see who this person trusts / doesn't trust) seems difficult to grasp for some people. Maybe we should just get rid of Default Trust. If a user has an empty trust list then consider all feedback "untrusted".

[Madness]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

[TECSHARE]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

Some kind of mutually agreed upon agreement to enter into an exchange before being able to leave trade related trust ratings might VASTLY reduce problems with trust. Some other neutral type rating could be reserved for preemptive warnings or notes about abuse from uninvolved parties.

[redsn0w]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

I like this idea , every feedback ( positive , neutral and negative) will appear under your forum username. It will be a new transparent  trust system  , and why not  "visible in all the forum board".

[Madness]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

I like this idea , every feedback ( positive , neutral and negative) will appear under your forum username. It will be a new transparent  trust system  , and why not  "visible in all the forum board".

Yay , Really happy to see that some people actually like my idea <3
thanks mate , appreciate it
who knows , maybe the developpers of the new forum software will take it seriously and add it 

[Blazr]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

[TECSHARE]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

[iCEBREAKER]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

I think your 'trust escrow' approach is a good idea and mutual pre-agreement would prevent abusing the system as an 'I don't like you' (un)popularity contest.

[deadley]

I will suggest just 1 thing. That is we will allow only to give 1 feedback each account not like multiple feedback.
Taking feedback from same person multiply times rating increase so much and don't give true sense.

So better if it will only give us chance to feedback once.We will able to  update/modify that if we want but not multiply the feedback many times.

[dogie]

I will suggest just 1 thing. That is we will allow only to give 1 feedback each account not like multiple feedback.
Taking feedback from same person multiply times rating increase so much and don't give true sense.

So better if it will only give us chance to feedback once.We will able to  update/modify that if we want but not multiply the feedback many times.

Then you're weighting multiple successful trades the same as one.

[hilariousandco]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

[deadley]

I will suggest just 1 thing. That is we will allow only to give 1 feedback each account not like multiple feedback.
Taking feedback from same person multiply times rating increase so much and don't give true sense.

So better if it will only give us chance to feedback once.We will able to  update/modify that if we want but not multiply the feedback many times.

Then you're weighting multiple successful trades the same as one.

Yes, we can update BTC section if we want and we can update feedback by saying did multiples trades. But multiple feedback give more value suddenly, that's why it's not look good on trust system.
I do lot's of trade. And even I gave once feedback even they always again ask feedback for every trade.
I don't think if we already gave feedback it will be necessary. One feedback each account will fulfill the requirement of true Trust system.

[TECSHARE]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

Thats why you get rid of red and green ratings and have everyone make custom trust lists. There is no reason anyone needs to preemptively destroy a users reputation even if they are highly suspected of scamming. This preemptive "scambusting" mentality has done more damage to this community than it has helped. Also, this is what the neutral ratings are for, for people to comment about suspected scams and the like without effecting trust ratings.

Which is the bigger barrier? The one VOD puts up for scammers via shotgunning negative ratings everywhere with little or no evidence, or the honest users that have all of their time money and effort wasted who at THE VERY LEAST have to wait months to even discuss having it removed. IMO this is just leading to innocent users being falsely accused and either driving them away or driving them into the ranks of trolls and scammers.

I repeat - A scammer can just get a new name or buy a new account. An HONEST USER loses all the time, money, and effort they invested into their username (often years of work) over accusations that VOD does not even bother to verify most of the time. Several of his ratings are simply for "annoying" him or "lying". Last time I checked that is not an acceptable use of the trust system. VODs practices are FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE to this community than the good he may or may not do "stopping" scammers (who return minutes later).

This is a well known subversion tactic. Get the enemy playing whack-a-mole so much that thy start catching up honest people, then as more and more honest people are burned sentiment turns against the authority handing these dictates down. It is a recipe for this community's destruction.

[qwk]

How about a much more straightforward approach?

Get rid of the trust list, just treat each and every feedback the same, but weighted by the rank of the person who gave the feedback.
E.g.:
Newbie: x0
Jr.: x0
Full.: x0
Sr.: x1
Hero: x2
Legendary: x4
Staff: x8
(or whatever)

Give users the option to change these settings, i.e. one might chose to ignore ratings from anything below Hero and set Hero to x100, Legendary x1000 and Staff x0 (if they don't like staff) ;-)

That way, it'll be difficult to gather a lot of "fake" feedback, and it will be easy to counter by a small number of more experienced users.

[shorena]

How about a much more straightforward approach?

Get rid of the trust list, just treat each and every feedback the same, but weighted by the rank of the person who gave the feedback.
E.g.:
Newbie: x0
Jr.: x0
Full.: x0
Sr.: x1
Hero: x2
Legendary: x4
Staff: x8
(or whatever)

Give users the option to change these settings, i.e. one might chose to ignore ratings from anything below Hero and set Hero to x100, Legendary x1000 and Staff x0 (if they don't like staff) ;-)

That way, it'll be difficult to gather a lot of "fake" feedback, and it will be easy to counter by a small number of more experienced users.

Thats a bit broad isnt it? I dont trust all Sr. Members alike. In fact the rank has very little to do with the amount of trust a person deserves in my opinion. The rank just says: has been here long, posts a lot. Thats not what makes someone trustworthy, at least not in my book. It could also be gamed / bought. It would certainly raise the price of Sr. and higher ranks which might make this infeasible.

[qwk]

Thats a bit broad isnt it? I dont trust all Sr. Members alike. In fact the rank has very little to do with the amount of trust a person deserves in my opinion. The rank just says: has been here long, posts a lot. Thats not what makes someone trustworthy, at least not in my book. It could also be gamed / bought. It would certainly raise the price of Sr. and higher ranks which might make this infeasible.

Why would you need the trust system?
So why would it matter if someone you don't necessarily trust showed up "green" in this system?

I've said it before: the trust system should not be for those of us who are old/experienced enough to know what we're doing.
It should raise the awareness of new users and warn them to be cautious when someone offers them a seemingly great deal.

The system I propose would probably do the trick with a low level of abuse. If somebody really gamed the system, "we" would notice and should leave him negative feedback, which would easily counter his efforts.

[TECSHARE]

How about a much more straightforward approach?

Get rid of the trust list, just treat each and every feedback the same, but weighted by the rank of the person who gave the feedback.
E.g.:
Newbie: x0
Jr.: x0
Full.: x0
Sr.: x1
Hero: x2
Legendary: x4
Staff: x8
(or whatever)

Give users the option to change these settings, i.e. one might chose to ignore ratings from anything below Hero and set Hero to x100, Legendary x1000 and Staff x0 (if they don't like staff) ;-)

That way, it'll be difficult to gather a lot of "fake" feedback, and it will be easy to counter by a small number of more experienced users.

I think this might be an effective metric when used with a mutually agreed upon transaction process in order to make sure people can not leave feedback without the other user agreeing to trade first. While just because an account is older it does not make them more trustworthy, by the virtue of being around so long and not being accused of any wrongdoing there is a less chance of the user being up to anything unsavory without it being noted. Under this system people may buy accounts and use them to farm trust for new accounts to scam with, but if there was for example a way to measure the "taint", or ie the resulting negative trusts put upon people that the originating user trusts, this could be used to indicate who is farming out new accounts for the purpose of scamming, and potentially even be used in their own trust ranking. This would also make people more careful of who they leave trust for as a result. Furthermore if people don't put the user on their trust list ever as a result of their poor conduct, no one will see their ratings counted anyway.

Additionally I think trust exclusions should be modified so that it is a simple way to personally remove someone from your own trust, and regardless of your own trust system ranking, it would only remove the user from your personal trust. So if user A has user C excluded from their trust, and user B has their trust set to 2 levels, and they also trust user D who has user C on their trust list, user B would still trust user C unless they specifically added them to their exclusion list.

The exclusion system as it is currently used simply makes all users lower in the trust tree exclude who they exclude, and if the user who makes the exclusion is ranked high enough, no other users on that same trust branch will ever see them as trusted. This seems like an excessive centralization of power that will be heavily abused, probably even more so than the default trust, because the source of the exclusions are hidden. It is in function little more than a backdoor default trust for nuking other lower level users trust listings.

[shorena]

Why would you need the trust system?

I wasnt refering to me personally, but since you are asking: to help me remember. What I tried to say is: why should a newbie trust me or any other Sr.+?

So why would it matter if someone you don't necessarily trust showed up "green" in this system?

Because in your system feedback by ScammerHero[1] would count as x2 regardless of his trustworthyness. Either that or there is more to it you did not explain, because you also say:

If somebody really gamed the system, "we" would notice and should leave him negative feedback, which would easily counter his efforts.

which would not change the weigth of the scammers rating if I understood your proposal correctly. If our ScammerHero now runs around and leaves negative feedback because "reasons", what could "we" do about it?


[1] This is meant to be a generic well known scammer with the rank of a Hero Member.  Any resemblance to real persons is purely coincidental.

[qwk]

I think this might be an effective metric when used with a mutually agreed upon transaction process in order to make sure people can not leave feedback without the other user agreeing to trade first.

Which I would find unfortunate.
As it is, the trust system is not used too much, it's used too little.
People should be encouraged to leave trust whenever they feel like it, not only after they've completed a deal with someone.

We all remember at least one occasion where any trust system based solely upon earlier trades would have utterly failed: pirateat40.
That's what we should avoid by all means.
If any user does not trust any other user, the trust system should give him the means to express this mistrust, no matter what.
In an open system, this will also mean retaliation ratings.
As we can clearly see from users like Tomatocage, retaliation does not necessarily pose a problem.

1. Most scams are performed by low-level users, or by "suspicious" high-level users.
2. Most scams are detected early on by high-level users.
3. Scam warnings are needed the most by low-level users.

Any trust system should reflect this.

[redsn0w]

I think this might be an effective metric when used with a mutually agreed upon transaction process in order to make sure people can not leave feedback without the other user agreeing to trade first.

Which I would find unfortunate.
As it is, the trust system is not used too much, it's used too little.
People should be encouraged to leave trust whenever they feel like it, not only after they've completed a deal with someone.

We all remember at least one occasion where any trust system based solely upon earlier trades would have utterly failed: pirateat40.
That's what we should avoid by all means.
If any user does not trust any other user, the trust system should give him the means to express this mistrust, no matter what.
In an open system, this will also mean retaliation ratings.
As we can clearly see from users like Tomatocage, retaliation does not necessarily pose a problem.

1. Most scams are performed by low-level users, or by "suspicious" high-level users.
2. Most scams are detected early on by high-level users.
3. Scam warnings are needed the most by low-level users.

Any trust system should reflect this.

So as you told , for example : Can I leave a negative feedback to another user "only" because I don't trust him  ?  I think if someone will try to do this , he will be surely "obligated" to remove/change  the feedback or bad  removed from the defaultTrust list.

[qwk]

Why would you need the trust system?

I wasnt refering to me personally, but since you are asking: to help me remember. What I tried to say is: why should a newbie trust me or any other Sr.+?

To help you remember: take ginseng
Why should a newbie trust you or me?
Because he would be better of if he trusted the majority of experienced users more than the advice of a random selection of users.
If you or me are scammers, that won't matter as long as the majority of us "veterans" are not.

So why would it matter if someone you don't necessarily trust showed up "green" in this system?

Because in your system feedback by ScammerHero[1] would count as x2 regardless of his trustworthyness.

Sure, but scammers don't profit from leaving feedback.
They profit from not having negative feedback.

If somebody really gamed the system, "we" would notice and should leave him negative feedback, which would easily counter his efforts.

which would not change the weigth of the scammers rating if I understood your proposal correctly. If our ScammerHero now runs around and leaves negative feedback because "reasons", what could "we" do about it?

Leave positive feedback wherever he "hit" and wherever we like.
But even if not, would it matter? Let pirateat40 leave negative feedback. So what?
That's only a problem as long as there's very little feedback at all, which is the one thing we should really change.
Encourage people to leave feedback more often.

[shorena]

To help you remember: take ginseng

blll

Why should a newbie trust you or me?
Because he would be better of if he trusted the majority of experienced users more than the advice of a random selection of users.
If you or me are scammers, that won't matter as long as the majority of us "veterans" are not.

Sure, but scammers don't profit from leaving feedback.
They profit from not having negative feedback.

Fair enough. I think I start to see the point behind your suggestion.

Leave positive feedback wherever he "hit" and wherever we like.
But even if not, would it matter? Let pirateat40 leave negative feedback. So what?
That's only a problem as long as there's very little feedback at all, which is the one thing we should really change.
Encourage people to leave feedback more often.

While I like the notion of leaving more feedback, I think it should also be backed by a reason. I usually give very little about ratings without a reference.

[qwk]

So as you told , for example : Can I leave a negative feedback to another user "only" because I don't trust him?

That's what separates a trust system from a court.
You should leave negative feedback to another user you don't trust.
No presumption of innocence.

Again, the pirateat40 example clearly shows that any system based on real "trust" would have led to an early end for his scam. Most people just "knew" that this was a ponzi scheme and wanted to warn others from "investing" with him.
Based solely on personal trading experience, though, any feedback for pirateat40 would have been glowing positive green up to the point of no return when his scheme went belly up.

I think if someone will try to do this , he will be surely "obligated" to remove/change  the feedback or bad  removed from the defaultTrust list.

I don't trust person X.
That's a statement, an opinion.
No one will force me to remove or change this statement against my will.
There is no obligation and there should be no obligation to remove a trust rating.

[TECSHARE]

I think this might be an effective metric when used with a mutually agreed upon transaction process in order to make sure people can not leave feedback without the other user agreeing to trade first.

Which I would find unfortunate.
As it is, the trust system is not used too much, it's used too little.
People should be encouraged to leave trust whenever they feel like it, not only after they've completed a deal with someone.

We all remember at least one occasion where any trust system based solely upon earlier trades would have utterly failed: pirateat40.
That's what we should avoid by all means.
If any user does not trust any other user, the trust system should give him the means to express this mistrust, no matter what.
In an open system, this will also mean retaliation ratings.
As we can clearly see from users like Tomatocage, retaliation does not necessarily pose a problem.

1. Most scams are performed by low-level users, or by "suspicious" high-level users.
2. Most scams are detected early on by high-level users.
3. Scam warnings are needed the most by low-level users.

Any trust system should reflect this.

Having a neutral trust rating that anyone could leave that does not effect the users trust rating would solve the problem of untrustworthy users. Furthermore they could simply be excluded from their trust (using a modified trust exclusion system hopefully).

[dogie]

How about a much more straightforward approach?

Get rid of the trust list, just treat each and every feedback the same, but weighted by the rank of the person who gave the feedback.
E.g.:
Newbie: x0
Jr.: x0
Full.: x0
Sr.: x1
Hero: x2
Legendary: x4
Staff: x8
(or whatever)

Give users the option to change these settings, i.e. one might chose to ignore ratings from anything below Hero and set Hero to x100, Legendary x1000 and Staff x0 (if they don't like staff) ;-)

That way, it'll be difficult to gather a lot of "fake" feedback, and it will be easy to counter by a small number of more experienced users.

I'd end up on about -200 on that system.

[qwk]

Get rid of the trust list, just treat each and every feedback the same, but weighted by the rank of the person who gave the feedback.

I'd end up on about -200 on that system.

Obviously, multiple feedback from the same person should not be taken into account in this system.
Things don't look too grim for you then, do they?

[DiamondCardz]

If I'm honest, when I think about it...I prefer DefaultTrust as it is right now to all of these suggestions. DefaultTrust definitely isn't perfect but these don't seem to be all that good either.

[Gleb Gamow]

Is the trust aspect being worked on now, for I no longer see trust thingies under users' accounts? TBC, I haven't changed any of my settings of late.

[Blazr]

Is the trust aspect being worked on now, for I no longer see trust thingies under users' accounts? TBC, I haven't changed any of my settings of late.

Trust thingies only show up in the marketplace section.

[Magic8Ball]

Is the trust aspect being worked on now, for I no longer see trust thingies under users' accounts? TBC, I haven't changed any of my settings of late.

Trust is not displayed in some sections like this which is not trading section. It is not there in Beginners either which I feel is an incorrect decision.
I liked the old scammertags with all the crosses. I assume it was to much effort and put the liability on the mods and admins.

[MrTeal]

Is the trust aspect being worked on now, for I no longer see trust thingies under users' accounts? TBC, I haven't changed any of my settings of late.

It's subforum dependent. You won't see it in Meta, but you will in others like Hardware or Marketplace.

Get rid of the trust list, just treat each and every feedback the same, but weighted by the rank of the person who gave the feedback.

I'd end up on about -200 on that system.

Obviously, multiple feedback from the same person should not be taken into account in this system.
Things don't look too grim for you then, do they?

Let people have multiple feedbacks, but make the stakes continually rise. I suggest for N additional feedbacks someone wants to give, they need to have completed 2^N plays through of the BCT hosted Oregon Trail game, without anyone dying of typhoid fever. If anyone does, you must start over again.

[qwk]

Let people have multiple feedbacks, but make the stakes continually rise. I suggest for N additional feedbacks someone wants to give, they need to have completed 2^N plays through of the BCT hosted Oregon Trail game, without anyone dying of typhoid fever. If anyone does, you must start over again.

Joking (Oregon Trail game) aside, something like "diminishing returns" for multiple feedback might be appropriate.

[takagari]

Regardless of which change, I'd like to see rules in place.
it should be used for scamming and deals. Scam attempts etc.

Not used for hurt feeling reports. Or as a means of payback. And a way to report abuse of the system.

[Quickseller]

Regardless of which change, I'd like to see rules in place.
it should be used for scamming and deals. Scam attempts etc.

Not used for hurt feeling reports. Or as a means of payback. And a way to report abuse of the system.

In order for rules to be enforced then the trust system would need to be moderated. Once the trust system becomes moderated then it is subject to moderation abuse

[medUSA]

DefaultTrust has problems, but the current DefaultTrust list gives better protection to newbies than the the new suggestion list. Newbies simply do not know who to add to their trust list. They pick the wrong ones to trust, known scammers will not be labeled.

[koshgel]

Regardless of which change, I'd like to see rules in place.
it should be used for scamming and deals. Scam attempts etc.

Not used for hurt feeling reports. Or as a means of payback. And a way to report abuse of the system.

In order for rules to be enforced then the trust system would need to be moderated. Once the trust system becomes moderated then it is subject to moderation abuse

There are a couple people on this board that could moderate with little risk of abuse based on history imo.

[Grand_Voyageur]

I cast my vote on the "keep DefaultTrust list" side since, even with the known problems, it offers more protection to new users. However, I would like to see some of the new features Theymos brought to us like:

• the check box to inject extra users in personal trust lists (hopefully a similar way to also prune it of no more trusted members) to tailor-custom our own list.
• I would also like a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of my list (I keep an ASCI *.TXT file with my list od trusted members and untrusted member i wish to exclude them from my trust network - e.g. as to avoid cases like the well known MagicalTux who remain in the DefaultTrust due to an unpruned trust list of a member).
• Also having the possibility of using jointly both the DefaultTrust and our own list would expand our options for security while ranking up (and learning our responsabilities of more established forum members).

First, in forums where the trust list is visible it might be handy to have a "Trust User" and "Exclude User" button added.

This would be a nice thing to have. Adding someone to my trust list is a bit of a hassle. Not much, but having two buttons, makes it a lot easier.

Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

I really think their guideline are helpful to assist people give the appropriate weight to their feedback. As an example IF i do "One or two good transactions" or if  I had "a number of good transactions" with a forum member i could leave a Neutral feedback since I cannot guarantee him/her is not simply doing smaller transactions to build up his/her reputation before doing a bigger SCAM; but if I know a member in person, he is a close friend or associate and I trust him as myself (or more) I would definitively trust a Positive (green) one; the same if I had a succesful "large number of high-value transactions (more of the BTC equivalent of 10$/month) over long period of association" since i can consider such a member very trustworthy. I may give Negative (Red) if the other two case, but if the one with lesser guilt - e.g. the "Person strikes you as a bit flaky. Unreasonable/unexpected delays in payment, etc." improve his/her behaviour, pay his debt, contribute meangiful to community and so on I may revert the judgement to Neutral to leave it as reminder for Others - however SCAMMERS will remain struck with their Negative judgements.
Also stressing more the need to protect themselves from possible frauds maybe with a sticky topic as well as with a link in Trust settings AND/OR near the new feedback box, similar to their avoiding fraud guidelines could be an idea worth to be evaluated.

Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.

I don't think like Others said before that a Newbie/Jr.Member know enough to bother themselves about customizing his trust list. However, I would like a more advanced trust-setting panel as I'm becoming a more established and knownledgable user to start doing some advanced customization of my list (but I still use DefaultTrust and integrate it with my own addictions/exclusions). I think a Member/Full Member/Sr. Member level would be more appropriate than a Brand New/Newbie have to custom build his list as soon as he make his first post in a Marketplace. Doing so may require to segregate also new users to a n00bs trollbox to allow the same level of actual protection if using the new system as proposed instead of the DefaultTrust.

[qwk]

Well, no matter what the trust system will look like in the future, the more I think about it, I'd like to see the user-edited trust list go away.

Most people just don't understand that you don't put users whom you trust in your trust list, but rather users where you believe that they maintain a good trust list themselves. This has been a problem from the start and it probably won't ever be a non-problem.

Get rid of the trust list! Now.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Well, no matter what the trust system will look like in the future, the more I think about it, I'd like to see the user-edited trust list go away.

Most people just don't understand that you don't put users whom you trust in your trust list, but rather users where you believe that they maintain a good trust list themselves. This has been a problem from the start and it probably won't ever be a non-problem.

Get rid of the trust list! Now.

Getting rid the trust list is not a solution in my view since IF the problem is, as you say "Most people just don't understand that you don't put users whom you trust in your trust list, but rather users where you believe that they maintain a good trust list themselves. This has been a problem from the start" the only way to solve it is to educate members in using it in the right way. As I said before more guideline available to explain how to use feedbacks & trust list. Personally I would put in my trust list ONLY a member that I had known in person/he is a close friend or associate and I trust him as myself (or more) preferably after I have had a succesful large number of high-value transactions AND/OR over long period of association.
But IF you asked me to do this as a Brand New/Newbie or even a few weeks ago i definitely had to random monkey-checking some flag insted of using the DefaultTrust while trying to understand the mechanics of the forum/trust/feedbacks.

So don't get rid of the Baby with the water! Keep the DefaultTrust but explain better how to use/create trust-lists.

[BadBear]

I cast my vote on the "keep DefaultTrust list" side since, even with the known problems, it offers more protection to new users. However, I would like to see some of the new features Theymos brought to us like:

• the check box to inject extra users in personal trust lists (hopefully a similar way to also prune it of no more trusted members) to tailor-custom our own list.
• I would also like a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of my list (I keep an ASCI *.TXT file with my list od trusted members and untrusted member i wish to exclude them from my trust network - e.g. as to avoid cases like the well known MagicalTux who remain in the DefaultTrust due to an unpruned trust list of a member).
• Also having the possibility of using jointly both the DefaultTrust and our own list would expand our options for security while ranking up (and learning our responsabilities of more established forum members).

You can already exclude users, which would have solved the magicaltux issue, and you can already use default trust along with your own list.


I don't really use the trust list as a list of people I implicitly trust, or know, or have traded with, though some of those are on there, it's just a list of people whose feedback I value more than others.

[Grand_Voyageur]

I cast my vote on the "keep DefaultTrust list" side since, even with the known problems, it offers more protection to new users. However, I would like to see some of the new features Theymos brought to us like:

• the check box to inject extra users in personal trust lists (hopefully a similar way to also prune it of no more trusted members) to tailor-custom our own list.
• I would also like a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of my list (I keep an ASCI *.TXT file with my list od trusted members and untrusted member i wish to exclude them from my trust network - e.g. as to avoid cases like the well known MagicalTux who remain in the DefaultTrust due to an unpruned trust list of a member).
• Also having the possibility of using jointly both the DefaultTrust and our own list would expand our options for security while ranking up (and learning our responsabilities of more established forum members).

You can already exclude users, which would have solved the magicaltux issue, and you can already use default trust along with your own list.


I don't really use the trust list as a list of people I implicitly trust, or know, or have traded with, though some of those are on there, it's just a list of people whose feedback I value more than others.

I'm still learning & experimenting with the exclusion & addition and by this way i put a piece on the magicaltux issue. I cannot feel however established enough to have only a personal trust list. My reservation are about the forced future scrapping on DefaultTrust who will make things worse for new/not established enough users. I would like some user-friendly improvments theymos worked out and some other addition like a way to upload a list of mine by an ASCII text-file.

it's just a list of people whose feedback I value more than others.

+1. 

[Parazyd]

Well, no matter what the trust system will look like in the future, the more I think about it, I'd like to see the user-edited trust list go away.

Most people just don't understand that you don't put users whom you trust in your trust list, but rather users where you believe that they maintain a good trust list themselves. This has been a problem from the start and it probably won't ever be a non-problem.

Get rid of the trust list! Now.

Not on depth 0.

[qwk]

Getting rid the trust list is not a solution in my view since IF the problem is, as you say "Most people just don't understand that you don't put users whom you trust in your trust list, but rather users where you believe that they maintain a good trust list themselves. This has been a problem from the start" the only way to solve it is to educate members in using it in the right way

People don't want to learn.
They are used to having things done for them.
You can't educate newbie users about something as complicated as our current trust system.

Any trust system that'll do the trick of actually preventing a relevant number of scams will have to "work just out of the box" for a newbie.

[DiamondCardz]

I don't really use the trust list as a list of people I implicitly trust, or know, or have traded with, though some of those are on there, it's just a list of people whose feedback I value more than others.

And this is precisely how it should be. It has actually been stated many times before (I'm fairly sure theymos was the one who first stated this) that the entire point of DefaultTrust is so that those on Depth 1 pick out a Trust list of people who have valuable feedback to be on Depth 2, or in more common wording, to maintain a trust list of good rating-givers.

[Madness]

I saw that some people liked the idea that I said here ,so I made a new thread to get more intention about it with more few changes , it's an open discussion , just say what do you think  : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=918798.0;viewResults .

~ Madness

[TECSHARE]

Getting rid the trust list is not a solution in my view since IF the problem is, as you say "Most people just don't understand that you don't put users whom you trust in your trust list, but rather users where you believe that they maintain a good trust list themselves. This has been a problem from the start" the only way to solve it is to educate members in using it in the right way

People don't want to learn.
They are used to having things done for them.
You can't educate newbie users about something as complicated as our current trust system.

Any trust system that'll do the trick of actually preventing a relevant number of scams will have to "work just out of the box" for a newbie.

Right, they don't want to learn. So why have a self destructive default trust system to warn users who don't take any actions to protect themselves? Why not just cut out the middle man and get rid of default trust, red and green, and just let users comment on trust profiles.

[qwk]

Any trust system that'll do the trick of actually preventing a relevant number of scams will have to "work just out of the box" for a newbie.

Why not just cut out the middle man and get rid of default trust, red and green, and just let users comment on trust profiles.

Sure, why not? I'm okay with that.
Although I don't really see the point in such a system at all. It won't help a newbie.
I've said it before and I will repeat it over and over again, the trust system is not for me or you, it should help newbies to be less likely victims of potential scammers.

Any trust system will have to be measured by the number of scams it prevents.

[Grand_Voyageur]

I saw that some people liked the idea that I said here ,so I made a new thread to get more intention about it with more few changes , it's an open discussion , just say what do you think  : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=918798.0;viewResults .

~ Madness

I have already casted my vote there; nevertheless thank you for your reminder! 

Any trust system that'll do the trick of actually preventing a relevant number of scams will have to "work just out of the box" for a newbie.

Why not just cut out the middle man and get rid of default trust, red and green, and just let users comment on trust profiles.

Sure, why not? I'm okay with that.
Although I don't really see the point in such a system at all. It won't help a newbie.
I've said it before and I will repeat it over and over again, the trust system is not for me or you, it should help newbies to be less likely victims of potential scammers.

Any trust system will have to be measured by the number of scams it prevents.

+1. As I said myself before, more established member have learned their way up to avoid potential scams; but a trust system real benefit is to protect vulnerable new user like the newbies.

[TECSHARE]

Any trust system that'll do the trick of actually preventing a relevant number of scams will have to "work just out of the box" for a newbie.

Why not just cut out the middle man and get rid of default trust, red and green, and just let users comment on trust profiles.

Sure, why not? I'm okay with that.
Although I don't really see the point in such a system at all. It won't help a newbie.
I've said it before and I will repeat it over and over again, the trust system is not for me or you, it should help newbies to be less likely victims of potential scammers.

Any trust system will have to be measured by the number of scams it prevents.

The newbies are the ones refusing to learn how to trade safely. Why create leave a system that creates infighting and nepotism? Nothing will prevent scamming. It will always continue to happen under ANY system. IMO a series of detailed stickies informing people of the basics of trading safely here could be much more effective. This way the newbies who actually want to learn how to protect themselves do, and the lazy people get punished for their laziness, as it should be.

[qwk]

The newbies are the ones refusing to learn how to trade safely. Why create leave a system that creates infighting and nepotism? Nothing will prevent scamming. It will always continue to happen under ANY system. IMO a series of detailed stickies informing people of the basics of trading safely here could be much more effective. This way the newbies who actually want to learn how to protect themselves do, and the lazy people get punished for their laziness, as it should be.

I simply see no point in having any kind of specific trust system if not for the newbies.
We were happy back in the days when there was no such thing, so why bother?
Just for my vanity? Because I'm a lot of peoples' trust lists?

The questions are:
1. do we need a trust system after all?
If so:
2. what should it achieve?
3. how can it achieve that?

[TECSHARE]

The newbies are the ones refusing to learn how to trade safely. Why create leave a system that creates infighting and nepotism? Nothing will prevent scamming. It will always continue to happen under ANY system. IMO a series of detailed stickies informing people of the basics of trading safely here could be much more effective. This way the newbies who actually want to learn how to protect themselves do, and the lazy people get punished for their laziness, as it should be.

I simply see no point in having any kind of specific trust system if not for the newbies.
We were happy back in the days when there was no such thing, so why bother?
Just for my vanity? Because I'm a lot of peoples' trust lists?

The questions are:
1. do we need a trust system after all?
If so:
2. what should it achieve?
3. how can it achieve that?

IMO newbies who are willing to spend the effort to learn how to protect themselves should be assisted with more clear information and guidance. The ones who just expect the community to tell them what to think because they are too lazy to research it for themselves, they should be left to deal with the consequences of that. I was perfectly happy in the days before the trust system, and I see no reason why we can not return to those days. It was a good experiment, but it failed. It is time to move on. Preemptive trust ratings, "scambusting" etc are counter productive and destroy more honest users than they do stop scammers. Scammers just return seconds later with a new name and try again. Honest users lose out big time. We can't afford to drive away people who want to contribute.

So in response:
1. No.
2. It should achieve a centralized place for users to comment on another user's trade activity WITHOUT turning it into a penalization system or a system of nepotism.
3.A comment based non red/green ranked trust system could achieve the vast majority of the benefits of the current trust system while removing the majority of the destructive feedback cycles.

[koshgel]

The common consensus seems to be that the trust system is specifically in place to help newbies not get scammed but the reality is that 99% of the newbies that come to this board have no idea what the trust system is and how it works.  There is nothing about it in Beginners section and throwing a screen at them and forcing to choose from members they have never heard of/interacted with isn't going to help either.  Even to this day I'm not 100% how the depths work and who gets to be on DefaultTrust. How is a newbie going to know?

There should be a concerted effort to educate newbies on how Trust works and how to set up the list properly if newbie scam prevention is really the goal.

[TECSHARE]

The common consensus seems to be that the trust system is specifically in place to help newbies not get scammed but the reality is that 99% of the newbies that come to this board have no idea what the trust system is and how it works.  There is nothing about it in Beginners section and throwing a screen at them and forcing to choose from members they have never heard of/interacted with isn't going to help either.  Even to this day I'm not 100% how the depths work and who gets to be on DefaultTrust. How is a newbie going to know?

There should be a concerted effort to educate newbies on how Trust works and how to set up the list properly if newbie scam prevention is really the goal.

This largely sums up the problem. All the trust system does is give newbies a false sense of security, because if they don't understand how it works it is useless. Even more so even if they do understand it, it has many inherent flaws that have not manifested much until recently.

[DebitMe]

Something I thought of while reading this thread (not to sure about implementation though) would be a way to either remove trust from yourself or others (not being the one who originally posted it), have it counted less (kind of already works this way as the person who left it incorrectly probably doesn't have positive trust), or have another category under trust, something like, "untrusted feedback and others agree" that would allow people who simply leave neg rep for the sake of it to be able to be mitigated if others don't really agree with the trust, and agree it should be counted less.

I also like the idea of buttons to quickly add and delete people from your trust list, would really speed up the process after a transaction.

Another point to bring up is what about trusted users who don't really do trades.  There are plenty of very knowledgeable forum members who don't spend much time in the markets sections.  Lots of people would trust these users, but since they have never traded with them, have not left positive feedback.  You start to see a lot of bias towards those who spend a lot of time doing trades in the top 50 members, and start to leave these people out.  Perhaps some formula to calculate a number based on forum history (length of time on forum, posts made per week over that time, trust received weekly over that time, etc...) would help to level the playing field a bit?

[TECSHARE]

Something I thought of while reading this thread (not to sure about implementation though) would be a way to either remove trust from yourself or others (not being the one who originally posted it), have it counted less (kind of already works this way as the person who left it incorrectly probably doesn't have positive trust), or have another category under trust, something like, "untrusted feedback and others agree" that would allow people who simply leave neg rep for the sake of it to be able to be mitigated if others don't really agree with the trust, and agree it should be counted less.

I also like the idea of buttons to quickly add and delete people from your trust list, would really speed up the process after a transaction.

Another point to bring up is what about trusted users who don't really do trades.  There are plenty of very knowledgeable forum members who don't spend much time in the markets sections.  Lots of people would trust these users, but since they have never traded with them, have not left positive feedback.  You start to see a lot of bias towards those who spend a lot of time doing trades in the top 50 members, and start to leave these people out.  Perhaps some formula to calculate a number based on forum history (length of time on forum, posts made per week over that time, trust received weekly over that time, etc...) would help to level the playing field a bit?

This is not a bad concept having a trust system that can put trust weight on individual ratings, but it would still include all the flaws of the current trust system regardless of this small improvement. The trust system is SUPPOSED to operate as a way to judge who is and who is not a reputable trader, but unfortunately 3rd parties unrelated to the trades in question involve themselves in issues making it not so much just trade related any more.

[Grand_Voyageur]

The common consensus seems to be that the trust system is specifically in place to help newbies not get scammed but the reality is that 99% of the newbies that come to this board have no idea what the trust system is and how it works.  There is nothing about it in Beginners section and throwing a screen at them and forcing to choose from members they have never heard of/interacted with isn't going to help either.  Even to this day I'm not 100% how the depths work and who gets to be on DefaultTrust. How is a newbie going to know?

There should be a concerted effort to educate newbies on how Trust works and how to set up the list properly if newbie scam prevention is really the goal.

+1. As I said in my previous posts (1, 2, 3, 4), while I like some of the improvement theymos brought to us, I was really concerned about the user-unfriendly results of having few guidelines & helps in the points an user used the most. Some people are lazy for sure, but if needed informations are not readily available the Whole (any) system is useless.

[SaltySpitoon]

Since the Trust system is mainly for the newbies, why don't we (I mean Theymos) make a poll about what changes/protections they would like in the newbie section? The problem with this thread is that 90% of the people answering and I'd assume voting, are those that know about the meta section, and are legendary/hero/senior accounts. While its all fine and good to have a discussion with everyone about this, why don't we propose different new systems to the newbie section, get newbie responses, and then pick apart the proposed systems until we have a system that was popular with newbie members, and then picked apart to make sure its a sound system by everyone else.

If you think its a good idea, Theymos/Badbear please make the poll or thread in the newbie section, no one else please. People that have agendas or biases one way or another will word things oddly or propose systems that couldn't be implemented, etc and it would take away from the point of asking the newbies. Because as a lot of people are mentioning here, they don't neccessarily need the trust system as it is, because they have been here long enough to use whatever tools are available. So this has pretty much boiled down to what can we do to help the newbies, but at the same time not screw everyone else over.

[DebitMe]

Another idea, how about IP bans for people that go really far into the negative trust (or get enough votes for it, IDK something like that), or people who have created multiple accounts from the same IP that all have negative reps.  I have a feeling if you look at most of the scam accusations nowadays, they will probably be towards a single person who does a scam, then makes a new account and starts over.  I understand they can easily change their IP in a multitude of difference ways, but it may at least help a little bit in not allowing those members back to the forums.

[TECSHARE]

Another idea, how about IP bans for people that go really far into the negative trust (or get enough votes for it, IDK something like that), or people who have created multiple accounts from the same IP that all have negative reps.  I have a feeling if you look at most of the scam accusations nowadays, they will probably be towards a single person who does a scam, then makes a new account and starts over.  I understand they can easily change their IP in a multitude of difference ways, but it may at least help a little bit in not allowing those members back to the forums.

Won't work for a plethora or reasons.

[qwk]

Since the Trust system is mainly for the newbies, why don't we (I mean Theymos) make a poll about what changes/protections they would like in the newbie section? The problem with this thread is that 90% of the people answering and I'd assume voting, are those that know about the meta section, and are legendary/hero/senior accounts. While its all fine and good to have a discussion with everyone about this, why don't we propose different new systems to the newbie section, get newbie responses, and then pick apart the proposed systems until we have a system that was popular with newbie members, and then picked apart to make sure its a sound system by everyone else.

I doubt that the newbies would come up with any meaningful decisions or even suggestions. Yeah, I know that sounds rather arrogant, but to be honest, you don't believe for a minute yourself that someone who's hardly grasped the proceedings of this forum would be able to find a technological solution to a complex problem like a web of trust?

Let's be paternalistic, as we already were with the DefaultTrust system, and just give our beloved newbs a big red or green flag "trust this guy / distrust that guy". It'll be for their best.

If you think its a good idea, Theymos/Badbear please make the poll or thread in the newbie section, no one else please. People that have agendas or biases one way or another will word things oddly or propose systems that couldn't be implemented, etc and it would take away from the point of asking the newbies. Because as a lot of people are mentioning here, they don't neccessarily need the trust system as it is, because they have been here long enough to use whatever tools are available. So this has pretty much boiled down to what can we do to help the newbies, but at the same time not screw everyone else over.

I personally wouldn't mind screwing everyone else over if it helped reducing the number of scammed newbies.

[Sumerian]

This system is better than the current system in any way. Many people are abusing the current system

[gmaxwell]

It would be nicer if it could tell you about which of the recommendations you've communicated with before (maybe with links to some past threads where you've posted after them)... but sadly if you're new to the forum that data doesn't exist.

[SaltySpitoon]

Since the Trust system is mainly for the newbies, why don't we (I mean Theymos) make a poll about what changes/protections they would like in the newbie section? The problem with this thread is that 90% of the people answering and I'd assume voting, are those that know about the meta section, and are legendary/hero/senior accounts. While its all fine and good to have a discussion with everyone about this, why don't we propose different new systems to the newbie section, get newbie responses, and then pick apart the proposed systems until we have a system that was popular with newbie members, and then picked apart to make sure its a sound system by everyone else.

I doubt that the newbies would come up with any meaningful decisions or even suggestions. Yeah, I know that sounds rather arrogant, but to be honest, you don't believe for a minute yourself that someone who's hardly grasped the proceedings of this forum would be able to find a technological solution to a complex problem like a web of trust?

Let's be paternalistic, as we already were with the DefaultTrust system, and just give our beloved newbs a big red or green flag "trust this guy / distrust that guy". It'll be for their best.

If you think its a good idea, Theymos/Badbear please make the poll or thread in the newbie section, no one else please. People that have agendas or biases one way or another will word things oddly or propose systems that couldn't be implemented, etc and it would take away from the point of asking the newbies. Because as a lot of people are mentioning here, they don't neccessarily need the trust system as it is, because they have been here long enough to use whatever tools are available. So this has pretty much boiled down to what can we do to help the newbies, but at the same time not screw everyone else over.

I personally wouldn't mind screwing everyone else over if it helped reducing the number of scammed newbies.

Perhaps, but everyone is familiar with some sort of feedback systems, be it Ebay's, OTC, Amazon product reviews, etc. If the purpose of the trust system is to help the newbies, why make it more complicated than they can understand? That said, of course everyone understands we are talking generalization. Some newbies here have never touched cryptocurrencies nor many tech features that we take for granted, and some newbies here have been developing decentralized systems for 30 years. I didn't mean have the newbies decide the depths of the technical features, I mean ask them what would help them out, and then have the older members (people in this meta thread) design a doable system around what they need.

If you have never been scammed, and know with complete certainty that you can avoid doing so in the future, your motivations in the new trust system will be minimally compared to those that actually need it. I personally would be just fine without any sort of trust system, so I probably wouldn't be the best person to design a trust system. However I can understand the need for one. So why not ask the people who will use it what they want and go from there?

[dogie]

Perhaps, but everyone is familiar with some sort of feedback systems, be it Ebay's, OTC, Amazon product reviews, etc. If the purpose of the trust system is to help the newbies, why make it more complicated than they can understand? That said, of course everyone understands we are talking generalization. Some newbies here have never touched cryptocurrencies nor many tech features that we take for granted, and some newbies here have been developing decentralized systems for 30 years. I didn't mean have the newbies decide the depths of the technical features, I mean ask them what would help them out, and then have the older members (people in this meta thread) design a doable system around what they need.

If you have never been scammed, and know with complete certainty that you can avoid doing so in the future, your motivations in the new trust system will be minimally compared to those that actually need it. I personally would be just fine without any sort of trust system, so I probably wouldn't be the best person to design a trust system. However I can understand the need for one. So why not ask the people who will use it what they want and go from there?

I'm starting to feel like a moderated system would solve almost all of our issues. Mods don't even have to do the work as you can set up a tribunal like system as the super popular game League of Legends uses. Because there would be fewer cases and members to vote if people appeal ratings, it would be more appropriate to say have a tribunal of 7 review each case and the evidence users submit.

Without moderation, we're struggling to come up with any even remotely viable systems because there's always going to be a way for someone to freely abuse it if we don't set up rules and enforce them. As with this forum, there has to be some level of centralisation for things to actually get going and build a stable base for appropriate decentralisation.

[freedomno1]

The common consensus seems to be that the trust system is specifically in place to help newbies not get scammed but the reality is that 99% of the newbies that come to this board have no idea what the trust system is and how it works.  There is nothing about it in Beginners section and throwing a screen at them and forcing to choose from members they have never heard of/interacted with isn't going to help either.  Even to this day I'm not 100% how the depths work and who gets to be on DefaultTrust. How is a newbie going to know?

There should be a concerted effort to educate newbies on how Trust works and how to set up the list properly if newbie scam prevention is really the goal.

Perhaps we do need to communicate these level of discussions better with newbies and get their input.
And make it a bit more obvious in the beginner faq if people are still missing it
That said there is a brief one liner on it in beginners and help so it does get a mention in the beginners sticky which is easy enough to miss.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177133.msg1844234#msg1844234

(Read up on the trust system in this thread.  If you have questions about it, ask them over here.)

Links to a thread that hasn't been touched since 2013 (I think newbies are scared of necroing it or no one reads these things nowadays lol)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=215278.0

Pertaining to discussion above
Analysis of other trust models sounds reasonable as we are trying to find the right piece to fit the puzzle more input and case studies would make for a good sample before we decide on any changes.

[Quickseller]

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer.

If someone directly trusts a a scammer, then they are indeed in a bad situation, and they'll need to remove the person manually. I might add a warning to trust pages for people who directly trust a scammer if this ever happens.

It's not a big deal at lower depths due to exclusions.

The exclusions feature would rely on enough highly trusted people using it. Looking at a trust list that only trusts DefaultTrust, I counted a total of 7 people who are excluded by someone who is trusted by default trust. Looking at the hierarchical view only 3 out of 14 people trusted by DefaultTrust have utilized the exclusion feature.

In theory, over time, more people will learn to, and use this feature, so I will give you this one.

With that being said, it is very difficult to know for sure when someone has scammed. A good amount of business is conducted outside of the forum (but originates in the forum) where evidence is less assessable. Not only that but often times the evidence averrable is not complete.

You yourself even recently said that you were not 100% sure that TF in fact scammed all his customers.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

You'd need a lot of accounts for that. 20 full members to make the list, ~100 to get reasonably high in it (currently -- the requirements will probably become higher if this system is adopted). And I'd stop this from happening once I'd notice it, so people buying these accounts would be spending a lot of money on only a very short-term advantage.

After the market crashed I was able to buy full member accounts for as low as .02 and was able to buy several (250 activity) senior accounts for .055 each. It would probably be somewhat unrealistic to be able to buy 100, or even 20 at those prices, however if you were to double those prices then it would cost roughly .8 to buy 20 full members or 4 to buy 100, and 1.1 to buy 10 seniors 5.28 to buy 48 seniors. This compares to the rough price of between 3 and 3.5 when you market a default trust account for sale (if you wait long enough). Bear in mind that these could potentially be used to create a near unlimited number of "trusted" members.

Not only that but the purchased higher level accounts could potentially be sold once enough other accounts are "infected" by trusting people they otherwise should not trust (this is very similar to how someone can attack a PoS altcoin).

If you stop this from happening once you notice it wouldn't this be moderating  the trust system?

Another thing that I found very interesting is that throughout the recent drama regarding Vod giving out negative trust to various people who disagreed with his trust rating, I noticed that they all tended to trust each other and gave each other positive trust feedback. Two of them even traded with each other. (I don't think they are all controlled by the same person). If this kind of trend were to continue then, in theory, all the scammers will trust each other and the scammers will naturally rise to the top of the randomly selected suggested list.  

My point here is that Default Trust gives a new user a good starting point about who to trust and who not to trust, while this new system asks them to pick their own "Default Trust" pretty much at random, since they will probably have little reason to pick one name over another.

-snip-
 And if a highly-trusted user who was previously suggested starts creating and trusting fake accounts, I'll do something to stop him, or at least warn users.

Again, don't you think this would be moderating the trust system? I think you would agree that the trust system should be moderated as little as possible, however I think this would involve more potential moderation then our current system uses.

I think it would be very difficult to know for sure when this happens. One of the reasons why the sale/trading of accounts is allowed here is because it is not possible to stop, the same principle applies in this case.

I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community.

He's still quite widely trusted. Users will be able to avoid selecting him on the suggestion page.

I could manually exclude people like him, but doing that would likely be controversial in itself, and I'd prefer to keep this as automated as possible.

Outside of this thread, I have never head of bobsag3, how would I know that I should avoid selecting him? I would say this is a good example as to how this kind of system would be very slow to react.

You are correct to say that manually excluding people would be very controversial.


I think your proposing this is essentially a bow to one particular user who is screaming particularly loud about the current trust system. I wouldn't say that it is necessarily correct to make changes to a system or a procedure just because one person complaints loud enough.

I would say that it would probably be appropriate to exclude the opinions of some percentage of the "x" percent of people who are the "loudest" arguing for either "side" of what to do. This would exclude the outliers of the conversation. If you exclude TECHsHARE's position on the current trust system, there are really very few people who are against the current trust system, and really no one who makes an argument with any kind of substance.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Quickseller, this has nothing to do with TECSHARE so get it straight (and stop commenting on things you are very misguided about).

This is more about this precedent:

IMO your ratings of gweedo are inappropriate. His thread title is inaccurate and overly harsh, but this doesn't imply that he's untrustworthy. I feel that allowing your ratings to exist in the default trust network would be counter to the forum's mission of free speech, so I've removed you from the default trust network.

which was not applied to an instance that has already been conclusively settled as also violating this criteria, however the user was not removed from DefaultTrust.

This is the obvious catalyst, as also hinted by:

- There won't be people who are clearly "at the top" of the trust system. Furthermore, I will no longer need to carefully ensure that the default trust network is OK for everyone.

---

So, please think before you hit 'Post'.

[Quickseller]

Quickseller, this has nothing to do with TECSHARE so get it straight (and stop commenting on things you are very misguided about).

This is more about this precedent:

IMO your ratings of gweedo are inappropriate. His thread title is inaccurate and overly harsh, but this doesn't imply that he's untrustworthy. I feel that allowing your ratings to exist in the default trust network would be counter to the forum's mission of free speech, so I've removed you from the default trust network.

which was not applied to an instance that has already been conclusively settled as also violating this criteria, however the user was not removed from DefaultTrust.

I disagree. I was honestly not here for the gweedo incident, so I cannot say how much time elapsed between the time when you left the negative trust and the time you were removed. You have since removed the negative trust, however it looks like you opened a scam accusation that was immediately locked at July 13, 2013 that commented on him spreading FUD about your lending sites.

Looking at the TECHSHARE example, it looks like he left Armis negative trust on November 5, 2014, which is the same day he opened a thread asking for him to be removed from default trust list. It was not until over 3 days later that he was removed from default trust list. During this three day period, the community had the chance to discuss the rating in question and TECHSHARE has the opportunity to remove the rating.

If you were to look at recent examples of Vod's recent controversy, he removed his negative ratings on all users in question within less then 48 hours, and after the community was able to voice their opinion on his ratings. I want to say it was closer to 24 hours, but the timeline is not crystal clear on this (additionally the people he gave negative trust to were acting like 2 year olds while Armis was acting professionally the entire time).   

This is the obvious catalyst, as also hinted by:

- There won't be people who are clearly "at the top" of the trust system. Furthermore, I will no longer need to carefully ensure that the default trust network is OK for everyone.

theymos would still be at the top of the trust system. As you can see from my response above his proposed system would be subject to a number of instances where he would need to "moderate" the system. The trust system would remain centralized.

The current system allows for people to have much more information in order to make a judgment as to whose ratings can be relied upon and whose should no be. Anytime you use any level of randomness to determine which users' trust reports to rely on you are asking for trouble.

[coinits]

If there was an option to scrap the whole trust system then that is what I would choose.

[theymos]

If you stop this from happening once you notice it wouldn't this be moderating  the trust system?

It'd be very slightly moderating the suggested-trust-list-users system, which I think would be less centralized than managing DefaultTrust.

[Vod]

I'm interested to see what the votes will be!

[forzendiablo]

i would like 3rd option - update default trust with latest more active users [and no - not me]

[Blazed]

I agree maybe add a couple more users and see how it goes. I am going to put my trusted list back in and see how much it changes.

[Quickseller]

If you stop this from happening once you notice it wouldn't this be moderating  the trust system?

It'd be very slightly moderating the suggested-trust-list-users system, which I think would be less centralized than managing DefaultTrust.

Without moderation you would still heavily influence it as you are heavily trusted so whatever trust list you use will be very heavily weighted through the community.

If you want a less centralized system then I would suggest removing yourself from the accounts that is trusted from DefaultTrust, choosing people who wish to remain reputable throughout the community (and are very trustworthy) to be trusted by DefaultTrust, and to only remove people from DefaultTrust under very specific circumstances that are outlined publicly and are open to public debate (not vote - shills).

A very good example of when a reputable person who is trusted by DefaultTrust acted when the community was concerned about his trust report is here. We should strive to have more users like philipma1957 trusted by DefaultTrust (who care about their reputation and are willing to act on their trust list when someone calls out an issue about it)

[Blazed]

Wow so with all my trusted people..I go from +40 trust to +113 lol. This is why I was just using default only to see what everyone else sees. I finally get why that doesn't matter...just go by what I trust and that is it.

[theymos]

Votes:

For the new system

Against the new system

theymos HostFat gmaxwell PsychoticBoy qwk $username alexrossi Welsh kcud_dab matt4054 LaudaM Blazr EnJoyThis sardokan Beastlymac alani123 Eal F. Skillz BitCoinDream redsn0w hopenotlate mitzie moreia criptix takagari Muhammed Zakir Shallow rugrats onemorebtc blablaace Gleb Gamow Sumerian Reynaldo justinetime geforcelover abyrnes81 kepo07 hexafraction Dalyb

OgNasty Tomatocage Vod MrTeal Foxpup BitcoinEXpress MiningBuddy iCEBREAKER GIANNAT KWH haploid23 dogie freedomno1 medUSA bitcoininformation Blazedout419 forzendiablo niktitan132 jdany TheGambler TookDk hilariousandco koshgel Keyser Soze cexylikepie deadley david123 siameze coinits Parazyd bitbaby Gyfts MadZ bassguitarman ABitNut inigthz Quickseller twister Katsou Superhitech Grand_Voyageur Plutonium

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

[Vod]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

You're an intelligent guy... I'm sure you'll have another solution for us to vet in no time.

[Quickseller]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

For those that I am familiar with, I am not surprised with how everyone voted.

What do all the colors mean though?

[dogie]

Votes:

1) Can you post a key as to the colors please, and is there a significance to the ranking?
2) I'm sure you or someone else will come up with something. I went through about 5 different ideas but they're all abusable in some fashion without moderation. It only takes a teeny amount of moderation (appeal tribunals to remove the most obvious fake stuff) and then plenty of versions become viable and better than current trust.
3) And OH MY GOD YOU CAN USE HTML COLOR CODES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. I've been stuck with green and lime green for years, time to fix 42 guides  .

[MrTeal]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

For those that I am familiar with, I am not surprised with how everyone voted.

What do all the colors mean though?

Just a guess.
Red - Demigod
Pink - Staff
Purple - VIP
Green - Donator
Blue - Legendary
etc...

[freedomno1]

Votes:

3) And OH MY GOD YOU CAN USE HTML COLOR CODES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. I've been stuck with green and lime green for years, time to fix 42 guides  .

That's a lot of guides

That vote was closer than I thought it was a good sample size 80 users is not bad, but having 2000 + trust scores seems a bit excessive so guess default works till another interesting proposal comes around or a lot more discussion.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Votes:

For the new system

Against the new system

theymos HostFat gmaxwell PsychoticBoy qwk $username alexrossi Welsh kcud_dab matt4054 LaudaM Blazr EnJoyThis sardokan Beastlymac alani123 Eal F. Skillz BitCoinDream redsn0w hopenotlate mitzie moreia criptix takagari Muhammed Zakir Shallow rugrats onemorebtc blablaace Gleb Gamow Sumerian Reynaldo justinetime geforcelover abyrnes81 kepo07 hexafraction Dalyb

OgNasty Tomatocage Vod MrTeal Foxpup BitcoinEXpress MiningBuddy iCEBREAKER GIANNAT KWH haploid23 dogie freedomno1 medUSA bitcoininformation Blazedout419 forzendiablo niktitan132 jdany TheGambler TookDk hilariousandco koshgel Keyser Soze cexylikepie deadley david123 siameze coinits Parazyd bitbaby Gyfts MadZ bassguitarman ABitNut inigthz Quickseller twister Katsou Superhitech Grand_Voyageur Plutonium

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

ThankYou for your update on the poll results & for asking for our voices!  
Even if the DefaultTrust has slightly won this contest, would You evaluating the possibility to implement some of the more user friendly features like the check box to inject extra users in personal trust lists (hopefully also similar way to also prune it of no more trusted members) to tailor-custom our own lists while keeping also the actual typing method or the possibility to upload a ASCII a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of our personal trust lists? Also are you evaluating the possibility to put in Trust settings and Trust feedback pages some FAQ links to some "How To" providing some guidelines & help on the right/best way to set/maintain trust lists and provide accurate feedback? I know we have some sticky post around to explain it but putting the right information is needed the most could easy the task.

[Vod]

the possibility to upload a ASCII a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of our personal trust lists?

I would be against this.  It would no longer be "your personal" trust list, but someone else's personal trust list.

[Grand_Voyageur]

the possibility to upload a ASCII a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of our personal trust lists?

I would be against this.  It would no longer be "your personal" trust list, but someone else's personal trust list.

If you use other people maintaned lists i may agree with you, but IF You have a text file back-up of your own list as me OR IF as me you used a text file to do my maintenance (and also to put in the usernames of the members i met in person - i.e. in fact a memory helper task) is ONLY a resources/time-saving way of doing your forum housekeeping.
Maybe is not an option to be made available to a n00b but only for more established members (Full Members/Sr. Members or up?) but i think it may be very helpful.

Just my 2 satoshi

[Vod]

You can backup/restore your personal trust list simply by copy/pasting into notepad (for windows).  You don't need any kind of exporter/importer.

[Grand_Voyageur]

You can backup/restore your personal trust list simply by copy/pasting into notepad (for windows).  You don't need any kind of exporter/importer.

Actually I used this solution; but, I'm not a big fan of the huge copy&paste due to the heavy workload imposed on my aging notebook RAM & CPU since I used to do a lot of multiple tasks at the same time (multiple sw instances working & quite a few internet browsers pages open at the same time). Importing directly the list in the Trust setting would really help my experience (as well the ones of people in similar situation).

[theymos]

What do all the colors mean though?

The colors are the same as the colors on Who's Online:
- Admins = red
- Global mods = dark blue
- Donators = green
- VIPs = violet
- Staff = pink
- Regular users are various shades of grey, getting darker with seniority.
- Legendary = lightish blue

[hilariousandco]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

It is split very evenly. Even the users who voted for each seem so. Interesting that BadBear didn't vote (unless he did on an alt account). I think the current system is the best solution but should be tweaked or kept a closer eye on the people who are on there and maybe limiting the number of users that each person can put on.

[TECSHARE]

Quickseller, this has nothing to do with TECSHARE so get it straight (and stop commenting on things you are very misguided about).

This is more about this precedent:

IMO your ratings of gweedo are inappropriate. His thread title is inaccurate and overly harsh, but this doesn't imply that he's untrustworthy. I feel that allowing your ratings to exist in the default trust network would be counter to the forum's mission of free speech, so I've removed you from the default trust network.

which was not applied to an instance that has already been conclusively settled as also violating this criteria, however the user was not removed from DefaultTrust.

I disagree. I was honestly not here for the gweedo incident, so I cannot say how much time elapsed between the time when you left the negative trust and the time you were removed. You have since removed the negative trust, however it looks like you opened a scam accusation that was immediately locked at July 13, 2013 that commented on him spreading FUD about your lending sites.

Looking at the TECHSHARE example, it looks like he left Armis negative trust on November 5, 2014, which is the same day he opened a thread asking for him to be removed from default trust list. It was not until over 3 days later that he was removed from default trust list. During this three day period, the community had the chance to discuss the rating in question and TECHSHARE has the opportunity to remove the rating.

If you were to look at recent examples of Vod's recent controversy, he removed his negative ratings on all users in question within less then 48 hours, and after the community was able to voice their opinion on his ratings. I want to say it was closer to 24 hours, but the timeline is not crystal clear on this (additionally the people he gave negative trust to were acting like 2 year olds while Armis was acting professionally the entire time).  

This is the obvious catalyst, as also hinted by:

- There won't be people who are clearly "at the top" of the trust system. Furthermore, I will no longer need to carefully ensure that the default trust network is OK for everyone.

theymos would still be at the top of the trust system. As you can see from my response above his proposed system would be subject to a number of instances where he would need to "moderate" the system. The trust system would remain centralized.

The current system allows for people to have much more information in order to make a judgment as to whose ratings can be relied upon and whose should no be. Anytime you use any level of randomness to determine which users' trust reports to rely on you are asking for trouble.

First of all I want to point out the conflict of interest Quickseller has in trying to discredit someone who is arguing for removal of the defaul trust system. If this is done all those accounts he is holding on to trying to hawk other peoples trust, will be worth a whole lot less. He has FINANCIAL INTEREST to try to discredit me and stop the default trust from being removed.

In response to your comments, during that 3 day period I gave Armis the opportunity to remove his slanderous, harassing, and insulting posts from my marketplace OPs, which began as 1 then turned into 5 more once I left him a trust rating, so no, he did not act professionally the whole time. He had an opportunity to get his negative removed. The staff didn't like that I used my trust as leverage against him to keep my op free of his harassment and claimed I was trying to intimidate him into silence on the entire forum. This is a lie. He could have posted in scam accusations or meta if he really believed me selling a gift card for face value was such a crime.

He was there to grief, that is it, and the staff whom I had been previously critical of took it as an opportunity to exact retribution upon me for the unforgivable slight of being critical of their policies. In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating. Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust. This was additional punitive punishment that would not be levied out to most users simply for leaving a trust rating they don't agree with. Also they always claim trust is not moderated, but this sure looks like trust moderation to me, especially punishing me after the fact that I was already removed from the default trust.

In VODs case, he repeatedly and willfully violates the trust. In my instance I didn't even KNOW default trust was moderated, no one ever told me, and it is not written anywhere. VOD clearly should know the rules by now, yet he finds himself constantly violating them causing all kinds of strife for users all over the forum. I made an a single honest mistake followed by a principled refusal to comply. He makes repeated willful violations of the trust system rules in order to attempt to silence people who criticize him from speaking out. I was honest about why I left my rating from start to finish. VOD constantly lies to everyone's faces and people just pretend along with him. The two cases are not at all the same.

[onemorebtc]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust.

i dont understand what you mean.
how did they remove your feedback on other accounts?

[hilariousandco]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

And you shouldn't. It's just another conspiracy he made up to try help his argument.

Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust.

i dont understand what you mean.
how did they remove your feedback on other accounts?

He's talking about how people can exclude users using ~ on their trust lists to those they don't trust (it doesn't 'remove' feedback but Techshare's doesn't show up as trusted anymore). And no it wasn't me. If you go to the trust tree you will see who has done so as your name will be on their list but with a strikethrough.

[TECSHARE]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust.

i dont understand what you mean.
how did they remove your feedback on other accounts?

What part about it don't you believe? Of course from the outside you would not be able to tell much different, but I see it in the form of ignored reports, my own posts being reported and acted upon for minor things like 2 year old bumps I forgot to delete, and the hostility some of the staff clearly show for me in the way they talk to/about me. The staff refuse to even answer my private messages. The only staff I have ever got to reply to me was Maged and Badbear. While it may not be evident to you, it is evident to me. Why would I lie about this? What reason do I have to start all of this over nothing, damaging my trust ranking and pissing people off, what do I get out of it other than pointing out this abuse?

Trust exclusions are a new feature Theymos added days after the Armis incident and I got to be the very first use of it. Under this system anyone can add ~username to their trust list and exclude a user. This would be fine with me if that was all it did, however it does much more. When someone like Theymos or other high ranking staff put you in their trust exclusion, they basically make everyone within the default trust system no longer trust you, even if they explicitly add you to trust, or trust some one who also trusts you. If a higher ranking user in the trust calculation excludes you then it will negate the trust of any lower ranking members withing the trust tree. So even though I have 3 people on the level two trust who have me in their trust list, I still come up as -2 ranked in the default trust. In effect this removes trust I actually worked to earn, not just some special granted privilege/responsibility of default trust (which I never asked for and was never explained to me).

Trust exclusions are EVEN WORSE than default trust negatives, because they allow the user who does this to remain anonymous and will eventually just result in an environment where we once again suffer form users like VOD who use the exclusion to anonymously nuke the trust of lower ranked users. IMO trust exclusions as designed to cascade down the trust tree are a step in the WRONG direction.

[onemorebtc]

He's talking about how people can exclude users using ~ on their trust lists to those they don't trust (it doesn't 'remove' feedback but Techshare's doesn't show up as trusted anymore). And no it wasn't me. If you go to the trust tree you will see who has done so as your name will be on their list but with a strikethrough.

ok, so basically someone on defaultrust has done this?
but why is his feedback removed then? how is something removed he did earn?

[TECSHARE]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

And you shouldn't. It's just another conspiracy he made up to try help his argument.

The very fact that you do vigorously refute my accusations with marginalizing statements attempting to associate me with paranoia and ancient alien reptoid type stuff demonstrates that you feel a need to refute it to protect yourself. If it was untrue then my arguments should fail on their own and you shouldn't need to constantly use marginalizing statements like this would you? There needs to be no conspiracy involved, only perfectly organic nepotism, and a distaste for being criticized.

He's talking about how people can exclude users using ~ on their trust lists to those they don't trust (it doesn't 'remove' feedback but Techshare's doesn't show up as trusted anymore). And no it wasn't me. If you go to the trust tree you will see who has done so as your name will be on their list but with a strikethrough.

ok, so basically someone on defaultrust has done this?
but why is his feedback removed then? how is something removed he did earn?

It doesn't remove it, it just makes anyone on the default trust not factor it into how they see my trust rated calculation.

[Vod]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

And you shouldn't. It's just another conspiracy he made up to try help his argument.

The very fact that you do vigorously refute my accusations with marginalizing statements attempting to associate me with paranoia and ancient alien reptoid type stuff demonstrates that you feel a need to refute it to protect yourself. If it was untrue then my arguments should fail on their own and you shouldn't need to constantly use marginalizing statements like this would you? There needs to be no conspiracy involved, only perfectly organic nepotism, and a distaste for being criticized.

A lot of big words there.  I'd say that the reason staff call you a liar is because you've been proven a liar many times.   

[TECSHARE]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

And you shouldn't. It's just another conspiracy he made up to try help his argument.

The very fact that you do vigorously refute my accusations with marginalizing statements attempting to associate me with paranoia and ancient alien reptoid type stuff demonstrates that you feel a need to refute it to protect yourself. If it was untrue then my arguments should fail on their own and you shouldn't need to constantly use marginalizing statements like this would you? There needs to be no conspiracy involved, only perfectly organic nepotism, and a distaste for being criticized.

A lot of big words there.  I'd say that the reason staff call you a liar is because you've been proven a liar many times.   

None of the staff have ever accused me of being a liar, just you. They just feel I should be punished for criticizing them (just like you).

[onemorebtc]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust.

i dont understand what you mean.
how did they remove your feedback on other accounts?

What part about it don't you believe? Of course from the outside you would not be able to tell much different, but I see it in the form of ignored reports, my own posts being reported and acted upon for minor things like 2 year old bumps I forgot to delete,

i dont see any reason why you should be treated better than anyone else. so i think its ok when your posts are reported just like anyone elses.

and the hostility some of the staff clearly show for me in the way they talk to/about me. The staff refuse to even answer my private messages. The only staff I have ever got to reply to me was Maged and Badbear. While it may not be evident to you, it is evident to me. Why would I lie about this? What reason do I have to start all of this over nothing, damaging my trust ranking and pissing people off, what do I get out of it other than pointing out this abuse?

to be honest i think you are more hostile than staff in your writings. not a problem for me, but i never saw anything bad from mods against you - they stated their opinion and act that way. its their right

Trust exclusions are a new feature Theymos added days after the Armis incident and I got to be the very first use of it. Under this system anyone can add ~username to their trust list and exclude a user. This would be fine with me if that was all it did, however it does much more. When someone like Theymos or other high ranking staff put you in their trust exclusion, they basically make everyone within the default trust system no longer trust you, even if they explicitly add you to trust, or trust some one who also trusts you. If a higher ranking user in the trust calculation excludes you then it will negate the trust of any lower ranking members withing the trust tree. So even though I have 3 people on the level two trust who have me in their trust list, I still come up as -2 ranked in the default trust. In effect this removes trust I actually worked to earn, not just some special granted privilege/responsibility of default trust (which I never asked for and was never explained to me).

Trust exclusions are EVEN WORSE than default trust negatives, because they allow the user who does this to remain anonymous and will eventually just result in an environment where we once again suffer form users like VOD who use the exclusion to anonymously nuke the trust of lower ranked users. IMO trust exclusions as designed to cascade down the trust tree are a step in the WRONG direction.

at first glance i think this is a good feature.
imagine an old user who has left much good feedback but trusts one guy who turned evil. as he dont come online often its a good thing thats its possible to remove it from the top.

this does not remove anything and dont take away anything you have earned.

as no one ever said they made this change because of you please dont make up conspiracy theories...

[Vod]

None of the staff have ever accused me of being a liar, just you. They just feel I should be punished for criticizing them (just like you).

hilariousandco just called you a liar, and he is on staff.  See how you lie?  

And you shouldn't. It's just another conspiracy he made up to try help his argument.

[TECSHARE]

i dont see any reason why you should be treated better than anyone else. so i think its ok when your posts are reported just like anyone elses.

I am not asking to be treated better than anyone else. It is just clear to me they ALWAYS have time to point or any infractions I have made, and never have any time to reply to my reports, messages, etc, and are willing to enforce rules upon me they are also not willing to enforce upon others.

to be honest i think you are more hostile than staff in your writings. not a problem for me, but i never saw anything bad from mods against you - they stated their opinion and act that way. its their right

You might interpret me being critical as being hostile, but I do not agree. People should be free to be critical of staff or anyone on this forum without fearing intimidation and use of the trust system to extort people into complying with dictates.

at first glance i think this is a good feature.
imagine an old user who has left much good feedback but trusts one guy who turned evil. as he dont come online often its a good thing thats its possible to remove it from the top.

this does not remove anything and dont take away anything you have earned.

as no one ever said they made this change because of you please dont make up conspiracy theories...

It did take what I have earned. I spent 3 YEARS here trading, and making sure everyone I traded with was treated fairly and got everything they paid for and was happy (not as easy as it sounds). But adding me to the trust exclusion they make any new user using the default trust not see a large portion of my trust ratings, and significantly reduces my overall trust rating calculation. I NEVER SAID HE MADE IT JUST FOR ME, now you are just making things up and claiming that I said things I didn't. You might think this system is great now but just give it a few months after some of the higher ranking users learn that it is possible to take retribution upon lower ranked users with almost complete anonymity from everyone except for the staff. Imagine VOD's behavior for example if no one ever had any way to know he was abusing the trust system...

None of the staff have ever accused me of being a liar, just you. They just feel I should be punished for criticizing them (just like you).

hilariousandco just called you a liar, and he is on staff.  See how you lie?  

And you shouldn't. It's just another conspiracy he made up to try help his argument.

I don't see the word liar in there but ok. He may be implying it, but he so far hasn't straight up accused me of being a liar. Keep trying to grief, I am sure it will make you look more responsible.

[Wardrick]

With this system, I could see large scams being pulled off because it would give members who haven't proved their legitimacy a high trust score. I think it would be misused by people who are friends and want to add each other to the trust list for added respect (Idk if it would work like this since you say it's random, or if you can go in and choose as well).

[hilariousandco]

The very fact that you do vigorously refute my accusations with marginalizing statements attempting to associate me with paranoia and ancient alien reptoid type stuff demonstrates that you feel a need to refute it to protect yourself. If it was untrue then my arguments should fail on their own and you shouldn't need to constantly use marginalizing statements like this would you? There needs to be no conspiracy involved, only perfectly organic nepotism, and a distaste for being criticized.

Lol. Exagerate much? Yes you do. Your arguments have failed multiple times but you keep repeating them like a loon and expect to get different results (definition of insanity according to Einstein). You do love to use bizarre twisted logic and this is the kind of nonsense crazy conspiracytards come out with when they know they haven't got a reasonable point. And guess what? You've become one as I said from the very start. Everything you are saying is fabrication to try validate your point. You are wrong. There is no staff conspiracy to protect their money or silence you for criticising them you simply just abused the feedback system in an attempt to get your own way with amis and on your own terms (which you admitted) and that's it, but you have quite clearly lost the plot now.

Trust exclusions are EVEN WORSE than default trust negatives, because they allow the user who does this to remain anonymous and will eventually just result in an environment where we once again suffer form users like VOD who use the exclusion to anonymously nuke the trust of lower ranked users. IMO trust exclusions as designed to cascade down the trust tree are a step in the WRONG direction.

They're not anonymous. theymos and BadBear negated you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

What part about it don't you believe? Of course from the outside you would not be able to tell much different, but I see it in the form of ignored reports, my own posts being reported and acted upon for minor things like 2 year old bumps I forgot to delete,

i dont see any reason why you should be treated better than anyone else. so i think its ok when your posts are reported just like anyone elses.

He reported something that wasn't against the rules. Basically what he wanted was for staff to abuse their power and bend the rules to remove and silence amis' posts that he didn't like. Old bumps are against the rules and should be removed so his point does nothing but to prove how he'll bring anything up to justify himself.
 

[onemorebtc]

i dont see any reason why you should be treated better than anyone else. so i think its ok when your posts are reported just like anyone elses.

I am not asking to be treated better than anyone else. It is just clear to me they ALWAYS have time to point or any infractions I have made, and never have any time to reply to my reports, messages, etc, and are willing to enforce rules upon me they are also not willing to enforce upon others.

i have never received any answer to any of my reports (ok i dont have reported much)
i think (i may be wrong with this though) that they always point out your infractions because you
1) are vocal about it
2) there where threads made in scam accusation against you.

did they come to your sale thread and post there?
and vod... vod is vod... like him or hate him but he does the community a favor in my eyes

to be honest i think you are more hostile than staff in your writings. not a problem for me, but i never saw anything bad from mods against you - they stated their opinion and act that way. its their right

You might interpret me being critical as being hostile, but I do not agree. People should be free to be critical of staff or anyone on this forum without fearing intimidation and use of the trust system to extort people into complying with dictates.

no you misunderstood me. everybody has the right and obligation to stand up  and to be critical.
but its a different between beeing critical and beeing passive aggressive. i think you are the latter because you feel deceived atm (at least thats how your wording enters my head - but i am not even a native speaker and my english is not really good).

at first glance i think this is a good feature.
imagine an old user who has left much good feedback but trusts one guy who turned evil. as he dont come online often its a good thing thats its possible to remove it from the top.

this does not remove anything and dont take away anything you have earned.

as no one ever said they made this change because of you please dont make up conspiracy theories...

It did take what I have earned. I spent 3 YEARS here trading, and making sure everyone I traded with was treated fairly and got everything they paid for. Bu adding me to the trust exclusion they make any new user using the default trust not see a large portion of my trust ratings, and significantly reduces my overall trust rating calculation. I NEVER SAID HE MADE IT JUST FOR ME, now you are just making things up and claiming that I said things I didn't. You might think this system is great now but just give it a few months after some of the higher ranking users learn that it is possible to take retribution upon lower ranked users with almost complete anonymity from everyone except for the staff. Imagine VOD's behavior for example if no one ever had any way to know he was abusing the trust system...

but everybody can see your ratings and the feedback you got. people like me who consider your feedback trustful may just add you but its the right of the forum owner (he decided who is staff) to think that it is not good for the forum.

btw vod is also on my trust list. but i dont give a shit about the color under any username.. if i want to deal with someone i read all of the feedback - untrusted and trusted.

but after pirateat40 there are very few people here which i'd trust with money...and no feedback or trust could change that

[Vod]

btw vod is also on my trust list. but i dont give a shit about the color under any username.. if i want to deal with someone i read all of the feedback - untrusted and trusted.

onemorebtc, I want to say thank you for trusting me, even after looking at my "untrusted feedback".  If you were to take that into account, I would be a pedophile rapist that is responsible for all the hacks ever in the bitcoin world! 

[onemorebtc]

btw vod is also on my trust list. but i dont give a shit about the color under any username.. if i want to deal with someone i read all of the feedback - untrusted and trusted.

onemorebtc, I want to say thank you for trusting me, even after looking at my "untrusted feedback".  If you were to take that into account, I would be a pedophile rapist that is responsible for all the hacks ever in the bitcoin world! 

my only problem with you is that your avatar is really confusing me

[Vod]

btw vod is also on my trust list. but i dont give a shit about the color under any username.. if i want to deal with someone i read all of the feedback - untrusted and trusted.

onemorebtc, I want to say thank you for trusting me, even after looking at my "untrusted feedback".  If you were to take that into account, I would be a pedophile rapist that is responsible for all the hacks ever in the bitcoin world! 

my only problem with you is that your avatar is really confusing me

Just a fat man licking his own boob.

Don't worry - I look nothing like my avatar.   

[onemorebtc]

my only problem with you is that your avatar is really confusing me

Just a fat man licking his own boob.

Don't worry - I look nothing like my avatar.   
[/quote]

puhhh good for you
i was raised virginal (chaste / chastely ?)... not easy to overcome that

[TECSHARE]

i dont see any reason why you should be treated better than anyone else. so i think its ok when your posts are reported just like anyone elses.

I am not asking to be treated better than anyone else. It is just clear to me they ALWAYS have time to point or any infractions I have made, and never have any time to reply to my reports, messages, etc, and are willing to enforce rules upon me they are also not willing to enforce upon others.

i have never received any answer to any of my reports (ok i dont have reported much)
i think (i may be wrong with this though) that they always point out your infractions because you
1) are vocal about it
2) there where threads made in scam accusation against you.

did they come to your sale thread and post there?
and vod... vod is vod... like him or hate him but he does the community a favor in my eyes

You are misunderstanding and missing the parts for the whole. It is not just about ignoring reports or acting upon every tiny infraction, it is more the fact that no one ever attempted to communicate or display these rules anywhere, then they expect me to follow them to a T. Then when I stumble into an inevitably grey area (because it is all grey since the rules are not written), punishment is fast and without discussion or debate. This is not just about how the staff treat me, but how they treat everyone in general that they don't see as part of their little club.

to be honest i think you are more hostile than staff in your writings. not a problem for me, but i never saw anything bad from mods against you - they stated their opinion and act that way. its their right

You might interpret me being critical as being hostile, but I do not agree. People should be free to be critical of staff or anyone on this forum without fearing intimidation and use of the trust system to extort people into complying with dictates.

no you misunderstood me. everybody has the right and obligation to stand up  and to be critical.
but its a different between beeing critical and beeing passive aggressive. i think you are the latter because you feel deceived atm (at least thats how your wording enters my head - but i am not even a native speaker and my english is not really good).

I do feel deceived. I was added to the default trust, no one bothered to ever post any of these rules I am expected to obey, no one explained to me my newfound responsibilities to default trust, I was juts assumed to know the rules by using the way the rest of the community uses them by example. If I take users like VOD as the example of how to act here as my only way to determine the rules, then that is not a very good standard that clearly is enforceable against people like me, but not against people like VOD.

at first glance i think this is a good feature.
imagine an old user who has left much good feedback but trusts one guy who turned evil. as he dont come online often its a good thing thats its possible to remove it from the top.

this does not remove anything and dont take away anything you have earned.

as no one ever said they made this change because of you please dont make up conspiracy theories...

It did take what I have earned. I spent 3 YEARS here trading, and making sure everyone I traded with was treated fairly and got everything they paid for. Bu adding me to the trust exclusion they make any new user using the default trust not see a large portion of my trust ratings, and significantly reduces my overall trust rating calculation. I NEVER SAID HE MADE IT JUST FOR ME, now you are just making things up and claiming that I said things I didn't. You might think this system is great now but just give it a few months after some of the higher ranking users learn that it is possible to take retribution upon lower ranked users with almost complete anonymity from everyone except for the staff. Imagine VOD's behavior for example if no one ever had any way to know he was abusing the trust system...

but everybody can see your ratings and the feedback you got. people like me who consider your feedback trustful may just add you but its the right of the forum owner (he decided who is staff) to think that it is not good for the forum.

btw vod is also on my trust list. but i dont give a shit about the color under any username.. if i want to deal with someone i read all of the feedback - untrusted and trusted.

but after pirateat40 there are very few people here which i'd trust with money...and no feedback or trust could change that

People are lazy. Alot of people don't bother clicking trusted feedback, or even clicking the trust page and they just look at the green numbers. you may know how the system works, but a LOT of people don't, nor do they care. they just go by what is easiest.

[Vod]

TOO LONG ; DIDN'T READ?

TECSHARE is just being proven a liar yet again.  He's angry at the forum and the staff because he was removed from defaulttrust, and he will post anything to get ANYONE to feel the same way he does.  

 

[TECSHARE]

TOO LONG ; DIDN'T READ?

TECSHARE is just being proven a liar yet again.  He's angry at the forum and the staff because he was removed from defaulttrust, and he will post anything to get ANYONE to feel the same way he does.  

 

3 paragraphs too much for you? At least I am trying to be constructive and improve the state of the community her by pointing out its flaws. What are you doing other than attempting to grief and ruin people's hard earned reputations?

[Vod]

TOO LONG ; DIDN'T READ?

TECSHARE is just being proven a liar yet again.  He's angry at the forum and the staff because he was removed from defaulttrust, and he will post anything to get ANYONE to feel the same way he does.  

 

3 paragraphs too much for you? At least I am trying to be constructive and improve the state of the community her by pointing out its flaws. What are you doing other than attempting to grief and ruin people's hard earned reputations?

I do whatever I can.  But I don't lie, like you do.  You think everyone else is to blame but yourself for you losing default trust.   

[TECSHARE]

TOO LONG ; DIDN'T READ?

TECSHARE is just being proven a liar yet again.  He's angry at the forum and the staff because he was removed from defaulttrust, and he will post anything to get ANYONE to feel the same way he does.  

 

3 paragraphs too much for you? At least I am trying to be constructive and improve the state of the community her by pointing out its flaws. What are you doing other than attempting to grief and ruin people's hard earned reputations?

I do whatever I can.  But I don't lie, like you do.  You think everyone else is to blame but yourself for you losing default trust.   

You do whatever you can to silence criticism of yourself, including abusing the default trust.

You are still unable to provide an example to support your baseless accusation. Funny how it always works that way with you. Lots of bullshit, zero substance.

[BadBear]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

It is split very evenly. Even the users who voted for each seem so. Interesting that BadBear didn't vote (unless he did on an alt account). I think the current system is the best solution but should be tweaked or kept a closer eye on the people who are on there and maybe limiting the number of users that each person can put on.

I didn't vote because while I'm not sure default trust is the best solution, I've decided I don't think this is either, so I decided to stay out of it. It's easy to say everyone should make their own trust lists, and they should, but fact is newbies won't know who to trust.

I guess it's time to stop reading this thread, it's no longer productive.

[Vod]

You are still unable to provide an example to support your baseless accusation.

Caught you in a lie yet again.  Been proven many times already.   

[onemorebtc]

You are misunderstanding and missing the parts for the whole. It is not just about ignoring reports or acting upon every tiny infraction, it is more the fact that no one ever attempted to communicate or display these rules anywhere, then they expect me to follow them to a T. Then when I stumble into an inevitably grey area (because it is all grey since the rules are not written), punishment is fast and without discussion or debate. This is not just about how the staff treat me, but how they treat everyone in general that they don't see as part of their little club.

you are right that its a problem that no rules are written anywhere.
but that goes both ways: if there are rules its hard to change them when needed or to react fast in specific obvious cases .which got missed by the rules.

in this forum are very much users, so i think the best approach is to rely on the feeling of the staff.
yes thats not fair. but this is a forum and not a democracy.

i have seen vod and other staff members to change their feedback if needed and pointed out. i think thats ok.
they dont want to do that in your case - i dont think they are right with that decision so i have added you to my trust list.
to say it again: life is not fair...

I do feel deceived. I was added to the default trust, no one bothered to ever post any of these rules I am expected to obey, no one explained to me my newfound responsibilities to default trust, I was juts assumed to know the rules by using the way the rest of the community uses them by example. If I take users liek VOD as the example of how to act here as my only way to determine the rules, then that is not a very good standard that clearly is enforceable against people like me, but not against people like VOD.

vod is vod...
he acts fast and is often mistaken. but when thats the case he stands up and change it.
i dont think he is treated mich different than you. i really dont see any conspiracy here.

what i guess is the case: as vod is regularly posting feedback to new users he is an asset in detecting new scammers fast.
(at least this is my opinion)

another point: you have a sales thread and the staff thought (i wont comment on that) that you used your defaulttrust-power to tidy up your thread and gain a financial benefit from it.

People are lazy. Alot of people don't bother clicking trusted feedback, or even clicking the trust page and they just look at the green numbers.

i know and this is sad because they will get burned under any system and with any rules.

[PistolPete]

I guess it's time to stop reading this thread, it's no longer productive.

Congrats Vod and TECHSHARE for scaring away the Bear

[DiamondCardz]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

[coinits]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

[DiamondCardz]

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

[hilariousandco]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

How would this help and how is it enforcable? Even if account sales were banned people would just sell them offsite and it will give others a false sense of security.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

It's not and would be incredibly difficult and a waste of time to police, hence why it is currently allowed.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

[Mitchell]

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

[CanaryInTheMine]

Vod, are you going to slap tecshare with negative for hijacking this thread? /sarc

[hilariousandco]

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

I don't dispute that. He seems to know the rules better than most as well.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

How would this help and how is it enforcable? Even if account sales were banned people would just sell them offsite and it will give others a false sense of security.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

It's not and would be incredibly difficult and a waste of time to police, hence why it is currently allowed.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

Personally, I'm not against account selling if people involved behave responsably and i can live with it till such practice is allowed by forum rules. However, i'm not sure if i could trust a user who engagé in such trades specially if such people engage in trading hacked account or used to sell it to scammers, etc. I don't judge Others if they may trust such people since they may know them better.
I just put forward my tought.

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

In effect such a type of situation may worry me a lot since i cannot say if if i could trust a user engaged in trading hacked accounts or selling accounts to scammers. Just as i may not trust someone who give out too many good feedbacks (but maybe He's only a lucky trader who meet only honest people). However, I was not to single out him...i was just thinking about the situation since infact is all a matter of trust.

Because people don't know how to take their arguments off of a thread like this and to a different Meta thread.

It is split quite evenly, yes. Unfortunately it's going to take a while to think of a solution that will satisfy most people.

Well I would think a good starting point would be to get rid of selling accounts. Wouldn't that put reasonable doubt into the trust equation?

How would this help and how is it enforcable? Even if account sales were banned people would just sell them offsite and it will give others a false sense of security.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

It's not and would be incredibly difficult and a waste of time to police, hence why it is currently allowed.

Problem is, how do you moderate account selling?

Ban when IP changes? Nope. No way in hell, people have IP changes all the time.

And in reality, that's really the only way. There's no easy way to track accounts changing hands, unless you're the NSA.

Well, IMHO, I suppose that if everybody starts to put accounts sellers & traders as exclusions on their own trust lists maybe this could try to discourage such activities.

Just food for thought

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

Personally, I'm not against account selling if people involved behave responsably and i can live with it till such practice is allowed by forum rules. However, i'm not sure if i could trust a user who engagé in such trades specially if such people engage in trading hacked account or used to sell it to scammers, etc. I don't judge Others if they may trust such people since they may know them better.
I just put forward my tought.

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

In effect such a type of situation may worry me a lot since i cannot say if if i could trust a user engaged in trading hacked accounts or selling accounts to scammers. Just as i may not trust someone who give out too many good feedbacks (but maybe He's only a lucky trader who meet only honest people). However, I was not to single out him...i was just thinking about the situation since infact is all a matter of trust.

You're free to do that but unless they've demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour I don't think they should be treated this way as account selling isn't against the rules. In fact, BadBear recently added Quickseller to his trust list.

To be fair, I think he deserved it. Quickseller has been looking out for hacked accounts, scams and has been leaving good feedback at all times.

I don't dispute that. He seems to know the rules better than most as well.

As I said before myself, I have noting against the rules or Quickseller in particular, but i think everyone should reflect on how much you can trust people engaged in account trading in particular if they are trading hacked accounts or selling established account to scammers or leaving too many good feedbacks. IMHO, I'm not so confident to be able to trust enough the judgement of such a kind of users.

[Vod]

Vod, are you going to slap TECSHARE with negative for hijacking this thread? /sarc

Sir, your point was made with or without the "/sarc".

I am no longer leaving negative feedback based on personal gut feelings alone.

[smoothie]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

It is split very evenly. Even the users who voted for each seem so. Interesting that BadBear didn't vote (unless he did on an alt account). I think the current system is the best solution but should be tweaked or kept a closer eye on the people who are on there and maybe limiting the number of users that each person can put on.

I didn't vote because while I'm not sure default trust is the best solution, I've decided I don't think this is either, so I decided to stay out of it. It's easy to say everyone should make their own trust lists, and they should, but fact is newbies won't know who to trust.

I guess it's time to stop reading this thread, it's no longer productive.

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

[hilariousandco]

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

Tl;dr theymos proposed a new trust system and the votes for/against it were pretty much evenly split, and it's no longer productive because most of it is bickering by Techshare who managed to derail this thread like he does every other to whine about his removal from the trust list.

[TECSHARE]

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

Tl;dr theymos proposed a new trust system and the votes for/against it were pretty much evenly split, and it's no longer productive because most of it is bickering by Techshare who managed to derail this thread like he does every other to whine about his removal from the trust list.

Yeah, right. Because my words are so powerful I can snap my fingers and the whole community rallies behind me. As staff, you would never see the malcontent that is created by this system, because everyone here is afraid to speak up under threat of harassment of people like VOD, or from the staff for being critical of them. This was popular sentiment BEFORE I spoke up, all I did was harness it. I am just one of the few who refuse to be intimidated by the same people responsible for the trust abuse to begin with. So please... check yourself first. Additionally as far as bickering goes - it takes two. Maybe you should muzzle your rabid dog, because I left and he is still talking about me.

[hack_]

nope. You can buy trust now in the alt section  

I would spend 5 BTC to get higher trust than the admins.

[koshgel]

nope. You can buy trust now in the alt section  

I would spend 5 BTC to get higher trust than the admins.

Where is there proof of this? Doesn't seem like it would be effective.

[smoothie]

What is the TL;DR?

Not sure I want to sift through the thread just to find out it isn't productive...

Tl;dr theymos proposed a new trust system and the votes for/against it were pretty much evenly split, and it's no longer productive because most of it is bickering by Techshare who managed to derail this thread like he does every other to whine about his removal from the trust list.

Thanks for this now I will not waste further time reading here.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You are still unable to provide an example to support your baseless accusation.

Caught you in a lie yet again.  Been proven many times already.   

This is absolutely incorrect. Vod has NEVER been able to 'prove' a 'lie' that TECSHARE has told. It has been in fact established that Vod's accusations is entirely baseless, and all he can do is resort to diverting the topic, claiming supposed proves when such has never existed, ad hominem attacks, and demands for 100 BTC for the proof.

Please read through this thread and you will see that Vod's accusations are entirely baseless, and no proof has ever been proved: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

[Vod]

demands for 100 BTC for the proof.

That 100 BTC would go to the people you stole from.  I don't need your coins.   

[DannyHamilton]

Also, some people who I consider very trustworthy . . . didn't make the list simply because they don't spam up every thread with their unsolicited opinion like I do

I'm guessing someone already said this and I'm going to look like a silly newb for not reading the entire thread before commenting on it.  However, I'm pressed for time at the moment, so I'm going to risk it in case it hasn't been mentioned yet:

The important thing that MANY people seem not to realize is that the "Trust List" should NOT be a list of trusted individuals.  If your trust list is a list of individuals that you trust, then you are DOING IT WRONG.

Your "Trust List" SHOULD BE a list of individuals whose OPINIONS YOU VALUE.  By adding someone to your "Trust List" you are effectively saying: "If this person has expressed an opinion about another individual, I value that opinion far more than I value the opinions of the rest of the users on bitcointalk.

You can value the opinions that someone expresses about others even if you wouldn't trust them to hold on to a single satoshi for you.  You can also trust someone to hold on to 10,000 BTC, and still not value the things they have to say about other users.

[Stratobitz]

Personally I see no problems with the current trust system. It allows people to set their own depth of how many levels they wish to see at default, and it is simple enough for a user to view all feedback posted prior to doing business with any particular user.

This may have been said; but the bigger issue at hand that I see is that the forum openly allows users to buy and sell accounts.

Many online services, and nearly all of the big tech/social media sites strictly prohibit this-- and for good reason.

Personally I think it is simply too easy to jump into the marketplace; buy a Hero or Senior Account, perhaps even with no Trust Posts, do a small number of micro transactions to gain some posts, and then run any number of scams to steal peoples money or information.

I know theymos has more than enough on his plate right now, especially with the recent outage and disk issues- but personally I think instituting a simple ban on buying and selling accounts would provide greater security and be of greater benefit to the community than completely revising and restructuring the entire Trust System. The later also being, from what I would imagine, a whole lot of work.

Strato

[hilariousandco]

Personally I think it is simply too easy to jump into the marketplace; buy a Hero or Senior Account, perhaps even with no Trust Posts, do a small number of micro transactions to gain some posts, and then run any number of scams to steal peoples money or information.

I know theymos has more than enough on his plate right now, especially with the recent outage and disk issues- but personally I think instituting a simple ban on buying and selling accounts would provide greater security and be of greater benefit to the community than completely revising and restructuring the entire Trust System. The later also being, from what I would imagine, a whole lot of work.

Strato

It wouldn't. Banning the sale of accounts won't stop it from happening; it'll just be pushed off site and give users a false sense of security that it now doesn't happen. Besides, most people don't buy accounts to scam but when they do they're usually busted by the community before they even get the chance to so you've got more chance of wasting your money than actually scamming it from someone else.

[Stratobitz]

Personally I think it is simply too easy to jump into the marketplace; buy a Hero or Senior Account, perhaps even with no Trust Posts, do a small number of micro transactions to gain some posts, and then run any number of scams to steal peoples money or information.

I know theymos has more than enough on his plate right now, especially with the recent outage and disk issues- but personally I think instituting a simple ban on buying and selling accounts would provide greater security and be of greater benefit to the community than completely revising and restructuring the entire Trust System. The later also being, from what I would imagine, a whole lot of work.

Strato

It wouldn't. Banning the sale of accounts won't stop it from happening; it'll just be pushed off site and give users a false sense of security that it now doesn't happen. Besides, most people don't buy accounts to scam but when they do they're usually busted by the community before they even get the chance to so you've got more chance of wasting your money than actually scamming it from someone else.

I'll give you that, that it would in fact simply push the bartering of accounts into other forums such as reddit, irc, etc.  I guess my point was simply that most major social services forbid this activity with good reason. You can't sell Twitter accounts; or Facebook accounts; at least not publicly. But it does happen.

Strato

[peligro]

Personally I think it is simply too easy to jump into the marketplace; buy a Hero or Senior Account, perhaps even with no Trust Posts, do a small number of micro transactions to gain some posts, and then run any number of scams to steal peoples money or information.

I know theymos has more than enough on his plate right now, especially with the recent outage and disk issues- but personally I think instituting a simple ban on buying and selling accounts would provide greater security and be of greater benefit to the community than completely revising and restructuring the entire Trust System. The later also being, from what I would imagine, a whole lot of work.

Strato

It wouldn't. Banning the sale of accounts won't stop it from happening; it'll just be pushed off site and give users a false sense of security that it now doesn't happen. Besides, most people don't buy accounts to scam but when they do they're usually busted by the community before they even get the chance to so you've got more chance of wasting your money than actually scamming it from someone else.

Banning would mean buyers would be risking it and that will drastically reduce the market. Putting up a simple warning in trade areas that accounts may have been bought would be an enough warning. That argument is a poor attempt to keep it going.

[Bitcoinexp]

Based on the poll, decision's being split pretty evenly. There are some faults with default trust though, but it's more about the user than the system. Namely, how people are so used to giving negative that they don't bother basing their assumptions on a neutral feedback for lack of proof. Either way, improvement would be nice.

[anonimus]

Yes according to me , the list should be changed.

[WoodCollector]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

[dogie]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

[WoodCollector]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

Not at all, in fact its quite the opposite. Myself as an example. I dont care how the system gets fixed, It can be removed, modified, set where the user has to determine their default list, turned upside down, or covered in frosting served with a cherry. The fact is that something needs to change with the current system as it has been proven time and again that it does not work and has turned this forum into an MMORPG where trust rating equals virtual points and a game to be collected. Mabye users dont approve of the method that theymos provided to fix it, that could very well be legitimate and i can see their argument. the fault is that the system should be left alone and that no changes are needed. 90% of people who want to agree to that extent are the ones who benefit from doing business with CITM and who have spent hundreds of hours gaming the system.

Please do not try and twist words and join the communion of unholy trust farmers in doing so. I personally have nothing against you and still consider you a valuable contributor to the real bitcoin community with your setup and trouble shooting threads. They have even helped me get set up in my recent purchase of a small mining farm. It would be a serious shame to see you join the dark side of totalitarian opinionists who think that their semantics are law and spend hundreds of hours gaming the trust system.

If you cant agree that something needs to change with the trust system as it is, no matter if it is what theymos suggested, other solutions, or done away with completely, just that something needs to change than maybe i had you wrong and you are not the intelligent professional that i thought you to be and that would be my own misjudgment. I am only human and i have misjudged people before, but i really would like to think that i am not wrong in this instance.

[ABitNut]

<snip> the fault is that the system should be left alone and that no changes are needed. <snip>

The failed logic is: "The system has issues, therefore it cannot remain!"

Here's some statements for you to dispute:

1) The forum is better off with the current trust system than without.
2) The forum will be worse if the trust system is changed for the worse.
3) The community in general will not refuse a change for the better.

The trust system is the worst form of trust management, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I challenge you to come up with a system that is a significant improvement over what is in place now. To be judged by the bitcointalk community.

[Inotanewbie]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

Not at all, in fact its quite the opposite. Myself as an example. I dont care how the system gets fixed, It can be removed, modified, set where the user has to determine their default list, turned upside down, or covered in frosting served with a cherry. The fact is that something needs to change with the current system as it has been proven time and again that it does not work and has turned this forum into an MMORPG where trust rating equals virtual points and a game to be collected. Mabye users dont approve of the method that theymos provided to fix it, that could very well be legitimate and i can see their argument. the fault is that the system should be left alone and that no changes are needed. 90% of people who want to agree to that extent are the ones who benefit from doing business with CITM and who have spent hundreds of hours gaming the system.

I hope that you realize that you just said in your above post that was quoted by dogie that the opinions that disagree with you were manipulating the poll while the people who agreed with your opinion were acting honestly.

Please do not try and twist words and join the communion of unholy trust farmers in doing so. I personally have nothing against you and still consider you a valuable contributor to the real bitcoin community with your setup and trouble shooting threads. They have even helped me get set up in my recent purchase of a small mining farm. It would be a serious shame to see you join the dark side of totalitarian opinionists who think that their semantics are law and spend hundreds of hours gaming the trust system.

This sounds a lot like that as long as dogie does not take an opposing view of any debate then he is respected, however the minute he disagrees with your opinion then you lose all respect for him. Am I close?

If you cant agree that something needs to change with the trust system as it is, no matter if it is what theymos suggested, other solutions, or done away with completely, just that something needs to change than maybe i had you wrong and you are not the intelligent professional that i thought you to be and that would be my own misjudgment. I am only human and i have misjudged people before, but i really would like to think that i am not wrong in this instance.

More of the above
Sure the current trust system is not perfect, however it is something that works the vast majority of the time. It is a system that has generally stopped scammers in their tracks once it was discovered they were trying to scam, or were actually scamming. The number of scams that were on the forum have gone significantly down since the current system was implemented.

[Stratobitz]

Here is an idea:

Add a new section for Trust called Transaction Verified: And Relegate all other trust to collapsed sections elsewhere. 

Transaction Verified Trust would require both parties to accept a single instance trust transaction.

Example: 

- Stratobitz wants to buy a GPU Card from MemberBitCoin.

- In order for the transaction to be logged as "Verified" and count toward 'Meaninful' Trust: The Seller Must first Send the Buyer a Transaction Request which states the price, terms, etc.

- The Buyer must then Accept this in order for 'Verified Trust' to be posted from the seller to his account, as well as for him to be able to also post 'Verified Trust' to the seller in return.

- Simply put, they must agree to do business.  Payment amounts could be pre defined and the TXID added afterward as an optional item.

- This would cut down considerably on people who abuse the Trust system.

I am personally on the Default Trust 2 List, which I am thankful for but also understand it comes with responsibilities. Anyone on Level 2 can simply post a bashing comment and its logged as Visible Trusted Feedback.

If you view my trust you will see that I am careful what I post. However I know there are many users, well known active users in fact, that will not hesitate to post a scathing comment to someones account simply out of suspicion. This would be at least hampered by the above concept, where if its simply a "Guy is a scammer Im Angry and don't like the way he types" type of posting, its logged as a non-verified non-transaction Trust Post which is collapsed by default.

Just my Two Cents.

Strato

[Muhammed Zakir]

I don't think that would be a good idea. A user can use his/her sockpuppet account and do the things including posting a TXID. It's not that hard and this would do for successful trades, so there should be an option for failed/defaulted trades.

   -MZ

[Stratobitz]

I don't think that would be a good idea. A user can use his/her sockpuppet account and do the things including posting a TXID. It's not that hard and this would do for successful trades, so there should be an option for failed/defaulted trades.

   -MZ

There will always be those who figure out ways to abuse the system. At least this would cut down on people posting negative trust when when it's not really deserved.

Just one idea - thought I'd throw it out there.

Strato

[Muhammed Zakir]

There will always be those who figure out ways to abuse the system. At least this would cut down on people posting negative trust when when it's not really deserved.

I agree with your first statement. You may have missed about 'how to put a negative trust feedback' or I didn't read correctly.

Just one idea - thought I'd throw it out there.

Strato

You can throw your ideas as long as it is on-topic.

P.S. When putting negative feedback, no scammer would help in 'mutual-agreed-trust-system'. So how can we do that in your idea?

   -MZ

[SpanishSoldier]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

[SpanishSoldier]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged.

Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes.

[SpanishSoldier]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged.

Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes.

Yah... I'm under target of a LOT of people because I got someone removed from DefaulTrust blessing with proper proofs. Read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.0 ...Moreover, I am not in -ve as you are showing, because the person who left me -ve is not blessed by DefaultTrust. You are seeing it because of your trust settings. You can also create a 100 sock puppet and leave -ve on me... that does not matter unless you have the DefaultTrust blessing. I kicked the hornet's nest and I know there will be some sting. The point here is you could not come up with a logical reply to my point and hence trying make things personal. Shows your depth indeed.

p.s. Unless you remove your signature, for which you get paid for trolling, do not expect any more reply from me.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Theymos, i think this is almost a must if you expect this forum to continue to have any credibility in the future. Regardless of how many alt accounts are used to vote against it. This is about one of the only ways this place will survive with any credibility.

I've said this in another thread, the problem with surveys is people are only willing to accept votes that validate their own opinions as valid - the others are just fakes or shills, right?

I'm not saying that the poll was rigged. But, can you deny that the poll got very short time span to reflect any substantial opinion ? It started on Januray 5, 2015 and ended on January 10, 2015. Only 5 days to take public opinion about whether DefaultTrust is here to stay or not ? Even the YES was leading initially. NO was leading on the last day and the poll was closed !!! I would request theymos to re-open the poll and keep it running for at least a month.

Active people here already expressed their views. If you cannot deal with the fact a majority expressed their preference to keep the actual Trust system instead of expensive and time consuming one which will be no better or at least equal to the actual one, You have no right to cry havoc hinting the admin rigged the pool!

You are putting a word on my mouth which I never stated. Read my post again. If I remember correctly, YES was leading for 4 days. NO led only for a day and the poll was closed. I just wanted time. Never said it was rigged.

Time to grow more sockpuppets to alter poll results and force theymos' hand? You seems to have the most to gain from such an outcome and you seems to already have an habit to create accounts for such purposes.

Yah... I'm under target of a LOT of people because I got someone removed from DefaulTrust blessing with proper proofs. Read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888960.0 ...Moreover, I am not in -ve as you are showing, because the person who left me -ve is not blessed by DefaultTrust. You are seeing it because of your trust settings. You can also create a 100 sock puppet and leave -ve on me... that does not matter unless you have the DefaultTrust blessing. I kicked the hornet's nest and I know there will be some sting. The point here is you could not come up with a logical reply to my point and hence trying make things personal. Shows your depth indeed.

p.s. Unless you remove your signature, for which you get paid for trolling, do not expect any more reply from me.

I agree with users giving -ve trust feedback to Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters. I'm also not agreeing with your justification of them being biased because some of them may own shares of one cloud miner. If all (or at least enough) Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters give -ve trust feedback to rival Cloud Mining and Ponzi operators and promoters, since newbies and other users arewill be made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with ALL them. Moreover, I know my trust setting to be appropriate to me since while I use DefaultTrust I also "modified" it with some addition of people their judgement I trust and also some (more than the addition, of course) exclusion of people their judgement I cannot trust (e.g. known scammers, Ponzi operators, etc.).
My reply to you was not to be personal since I have no interest in discreting you; but, instead it was directed to point out the flaw of your idea since such re-opening of theymos' poll can easily be hijacked by trust abusers' sockpuppet accounts to win their desidered outcome. Moreover, since the Poll was aimed to have active forum members opinion of modifing the Trust system people who were committed to forum were able to say their opinion and even discuss it in this thread. Probably at the time you weren't committed enough to catch the Poll time frame; but this is IMHO not a valid reason to ask for the Poll be reopened. It's like someone who on Election Day not having reached the legal age for voting yet and after him/her being old enough to vote asking to have vote recast since he was not able to take part in it.

P.S. Have you got no better idea to prove me wrong than accusing me of trolling only because I have as scores of people here a paid signature? Poor boy....
P.P.S. Oh shit! You will not reply any more to me? What a pity. However, You don't need being worried about my signature advertising since you're going to be added to my Ignore list soon.

[Raize]

I like the idea of a randomized trust list, but seeing my name is on here makes me worried I'd get random people requesting I remove someone because they just got scammed or because one of the people on my list sold their account or something. I'd feel horrible about that.

Additionally, ngzhang is almost universally-hated on here, but I considered him one of the better contributors to the Bitcoin ecosystem, especially early on with his FPGAs, and it was pretty easy for me to see the problem with Avalon's batch 2 trade-ins lay precisely with BitSyncom and NOT xiangfu or ngzhang.

The first thing I did when I found out about the new Trust system was to remove DefaultTrust and just set up my own. I assumed everyone else did the same. Through my trades it added various layers of the "DefaultTrust" back in, but at least then there were clear indications of why it was added.

I think there's two users of the Trust system, people like me, that just have ratings of actual trades done and scammers they have caught themselves and folks that use it to actually point out and filter potential scammers even though they have never traded with them or verified they are bonifide scammers on their own. Maybe the problem is that I'm using it wrong and what we really need is basically just a scammer-detector system like what the other folks are using it for?

[Grand_Voyageur]

The first thing I did when I found out about the new Trust system was to remove DefaultTrust and just set up my own. I assumed everyone else did the same. Through my trades it added various layers of the "DefaultTrust" back in, but at least then there were clear indications of why it was added.

I suppose that when you started doing so, You were already an established member here or at least knowledgeable enough to be able to not needing decentralized trust networks to assist you when dealing with other forum members. I'm not in DefaultTrust but I've realized when i was a junior member that, while useful in giving me a feedback on someone new, I cannot blindy trust it and so I started adding my own exclusion to it by prefixing known scammers, ponzi operators & other people that i cannot trust with a tilde (~) before their usernames. Sometime I also add a few people i trust to my own trust list. I try to do my best to keep my trust list update but I suppose that until I reach Legendary status I cannot have a trust list complete enough to avoid having DefaultTrust included in it.

I think there's two users of the Trust system, people like me, that just have ratings of actual trades done and scammers they have caught themselves and folks that use it to actually point out and filter potential scammers even though they have never traded with them or verified they are bonifide scammers on their own. Maybe the problem is that I'm using it wrong and what we really need is basically just a scammer-detector system like what the other folks are using it for?

I don't think you are wrong, since the two behaviour can co-exist between the same user. Feedbacks can be given both if you were actually scammed or if you STRONGLY believed that the person is a scammer.

Of course you have to base your feedback on evidence you have link in the reference field. If you follow such rules I think your feedback maybe legit and can be verified allowing other members to independently consider if following such advice or not. I think feedback without a reference link should not be given and if they are they should not trusted due to the impossibility to be independently verified by others. Also if a user give such unverifiable trust feedbacks you could prefix his username with a tilde (~) in your own trust list to exclude his feedbacks.

[BitCoinDream]

Votes:

For the new system

Against the new system

theymos HostFat gmaxwell PsychoticBoy qwk $username alexrossi Welsh kcud_dab matt4054 LaudaM Blazr EnJoyThis sardokan Beastlymac alani123 Eal F. Skillz BitCoinDream redsn0w hopenotlate mitzie moreia criptix takagari Muhammed Zakir Shallow rugrats onemorebtc blablaace Gleb Gamow Sumerian Reynaldo justinetime geforcelover abyrnes81 kepo07 hexafraction Dalyb

OgNasty Tomatocage Vod MrTeal Foxpup BitcoinEXpress MiningBuddy iCEBREAKER GIANNAT KWH haploid23 dogie freedomno1 medUSA bitcoininformation Blazedout419 forzendiablo niktitan132 jdany TheGambler TookDk hilariousandco koshgel Keyser Soze cexylikepie deadley david123 siameze coinits Parazyd bitbaby Gyfts MadZ bassguitarman ABitNut inigthz Quickseller twister Katsou Superhitech Grand_Voyageur Plutonium

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

Theymos clearly stated that the poll verdict does not mean anything over here as it seems that the votes are split fairly evenly. Hence, I think, there is no point in arguing that the idea is tabled because NO won the poll.

[galbros]

Sorry to necro this thread. 

However, given the large number of recent posts and complaints about the trust system, default trust, and how people who are trusted sometimes behave I thought it might be useful to remind people that theymos has considered alternatives and it was a pretty evenly split vote on moving to something new. 

For those of you who are unhappy, you may want to outline your alternative and see if you can get some agreement on an alternative as theymos is clearly not determined that the current system continue no matter what.  His proposal here may be a useful starting point for your thinking.

Good Luck!

[tspacepilot]

Sorry to necro this thread. 

However, given the large number of recent posts and complaints about the trust system, default trust, and how people who are trusted sometimes behave I thought it might be useful to remind people that theymos has considered alternatives and it was a pretty evenly split vote on moving to something new. 

For those of you who are unhappy, you may want to outline your alternative and see if you can get some agreement on an alternative as theymos is clearly not determined that the current system continue no matter what.  His proposal here may be a useful starting point for your thinking.

Good Luck!

Thanks, galbros, this thread is really relevant to recent issues re the trust system and it's not one that I had seen previously.  One thing this really brings home to me is that it seems like theymos definitely would have preferred a more distributed trust network---one in which people are actively adding and removing people based on their own experiences.  The current system gives us the tools to add and remove people, but because a vast majority of people do not add or remove or modify, they're really little point in doing so yourself.  Default trust has become "standard trust" and like-it-or-not, changing your own settings away from the standard just makes you out of the loop.

It's a little bit of a critical mass problem, in my opinion.  I think something like this proposal would be very valuable, I especally like the part of confronting a user with their own trust setting and forcing them to actively choose something/someone.  Having chosen, they'll be more aware that they can revist those choices.  The part about offering the "top 30" might have been problematic in this proposal, but I really see value in trying to get the wonderful personalization tools of the trust system more active.

[zazarb]

Too long topic to read full, I would just find out , or this proposal (to 30 users will be suggested)
already have effect, or just stayed proposal?
regards
-zz

[--Encrypted--]

Too long topic to read full, I would just find out , or this proposal (to 30 users will be suggested)
already have effect, or just stayed proposal?
regards
-zz

theymos decided not to replace it (for now). read the colorful quote above.

[Athertle]

already have effect, or just stayed proposal?

I'm sure that if the proposal had gone into effect then there would be no DT right now, and you would be voting for the users instead.

[tspacepilot]

already have effect, or just stayed proposal?

I'm sure that if the proposal had gone into effect then there would be no DT right now, and you would be voting for the users instead.

That's not right.  This proposal was to force each newbie account to choose someone to trust in order to bootstrap the trust system.  You're right that if it had gone into effect, the notion of "default trust" wouldn't exist, or at least not as we understand it.  But there wasn't going to be a vote for users, the beauty of this proposal was that people wouldn't just have the matching trust lists by default which most people have at the moment.

[otrkid70]

"Default Trust"    Why?

How about Earned trust?     I have  based all my transactions on established "Earned" feedback from buyers and sellers. I scrutinize all the feedback.

I could care less if a "Default trust" user has posted on a persons trust rating that he or she is credible UNLESS that person has done business with them.

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.
I have placed trust in people with 0 Feedback by doing business with them and have also Denied doing business with a so call "Trusted" member.

there are many that have been or on the Default trust list that i would not trust a dime with.

My ratings have been based on transactions with other users.....Not by a user that some claim i should trust.

[qwk]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

[Cointoli]

This discussion is almost year old and default trust still dominate the forum. Those with default trust are "gods" here... Joke

[otrkid70]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

[bitcoin revo]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

Of course not. Default trust isn't trust by default; people on the default trust become trusted as they spend time on the community doing trustable things. No one here registers and finds themselves with +4 DT trust ratings.

[qwk]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

You disagree simply because you obviously don't understand the trust system, at all.
People on DefaultTrust have no "rating" whatsoever from being on DefaultTrust.
I.e., if you were on DefaultTrust but had no positive feedback from anyone, your trust rating would be 0. Zero.
You don't profit from being on DefaultTrust yourself. People whom you trust profit from it.

[Quickseller]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

I disagree. Ebay users have earned their trust ratings through selling and buying transactions.  they were not given their ratings by default.

It is very easy to fake trades here, and many scammers give themselves fake trust feedback. This is somewhat mitigated on eBay because it cost money to engage in a trade (you need to pay the eBay fees), although that is not to say that all eBay trades are legitimate.

[Blazr]

It is very easy to fake trades here, and many scammers give themselves fake trust feedback. This is somewhat mitigated on eBay because it cost money to engage in a trade (you need to pay the eBay fees), although that is not to say that all eBay trades are legitimate.

Feedback buying and account buying/selling on eBay is actually quite common.  On eBay the feedback number displayed next to your username is a total of your buying/selling feedback, so buying stuff increases it. So many sellers will list ebooks for sale for $0.01. Other sellers then buy $10 worth these ebooks to get 1,000 feedback or so to prop up their reputation. IMO the eBay feedback system does have some advantages over the system here but it wouldn't work here and it still has widespread manipulation and is favorable for sellers (for example eBay lets high trust high volume sellers delete a set number of feedback per year to remove fake feedback) .

[Balmain]

Take Ebay for Example there is no Default trust list.....Your worthiness is based upon your successful transactions not because the creator says these people should be trusted.

You're 100% mistaken.
There is a default trust list with Ebay.
It encompasses all users of Ebay.

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

The reasons why we can't just include all users in the default trust seed of bitcointalk are obvious and have been discussed at length.

There is no default trust in eBay. Every user has same weigh on feedbacks. You need to be directly in part of the trade to leave feedback, different than Bitcointalk.

[tspacepilot]

If it weren't for a default seed of trust, any trust network would be utterly useless.

I don't think you've shown how this is true.  I can imagine a very helpful and useful trust network where users add those who they want to add and remove who they want to remove and those without anyone on their trust lists are simply not participating.  How is this "utterly useless"?  It seems like an ideal system which aids those who want aid and leaves out those who want left out without creating a central point of failure for those who want to game the system.

[Sir_lagsalot]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

How about you get on the default trust list by buying +ved more than 10 times by someone who has more activity points thank you?

[subSTRATA]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

How about you get on the default trust list by buying +ved more than 10 times by someone who has more activity points thank you?

hell no.