Replacing DefaultTrust

[Quickseller]

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

It'd be very slightly moderating the suggested-trust-list-users system, which I think would be less centralized than managing DefaultTrust.

Without moderation you would still heavily influence it as you are heavily trusted so whatever trust list you use will be very heavily weighted through the community.

If you want a less centralized system then I would suggest removing yourself from the accounts that is trusted from DefaultTrust, choosing people who wish to remain reputable throughout the community (and are very trustworthy) to be trusted by DefaultTrust, and to only remove people from DefaultTrust under very specific circumstances that are outlined publicly and are open to public debate (not vote - shills).

A very good example of when a reputable person who is trusted by DefaultTrust acted when the community was concerned about his trust report is here. We should strive to have more users like philipma1957 trusted by DefaultTrust (who care about their reputation and are willing to act on their trust list when someone calls out an issue about it)

[Blazed]

Wow so with all my trusted people..I go from +40 trust to +113 lol. This is why I was just using default only to see what everyone else sees. I finally get why that doesn't matter...just go by what I trust and that is it.

[theymos]

Votes:

For the new system

Against the new system

theymos HostFat gmaxwell PsychoticBoy qwk $username alexrossi Welsh kcud_dab matt4054 LaudaM Blazr EnJoyThis sardokan Beastlymac alani123 Eal F. Skillz BitCoinDream redsn0w hopenotlate mitzie moreia criptix takagari Muhammed Zakir Shallow rugrats onemorebtc blablaace Gleb Gamow Sumerian Reynaldo justinetime geforcelover abyrnes81 kepo07 hexafraction Dalyb

OgNasty Tomatocage Vod MrTeal Foxpup BitcoinEXpress MiningBuddy iCEBREAKER GIANNAT KWH haploid23 dogie freedomno1 medUSA bitcoininformation Blazedout419 forzendiablo niktitan132 jdany TheGambler TookDk hilariousandco koshgel Keyser Soze cexylikepie deadley david123 siameze coinits Parazyd bitbaby Gyfts MadZ bassguitarman ABitNut inigthz Quickseller twister Katsou Superhitech Grand_Voyageur Plutonium

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

[Vod]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

You're an intelligent guy... I'm sure you'll have another solution for us to vet in no time.

[Quickseller]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

For those that I am familiar with, I am not surprised with how everyone voted.

What do all the colors mean though?

[dogie]

Votes:

1) Can you post a key as to the colors please, and is there a significance to the ranking?
2) I'm sure you or someone else will come up with something. I went through about 5 different ideas but they're all abusable in some fashion without moderation. It only takes a teeny amount of moderation (appeal tribunals to remove the most obvious fake stuff) and then plenty of versions become viable and better than current trust.
3) And OH MY GOD YOU CAN USE HTML COLOR CODES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. I've been stuck with green and lime green for years, time to fix 42 guides  .

[MrTeal]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

For those that I am familiar with, I am not surprised with how everyone voted.

What do all the colors mean though?

Just a guess.
Red - Demigod
Pink - Staff
Purple - VIP
Green - Donator
Blue - Legendary
etc...

[freedomno1]

Votes:

3) And OH MY GOD YOU CAN USE HTML COLOR CODES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. I've been stuck with green and lime green for years, time to fix 42 guides  .

That's a lot of guides

That vote was closer than I thought it was a good sample size 80 users is not bad, but having 2000 + trust scores seems a bit excessive so guess default works till another interesting proposal comes around or a lot more discussion.

[Grand_Voyageur]

Votes:

For the new system

Against the new system

theymos HostFat gmaxwell PsychoticBoy qwk $username alexrossi Welsh kcud_dab matt4054 LaudaM Blazr EnJoyThis sardokan Beastlymac alani123 Eal F. Skillz BitCoinDream redsn0w hopenotlate mitzie moreia criptix takagari Muhammed Zakir Shallow rugrats onemorebtc blablaace Gleb Gamow Sumerian Reynaldo justinetime geforcelover abyrnes81 kepo07 hexafraction Dalyb

OgNasty Tomatocage Vod MrTeal Foxpup BitcoinEXpress MiningBuddy iCEBREAKER GIANNAT KWH haploid23 dogie freedomno1 medUSA bitcoininformation Blazedout419 forzendiablo niktitan132 jdany TheGambler TookDk hilariousandco koshgel Keyser Soze cexylikepie deadley david123 siameze coinits Parazyd bitbaby Gyfts MadZ bassguitarman ABitNut inigthz Quickseller twister Katsou Superhitech Grand_Voyageur Plutonium

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

ThankYou for your update on the poll results & for asking for our voices!  
Even if the DefaultTrust has slightly won this contest, would You evaluating the possibility to implement some of the more user friendly features like the check box to inject extra users in personal trust lists (hopefully also similar way to also prune it of no more trusted members) to tailor-custom our own lists while keeping also the actual typing method or the possibility to upload a ASCII a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of our personal trust lists? Also are you evaluating the possibility to put in Trust settings and Trust feedback pages some FAQ links to some "How To" providing some guidelines & help on the right/best way to set/maintain trust lists and provide accurate feedback? I know we have some sticky post around to explain it but putting the right information is needed the most could easy the task.

[Vod]

the possibility to upload a ASCII a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of our personal trust lists?

I would be against this.  It would no longer be "your personal" trust list, but someone else's personal trust list.

[Grand_Voyageur]

the possibility to upload a ASCII a box to upload a trust list from an ASCII text file to expedite the maintenance of our personal trust lists?

I would be against this.  It would no longer be "your personal" trust list, but someone else's personal trust list.

If you use other people maintaned lists i may agree with you, but IF You have a text file back-up of your own list as me OR IF as me you used a text file to do my maintenance (and also to put in the usernames of the members i met in person - i.e. in fact a memory helper task) is ONLY a resources/time-saving way of doing your forum housekeeping.
Maybe is not an option to be made available to a n00b but only for more established members (Full Members/Sr. Members or up?) but i think it may be very helpful.

Just my 2 satoshi

[Vod]

You can backup/restore your personal trust list simply by copy/pasting into notepad (for windows).  You don't need any kind of exporter/importer.

[Grand_Voyageur]

You can backup/restore your personal trust list simply by copy/pasting into notepad (for windows).  You don't need any kind of exporter/importer.

Actually I used this solution; but, I'm not a big fan of the huge copy&paste due to the heavy workload imposed on my aging notebook RAM & CPU since I used to do a lot of multiple tasks at the same time (multiple sw instances working & quite a few internet browsers pages open at the same time). Importing directly the list in the Trust setting would really help my experience (as well the ones of people in similar situation).

[theymos]

What do all the colors mean though?

The colors are the same as the colors on Who's Online:
- Admins = red
- Global mods = dark blue
- Donators = green
- VIPs = violet
- Staff = pink
- Regular users are various shades of grey, getting darker with seniority.
- Legendary = lightish blue

[hilariousandco]

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.

It is split very evenly. Even the users who voted for each seem so. Interesting that BadBear didn't vote (unless he did on an alt account). I think the current system is the best solution but should be tweaked or kept a closer eye on the people who are on there and maybe limiting the number of users that each person can put on.

[TECSHARE]

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

This is more about this precedent:

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

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

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

Looking at the TECHSHARE example, it looks like he left Armis negative trust on November 5, 2014, which is the same day he opened a thread asking for him to be removed from default trust list. It was not until over 3 days later that he was removed from default trust list. During this three day period, the community had the chance to discuss the rating in question and TECHSHARE has the opportunity to remove the rating.

If you were to look at recent examples of Vod's recent controversy, he removed his negative ratings on all users in question within less then 48 hours, and after the community was able to voice their opinion on his ratings. I want to say it was closer to 24 hours, but the timeline is not crystal clear on this (additionally the people he gave negative trust to were acting like 2 year olds while Armis was acting professionally the entire time).  

This is the obvious catalyst, as also hinted by:

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

theymos would still be at the top of the trust system. As you can see from my response above his proposed system would be subject to a number of instances where he would need to "moderate" the system. The trust system would remain centralized.

The current system allows for people to have much more information in order to make a judgment as to whose ratings can be relied upon and whose should no be. Anytime you use any level of randomness to determine which users' trust reports to rely on you are asking for trouble.

First of all I want to point out the conflict of interest Quickseller has in trying to discredit someone who is arguing for removal of the defaul trust system. If this is done all those accounts he is holding on to trying to hawk other peoples trust, will be worth a whole lot less. He has FINANCIAL INTEREST to try to discredit me and stop the default trust from being removed.

In response to your comments, during that 3 day period I gave Armis the opportunity to remove his slanderous, harassing, and insulting posts from my marketplace OPs, which began as 1 then turned into 5 more once I left him a trust rating, so no, he did not act professionally the whole time. He had an opportunity to get his negative removed. The staff didn't like that I used my trust as leverage against him to keep my op free of his harassment and claimed I was trying to intimidate him into silence on the entire forum. This is a lie. He could have posted in scam accusations or meta if he really believed me selling a gift card for face value was such a crime.

He was there to grief, that is it, and the staff whom I had been previously critical of took it as an opportunity to exact retribution upon me for the unforgivable slight of being critical of their policies. In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating. Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust. This was additional punitive punishment that would not be levied out to most users simply for leaving a trust rating they don't agree with. Also they always claim trust is not moderated, but this sure looks like trust moderation to me, especially punishing me after the fact that I was already removed from the default trust.

In VODs case, he repeatedly and willfully violates the trust. In my instance I didn't even KNOW default trust was moderated, no one ever told me, and it is not written anywhere. VOD clearly should know the rules by now, yet he finds himself constantly violating them causing all kinds of strife for users all over the forum. I made an a single honest mistake followed by a principled refusal to comply. He makes repeated willful violations of the trust system rules in order to attempt to silence people who criticize him from speaking out. I was honest about why I left my rating from start to finish. VOD constantly lies to everyone's faces and people just pretend along with him. The two cases are not at all the same.

[onemorebtc]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust.

i dont understand what you mean.
how did they remove your feedback on other accounts?

[hilariousandco]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

And you shouldn't. It's just another conspiracy he made up to try help his argument.

Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust.

i dont understand what you mean.
how did they remove your feedback on other accounts?

He's talking about how people can exclude users using ~ on their trust lists to those they don't trust (it doesn't 'remove' feedback but Techshare's doesn't show up as trusted anymore). And no it wasn't me. If you go to the trust tree you will see who has done so as your name will be on their list but with a strikethrough.

[TECSHARE]

In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating.

hmm i consider you trustworthy and you are on my trust list but this i just dont believe this (and yes i have read all the important threads about it).

Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust.

i dont understand what you mean.
how did they remove your feedback on other accounts?

What part about it don't you believe? Of course from the outside you would not be able to tell much different, but I see it in the form of ignored reports, my own posts being reported and acted upon for minor things like 2 year old bumps I forgot to delete, and the hostility some of the staff clearly show for me in the way they talk to/about me. The staff refuse to even answer my private messages. The only staff I have ever got to reply to me was Maged and Badbear. While it may not be evident to you, it is evident to me. Why would I lie about this? What reason do I have to start all of this over nothing, damaging my trust ranking and pissing people off, what do I get out of it other than pointing out this abuse?

Trust exclusions are a new feature Theymos added days after the Armis incident and I got to be the very first use of it. Under this system anyone can add ~username to their trust list and exclude a user. This would be fine with me if that was all it did, however it does much more. When someone like Theymos or other high ranking staff put you in their trust exclusion, they basically make everyone within the default trust system no longer trust you, even if they explicitly add you to trust, or trust some one who also trusts you. If a higher ranking user in the trust calculation excludes you then it will negate the trust of any lower ranking members withing the trust tree. So even though I have 3 people on the level two trust who have me in their trust list, I still come up as -2 ranked in the default trust. In effect this removes trust I actually worked to earn, not just some special granted privilege/responsibility of default trust (which I never asked for and was never explained to me).

Trust exclusions are EVEN WORSE than default trust negatives, because they allow the user who does this to remain anonymous and will eventually just result in an environment where we once again suffer form users like VOD who use the exclusion to anonymously nuke the trust of lower ranked users. IMO trust exclusions as designed to cascade down the trust tree are a step in the WRONG direction.

[onemorebtc]

He's talking about how people can exclude users using ~ on their trust lists to those they don't trust (it doesn't 'remove' feedback but Techshare's doesn't show up as trusted anymore). And no it wasn't me. If you go to the trust tree you will see who has done so as your name will be on their list but with a strikethrough.

ok, so basically someone on defaultrust has done this?
but why is his feedback removed then? how is something removed he did earn?