Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2019, 05:56:35 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Should this system replace DefaultTrust? (Your vote may be published.)  (Voting closed: January 10, 2015, 04:19:13 AM)
Yes, it should. - 38 (47.5%)
No, keep DefaultTrust - 42 (52.5%)
Total Voters: 80

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust  (Read 15635 times)
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:19:31 AM
Last edit: January 05, 2015, 10:46:41 AM by theymos
 #1

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?

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
1575827795
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575827795

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575827795
Reply with quote  #2

1575827795
Report to moderator
1575827795
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575827795

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575827795
Reply with quote  #2

1575827795
Report to moderator
1575827795
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575827795

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575827795
Reply with quote  #2

1575827795
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:25:02 AM
 #2

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?


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:26:16 AM
 #3

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 |
----------------+--------------+

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:30:40 AM
 #4

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2954
Merit: 2340


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:37:37 AM
 #5

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'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
Nastyfans is a proven ponzi! BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - BPIP Reports FAMO
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:41:16 AM
 #6

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?

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
dserrano5
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1012



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:44:02 AM
 #7

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2954
Merit: 2340


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 09:51:26 AM
 #8

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.

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
Nastyfans is a proven ponzi! BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - BPIP Reports FAMO
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
 #9

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.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
adamas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1012
Merit: 1002


VIS ET LIBERTAS


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:04:49 AM
 #10

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.

"Es ist kein Zeichen geistiger Gesundheit, gut angepasst an eine kranke Gesellschaft zu sein."
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:09:38 AM
 #11

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.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:15:57 AM
Last edit: January 05, 2015, 10:28:16 AM by TECSHARE
 #12

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
Parazyd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:16:57 AM
 #13

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1012



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:19:07 AM
 #14

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:20:42 AM
 #15

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
Parazyd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:23:40 AM
 #16

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:25:32 AM
 #17

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
Parazyd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:27:44 AM
 #18

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1012



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:30:00 AM
 #19

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1002



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:32:19 AM
 #20

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


Miner Setup And Reviews. WASP Rep.


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 10:32:47 AM
 #21

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?

Message me if you have any problems
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 10:47:48 AM
Last edit: January 05, 2015, 11:06:55 AM by TECSHARE
 #22

 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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
dserrano5
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1012



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:07:24 AM
 #23

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
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:12:43 AM
 #24

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.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Parazyd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 11:15:03 AM
 #25

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
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:21:59 AM
 #26

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".

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Magic8Ball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
 #27

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 911
Merit: 657


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 11:41:52 AM
 #28

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
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 12:00:06 PM
Last edit: January 05, 2015, 12:41:26 PM by hilariousandco
 #29

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1111



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 01:09:21 PM
 #30

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
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 01:20:22 PM
 #31

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1111



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 01:27:02 PM
 #32

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
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 01:32:24 PM
 #33

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 01:40:53 PM
 #34

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.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1111



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 01:42:24 PM
 #35

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
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 01:50:45 PM
Last edit: January 05, 2015, 04:04:41 PM by hilariousandco
 #36

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
hashie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 100


DATABLOCKCHAIN.IO SALE IS LIVE | MVP @ DBC.IO


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:15:01 PM
 #37

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:17:13 PM
 #38

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

Inaba/BFL is lower.

Vortex20000
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500

sucker got hacked and screwed --Toad


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 02:25:05 PM
 #39

TF is lower, right?

Wink

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 02:47:14 PM
 #40

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
marcotheminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1020


Newbies may msg me! If you're legit, things work.


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 02:56:06 PM
 #41

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.

BET on ARCADE BRAWLS: Free 0.001BTC no-depo ; on sign up (min. wager 0.01BTC) link: https://betroar.io/?ref_id=382
Then join my giveaway for 20% chance of winning 50k sats (4 registrations left): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5203738.0
hilariousandco
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 03:09:56 PM
Last edit: January 05, 2015, 03:30:40 PM by hilariousandco
 #42

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.


████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Parazyd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 03:40:55 PM
 #43

^^ 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
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 2226


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
January 05, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
 #44

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
hilariousandco
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 03:56:36 PM
 #45

^^ 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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
DiamondCardz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1088


CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 04:09:16 PM
 #46

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.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
takagari
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 04:43:33 PM
 #47

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

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1119


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:01:44 PM
 #48

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:21:53 PM
 #49

^^ 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
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:26:08 PM
 #50

^^ 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  Cheesy.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Parazyd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 05, 2015, 05:28:52 PM
 #51

^^ 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  Cheesy.

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


Miner Setup And Reviews. WASP Rep.


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 01:58:54 AM
 #52

^^ 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  Cheesy.

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.

Message me if you have any problems
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 03:39:48 AM
 #53

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? 



██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 04:23:34 AM
 #54

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.)

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2954
Merit: 2340


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 04:31:48 AM
 #55

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.   Undecided

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. 

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
Nastyfans is a proven ponzi! BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - BPIP Reports FAMO
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
Gyfts
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1003

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 04:35:22 AM
 #56

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.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Beastlymac
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


Miner Setup And Reviews. WASP Rep.


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 04:38:10 AM
 #57

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

Message me if you have any problems
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2954
Merit: 2340


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 04:39:45 AM
 #58

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.

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
Nastyfans is a proven ponzi! BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - BPIP Reports FAMO
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 04:41:43 AM
 #59

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
hilariousandco
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 04:50:21 AM
 #60

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. 

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1770



View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 05:37:29 AM
 #61

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.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1770



View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 05:50:12 AM
 #62

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.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 06:56:33 AM
 #63

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
takagari
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 06:58:45 AM
 #64

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
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 07:04:38 AM
Last edit: January 06, 2015, 03:49:24 PM by BadBear
 #65

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

Good job guys.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
koshgel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 07:31:13 AM
 #66

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2954
Merit: 2340


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 07:31:50 AM
 #67

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.

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
Nastyfans is a proven ponzi! BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - BPIP Reports FAMO
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
koshgel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 07:40:00 AM
 #68

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2954
Merit: 2340


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 07:43:38 AM
 #69

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


I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
Nastyfans is a proven ponzi! BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - BPIP Reports FAMO
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
CanaryInTheMine
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1042


between a rock and a block!


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 07:58:27 AM
 #70

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1036


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 08:09:59 AM
Last edit: January 06, 2015, 08:24:20 AM by freedomno1
 #71

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin enthusiast!


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 08:20:28 AM
 #72

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2954
Merit: 2340


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 08:26:56 AM
 #73

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.

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
Nastyfans is a proven ponzi! BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)  - BPIP Reports FAMO
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
hilariousandco
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 08:31:39 AM
 #74

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

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

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1036


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 09:15:27 AM
 #75

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
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 2226


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 09:23:17 AM
 #76

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?

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
hilariousandco
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 09:28:23 AM
 #77

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?  Cheesy

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1036


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 09:34:40 AM
 #78


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?  Cheesy

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

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
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1193



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 09:35:03 AM
 #79

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

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1429


Verified awesomeness ✔


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 09:40:29 AM
 #80

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 09:46:38 AM
Last edit: January 06, 2015, 10:33:02 AM by BadBear
 #81

Quote from: hilariousandco link=topic=914641.msg10055268#msg10055268

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

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

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
MadZ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 911
Merit: 657


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 09:52:14 AM
 #82

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
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1193



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 09:54:30 AM
 #83

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
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 09:58:01 AM
 #84

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  Cheesy. 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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2310
Merit: 2000


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:05:37 AM
 #85

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 10:07:45 AM
 #86

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


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
medUSA
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1003


--Signature Designs-- http://bit.ly/1Pjbx77


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 10:17:35 AM
 #87

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1041


#Free market


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:21:45 AM
 #88

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1119


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 10:40:55 AM
 #89

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


Space Lord


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 10:43:38 AM
 #90

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
Chopper Member
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1702


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 10:46:46 AM
 #91

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1561


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 10:48:53 AM
 #92

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.


██   ██   ██████████
 
  ██   █████████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
 ██   ██   █████████
 
   ██   ████████████
 
      ██   █████████
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Blockchain.com.do.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████
      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀ ▀ ▀▀█   █       █▄
 ▀ ▀▀▀█▄▄▀      ▄█ ▄▀█▄
   ▀ ▀█▄▄       ██ ▄▀██▀▄
  ▀ ▀▀█  ▀▄      ▀▄▄█▀   ▀▄
 ▀▀ ▀ █▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄
 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
 █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
  ▀▄     ▄▄▄       █   █▀▀ ▀ ▀
    ▀▄ ▄█ ▄▄█▄      ▀▄▄█▀▀▀ ▀
      ▀██▄▄ ██       ▄▄█▀ ▀
        ▀▄▄▄▀      ▄▀  █▀▀ ▀
          ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄█ ▀ ▀▀
██████  ██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██████  ██
.Exchange Bitcoin Quickly.██  ██████
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
        ██
██  ██████




██████████   ██   ██
 
█████████████   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██   ██
 
████████████   ██
 
█████████   ██
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 10:50:20 AM
 #93

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.

+1

If I have to chose now who to trust, I can pick some users, but if you had asked me this question at the begining, there's no way I could have made an informed choice.

I think it could be better than default trust for users that know some really trustable people. So I voted for the change.

I also hope abuses or exploits can auto-regulate (but not 100% sure)

EDIT : I also think default trust should be completly removed and would be a better idea, or maybe kept only for noobs.
dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1119


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 10:56:41 AM
 #94

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 911
Merit: 657


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:03:23 AM
 #95

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1119


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 02:48:34 PM
 #96

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


🤖UBEX.COM 🤖


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 02:56:11 PM
 #97

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.


.GLOBAL DECENTRALIZED ADVERTISING EXCHANGE.

Token sale: MAY 21

                                  ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
                                 █████    █████       
                        ▄██▄     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▄█▄    ▀██▀                           
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
                ▀█▀                                    
          ▄                      ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
         ▀█▀           ▄██▄    █████    █████       
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▀█▀                                    
           ▄                      ▄█▄     ▄█▄        
          ▀█▀            ▄██▄   █████   █████       
    ██            ▄█▄   ▀██▀    ▀█▀     ▀█▀        
             ▄    ▀█▀                                 
            ▀█▀                         ▄█▄           
       ██              ▄█▄   ▄██▄    █████          
                  ▄    ▀█▀   ▀██▀     ▀█▀           
                 ▀█▀                                   
            ██                   ▄██▄                 
                    ▄     ▄█▄   ▀██▀                 
                   ▀█▀    ▀█▀                          

▄█   ▄█  ▄█        ▄█████▄   ▀█▄     ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▄▄▄▄▄   ██▀   ▀██    ▀█▄  ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▀▀▀▀██  ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀      ████   
██   ██  ██   ██  ██▄   ▄█    ▄██▀▀██▄   
▀██████▀  ▀██████▀  ▀███████▀   ▄██▀   ▀██▄
Telegram
Facebook
ANN Thread
Youtube
LinkedIn
Twitter
Medium
Reddit
Github
Mitchell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1429


Verified awesomeness ✔


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
 #98

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!

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Beastlymac
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


Miner Setup And Reviews. WASP Rep.


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 02:59:39 PM
 #99

@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

Message me if you have any problems
rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


🤖UBEX.COM 🤖


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 03:06:39 PM
 #100

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.


.GLOBAL DECENTRALIZED ADVERTISING EXCHANGE.

Token sale: MAY 21

                                  ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
                                 █████    █████       
                        ▄██▄     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▄█▄    ▀██▀                           
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
                ▀█▀                                    
          ▄                      ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
         ▀█▀           ▄██▄    █████    █████       
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▀█▀                                    
           ▄                      ▄█▄     ▄█▄        
          ▀█▀            ▄██▄   █████   █████       
    ██            ▄█▄   ▀██▀    ▀█▀     ▀█▀        
             ▄    ▀█▀                                 
            ▀█▀                         ▄█▄           
       ██              ▄█▄   ▄██▄    █████          
                  ▄    ▀█▀   ▀██▀     ▀█▀           
                 ▀█▀                                   
            ██                   ▄██▄                 
                    ▄     ▄█▄   ▀██▀                 
                   ▀█▀    ▀█▀                          

▄█   ▄█  ▄█        ▄█████▄   ▀█▄     ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▄▄▄▄▄   ██▀   ▀██    ▀█▄  ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▀▀▀▀██  ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀      ████   
██   ██  ██   ██  ██▄   ▄█    ▄██▀▀██▄   
▀██████▀  ▀██████▀  ▀███████▀   ▄██▀   ▀██▄
Telegram
Facebook
ANN Thread
Youtube
LinkedIn
Twitter
Medium
Reddit
Github
Mitchell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1429


Verified awesomeness ✔


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 03:12:05 PM
 #101

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).

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
 #102

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 ChildrenTM (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.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


🤖UBEX.COM 🤖


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 03:27:06 PM
 #103

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?


.GLOBAL DECENTRALIZED ADVERTISING EXCHANGE.

Token sale: MAY 21

                                  ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
                                 █████    █████       
                        ▄██▄     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▄█▄    ▀██▀                           
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
                ▀█▀                                    
          ▄                      ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
         ▀█▀           ▄██▄    █████    █████       
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▀█▀                                    
           ▄                      ▄█▄     ▄█▄        
          ▀█▀            ▄██▄   █████   █████       
    ██            ▄█▄   ▀██▀    ▀█▀     ▀█▀        
             ▄    ▀█▀                                 
            ▀█▀                         ▄█▄           
       ██              ▄█▄   ▄██▄    █████          
                  ▄    ▀█▀   ▀██▀     ▀█▀           
                 ▀█▀                                   
            ██                   ▄██▄                 
                    ▄     ▄█▄   ▀██▀                 
                   ▀█▀    ▀█▀                          

▄█   ▄█  ▄█        ▄█████▄   ▀█▄     ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▄▄▄▄▄   ██▀   ▀██    ▀█▄  ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▀▀▀▀██  ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀      ████   
██   ██  ██   ██  ██▄   ▄█    ▄██▀▀██▄   
▀██████▀  ▀██████▀  ▀███████▀   ▄██▀   ▀██▄
Telegram
Facebook
ANN Thread
Youtube
LinkedIn
Twitter
Medium
Reddit
Github
Mitchell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1429


Verified awesomeness ✔


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
 #104

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


🤖UBEX.COM 🤖


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 03:39:08 PM
 #105

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?


.GLOBAL DECENTRALIZED ADVERTISING EXCHANGE.

Token sale: MAY 21

                                  ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
                                 █████    █████       
                        ▄██▄     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▄█▄    ▀██▀                           
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
                ▀█▀                                    
          ▄                      ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
         ▀█▀           ▄██▄    █████    █████       
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▀█▀                                    
           ▄                      ▄█▄     ▄█▄        
          ▀█▀            ▄██▄   █████   █████       
    ██            ▄█▄   ▀██▀    ▀█▀     ▀█▀        
             ▄    ▀█▀                                 
            ▀█▀                         ▄█▄           
       ██              ▄█▄   ▄██▄    █████          
                  ▄    ▀█▀   ▀██▀     ▀█▀           
        &n