philipma1957 and default trust

[MadZ]

It appears that philipma1957 was recently added at default trust depth 1, resulting in users in his trust list being added to depth 2. The problem with this is that his trust list seems to be entirely composed of users who have left him positive feedback, resulting in 44 trusted positive feedback and only 5 untrusted feedback, a pretty abnormal ratio. In addition to the fact that this manipulates his trust rating to look higher than it should be, there is also the problem that many of these users have no business being at default trust depth 2, just for completing one transaction with philip. Here are a few of the best examples:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=331147
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130725
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=155793
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125012
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=364659

There are many more accounts like these in his trust list that I did not bother posting, if you don't believe me, go take a look at the rest of his trust list. I understand that he probably created his trust list before being added to default trust, so I held off on posting this for a few days in case he didn't know he was now at depth 1. I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this.

[1713485923]

1713485923

[1713485923]

1713485923

[haploid23]

It also makes me wonder how he got put on there, while other mods are not.

[hilariousandco]

It has been brought up and it is a problem in my opinion. Diddyu has only 2 posts and bronxnua has seemingly been put on his trusted list for merely asking a question which he left as a positive feedback for some reason: Where did you get those fans used on the 49 usb hub ? I can't post pm or reply to messages. Quite clearly these people have only been added to boost his feedback score for whatever reason.

I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this.

RitzGrandCasino was requested to be removed by RGBkey as he was in the red because of it. Both he and Canary should significantly prune their trust lists to those that they actually trust.

It also makes me wonder how he got put on there, while other mods are not.

There was a reason for it but I don't think this was the solution to it.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I believe theymos/Badbear is seeing this. Shouldn't they be removed from DefaultTrust list if they're refusing to correct their list?

   ~~MZ~~

[Grand_Voyageur]

I believe theymos/Badbear is seeing this. Shouldn't they be removed from DefaultTrust list if they're refusing to correct their list?

   ~~MZ~~

+1. Keeping your own list regularly pruned & updated must be a conditio sine qua non to be in any trust list. DefaultTrust or personal one doesn't matter.

[MrTeal]

Hmm, interesting. That does seem a little weird, although he does seem like a reasonable and active guy so hopefully he will be able to explain the weirdness.

I noticed he also does what many people seem to for some reason, and report the value of the transaction in the risked BTC amount. For something like Boldar where it appears that Boldar paid philip first and then got the product, it should probably be recorded that Boldar risked 0.55BTC, but philipma risked 0BTC. It's surprisingly common.

[philipma1957]

hey guys I am on the site constantly for more then two years.  How about a pm or two for a heads up. Rather then starting a thread that attacks me

Frankly I did not ask for the promotion to the default list.  And I don't want to defend myself here.

As for positive and amount risked.  If you send me 1 btc for a miner you may never get the miner so you risked 1 btc.

If I mail you a good miner and you say it is dead I am risking the same 1btc Since I always send a replacement .

I will look into the list as  it is long and covers many people I have removed a few names upon request and I am certainly willing to check it over more closely.

As to putting coins risked  if the deal worked both ways I am leaving the trust in since I fully back my gear up when I sell it .

As I am at risk to someone lying about the gear that I sold to them.

It appears that philipma1957 was recently added at default trust depth 1, resulting in users in his trust list being added to depth 2. The problem with this is that his trust list seems to be entirely composed of users who have left him positive feedback, resulting in 44 trusted positive feedback and only 5 untrusted feedback, a pretty abnormal ratio. In addition to the fact that this manipulates his trust rating to look higher than it should be, there is also the problem that many of these users have no business being at default trust depth 2, just for completing one transaction with philip. Here are a few of the best examples:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=331147  

so why is this wrong?  we made a deal he paid me took the gear and said it worked.  if he lied and said it was bad  I am out a miner and a psu.  he could have said I want to return the gear and swapped a bad miner and a bad psu.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130725  why is this wrong I sold him a miner looks like  i did not give him a trust he gave me one.   I may have missed posting a trust back .  now you say I should not give a trust back I did not.

So in your first 2 examples I did  both sides of the fence 1 was a trust in 2 directions 1 was a trust in 1 direction.

Which one is correct?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=155793


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125012
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=364659

There are many more accounts like these in his trust list that I did not bother posting, if you don't believe me, go take a look at the rest of his trust list. I understand that he probably created his trust list before being added to default trust, so I held off on posting this for a few days in case he didn't know he was now at depth 1. I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this.

[Quickseller]

hey guys I am on the site constantly for more then two years.  How about a pm or two for a heads up. Rather then starting a thread that attacks me

Frankly I did not ask for the promotion to the default list.  And I don't want to defend myself here.

As for positive and amount risked.  If you send me 1 btc for a miner you may never get the miner so you risked 1 btc.

If I mail you a good miner and you say it is dead I am risking the same 1btc Since I always send a replacement .

I will look into the list as  it is long and covers many people I have removed a few names upon request and I am certainly willing to check it over more closely.

As to putting coins risked  if the deal worked both ways I am leaving the trust in since I fully back my gear up when I sell it .

As I am at risk to someone lying about the gear that I sold to them.

It appears that philipma1957 was recently added at default trust depth 1, resulting in users in his trust list being added to depth 2. The problem with this is that his trust list seems to be entirely composed of users who have left him positive feedback, resulting in 44 trusted positive feedback and only 5 untrusted feedback, a pretty abnormal ratio. In addition to the fact that this manipulates his trust rating to look higher than it should be, there is also the problem that many of these users have no business being at default trust depth 2, just for completing one transaction with philip. Here are a few of the best examples:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=331147
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130725
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=155793
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125012
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=364659

There are many more accounts like these in his trust list that I did not bother posting, if you don't believe me, go take a look at the rest of his trust list. I understand that he probably created his trust list before being added to default trust, so I held off on posting this for a few days in case he didn't know he was now at depth 1. I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this.

I don't think this is so much an attack thread, but more of a concern about the intregitory of the trust system. I think what the OP's primary concern is that by adding anyone to your trust list that you have ever done business with, you are making your trust score higher then it really should be and are giving people the "power" of default trust that really do not deserve such power. I think it is fair to say that it is generally safe to do business with you so making your trust score as high as possible is not going to give you any real advantage. 

[MrTeal]

As for positive and amount risked.  If you send me 1 btc for a miner you may never get the miner so you risked 1 btc.

If I mail you a good miner and you say it is dead I am risking the same 1btc Since I always send a replacement .

As to putting coins risked  if the deal worked both ways I am leaving the trust in since I fully back my gear up when I sell it .

As I am at risk to someone lying about the gear that I sold to them.

Fair enough. I'd generally disagree on that point, but if the buyer is able to send you an email that something they sold is defective and you replace it without asking for the original back, I'd concede that you actually are risking something on the transaction.

[philipma1957]

I am just trying to get along here and not be at odds with people.
I am certainly willing to work with members here and not fight with members.

[TookDk]

Will not make a different for me, philipma1957 is already on my trust list.
You will not find a more honest guy than Philip.

[philipma1957]

hey guys I am on the site constantly for more then two years.  How about a pm or two for a heads up. Rather then starting a thread that attacks me

Frankly I did not ask for the promotion to the default list.  And I don't want to defend myself here.

As for positive and amount risked.  If you send me 1 btc for a miner you may never get the miner so you risked 1 btc.

If I mail you a good miner and you say it is dead I am risking the same 1btc Since I always send a replacement .

I will look into the list as  it is long and covers many people I have removed a few names upon request and I am certainly willing to check it over more closely.

As to putting coins risked  if the deal worked both ways I am leaving the trust in since I fully back my gear up when I sell it .

As I am at risk to someone lying about the gear that I sold to them.

It appears that philipma1957 was recently added at default trust depth 1, resulting in users in his trust list being added to depth 2. The problem with this is that his trust list seems to be entirely composed of users who have left him positive feedback, resulting in 44 trusted positive feedback and only 5 untrusted feedback, a pretty abnormal ratio. In addition to the fact that this manipulates his trust rating to look higher than it should be, there is also the problem that many of these users have no business being at default trust depth 2, just for completing one transaction with philip. Here are a few of the best examples:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=331147
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130725
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=155793
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125012
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=364659

There are many more accounts like these in his trust list that I did not bother posting, if you don't believe me, go take a look at the rest of his trust list. I understand that he probably created his trust list before being added to default trust, so I held off on posting this for a few days in case he didn't know he was now at depth 1. I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this.

I don't think this is so much an attack thread, but more of a concern about the intregitory of the trust system. I think what the OP's primary concern is that by adding anyone to your trust list that you have ever done business with, you are making your trust score higher then it really should be and are giving people the "power" of default trust that really do not deserve such power. I think it is fair to say that it is generally safe to do business with you so making your trust score as high as possible is not going to give you any real advantage.  

 Okay I see your logic so the question is how to  be fair . Remember I made the lists over the last 2.5 years and if someone did a good sale I trusted them and they trusted me.   In both directions sometimes I was the buyer and sometimes I was the seller.

[MrTeal]

I am just trying to get along here and not be at odds with people.
I am certainly willing to work with members here and not fight with members.

I think people just want the trust system to work well given the recent noise around it. The OP might have been a little strongly worded, I'd agree that a message to you first would have been appropriate.

For those people you've left positive feedback for, have you also manually added them to your trust list?

[philipma1957]

I am just trying to get along here and not be at odds with people.
I am certainly willing to work with members here and not fight with members.

I think people just want the trust system to work well given the recent noise around it. The OP might have been a little strongly worded, I'd agree that a message to you first would have been appropriate.

For those people you've left positive feedback for, have you also manually added them to your trust list?

over the last 2 years I added a lot of members.  I can see that this is an issue and since I was put on the default list I have had some pm's and questions asked.

I am going to do more review on the list  to try to get it to be more accurate.  here is the list as it is today.

[printshop]

It appears that philipma1957 was recently added at default trust depth 1, resulting in users in his trust list being added to depth 2. The problem with this is that his trust list seems to be entirely composed of users who have left him positive feedback, resulting in 44 trusted positive feedback and only 5 untrusted feedback, a pretty abnormal ratio. In addition to the fact that this manipulates his trust rating to look higher than it should be, there is also the problem that many of these users have no business being at default trust depth 2, just for completing one transaction with philip. Here are a few of the best examples:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=331147
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=130725
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=155793
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125012
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=364659

There are many more accounts like these in his trust list that I did not bother posting, if you don't believe me, go take a look at the rest of his trust list. I understand that he probably created his trust list before being added to default trust, so I held off on posting this for a few days in case he didn't know he was now at depth 1. I believe he has removed 2 users since then, which means he has noticed but decided not to prune the majority of the list. I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list, and I think others will agree with me on this.

the defaulttrust system is screwed.

[MrTeal]

I am just trying to get along here and not be at odds with people.
I am certainly willing to work with members here and not fight with members.

I think people just want the trust system to work well given the recent noise around it. The OP might have been a little strongly worded, I'd agree that a message to you first would have been appropriate.

For those people you've left positive feedback for, have you also manually added them to your trust list?

over the last 2 years I added a lot of members.  I can see that this is an issue and since I was put on the default list I have had some pm's and questions asked.

I am going to do more review on the list  to try to get it to be more accurate.  

That sounds reasonable to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but my understanding is that if you leave positive feedback for someone, it counts as trusted feedback and contributes to a red or green score. It does not add them to level 2 default trust though. However, if you add them to your trust list you do add them to level 2 and they are able to hand out trusted feedback. You're essentially saying that you not only trust them, but you trust them and their judgement enough that you're willing to trust every one they might do business with. That's a big upgrade in the responsibility you have in maintaining your trust list. Did you have forewarning that you were being added to default trust?

[philipma1957]

I am will to work with my list on this thread one by one.

@ Mr Teal    


 this is what I did not understand and it has now become an issue with the promotion to the default list.


first name on the  trust list is dentldir  i did a deal  on 2013-11-16  I will remove him from list not that he is a bad person but the way trust system works as now explained to me. 

The trust is okay the trust list is too good

[Hunger]

philipma1957 has been extremely helpful since i started here, he is also always willing to help others and i really appreciate member like philipma1957 and i would feel confident if i was making business with him.

[MrTeal]

I am will to work with my list on this thread one by one.

@ Mr Teal   


 this is what I did not understand and it has now become an issue with the promotion to the default list.

Agreed. As people are talking about changes to the default trust list, for those on level one of default trust it might make sense to have two separate lists. You might still want to keep your list, as you said you've worked on it for years. That doesn't mean you would want everyone on it to be lvl2 trust. If you had a separate list that was just for promotion to level 2, you could keep your existing list for your own personal trust, and add users as you see fit to the list where you trust their judgement enough to allow them to give trusted feedback to others.

[philipma1957]

I am will to work with my list on this thread one by one.

@ Mr Teal    


 this is what I did not understand and it has now become an issue with the promotion to the default list.

Agreed. As people are talking about changes to the default trust list, for those on level one of default trust it might make sense to have two separate lists. You might still want to keep your list, as you said you've worked on it for years. That doesn't mean you would want everyone on it to be lvl2 trust. If you had a separate list that was just for promotion to level 2, you could keep your existing list for your own personal trust, and add users as you see fit to the list where you trust their judgement enough to allow them to give trusted feedback to others.

At Mr Teal you are correct:

A) I did business and it worked list  
B)I would trust this person with my wallet list so to speak

Would be a better system.
For now I will be leaving all trusts.
I will be removing some from the trust list.

second person on my default list is CrazyGuy-- he stays.
third person is Unacceptable  --------------------he stays.
fourth person is kano -----------------------------he stays.
fifth person is champbronc2----------------------he goes.
sixth is cablez ------------------------------------ he stays.
seventh is davecoin ------------------------------ he stays.
eighth is RicRock --------------------------------- he goes.
ninith is Delarock ---------------------------------he goes.
tenth is iluvpcs ------------------------------------ he stays.
11th crashoveride54902 -------------------------- stays
12th stunna --------------------------------------- stays
13th  lazlopanaflex --------------------------------stay
14th ssinc ------------------------------------------ goes  
15th razorfishsl ------------------------------------goes
16th btceic ----------------------------------------- goes
17th Swimmer63 ----------------------------------- stays
18th buysolar --------------------------------------- stays
19th SilentSonicBoom ------------------------------ stays
20th tookdk ----------------------------------------- stays
21st jc328 ------------------------------------------ goes
22nd Chris_Sabian---------------------------------- goes
23rd DefaultTrust -----------------------------------  I believe this has to stay?
24th klintay ----------------------------------------- goes
25th stex2009 -------------------------------------- stays
26th boldar ------------------------------------------ goes
27th de_ixie ------------------------------------------ goes
28th Stratobitz --------------------------------------- stays
29th evilpanda --------------------------------------- goes
30th Blazedout419 ----------------------------------- stays
31st btcxcg -------------------------------------------- goes
32nd bronxnua ---------------------------------------- goes don't understand why he was on the list
33rd tripppon ----------------------------------------- goes
34th xZork --------------------------------------------- goes
35th crocko -------------------------------------------- goes
36th mchu168 ------------------------------------------ goes
37th itsrealfast ------------------------------------------ goes
38th Albertdroid ----------------------------------------- goes
39th MoreBloodWine ------------------------------------- stays
40th BITMAIN -------------------------------------------- stays watch for misspelled versions of it.
41st CoinGeneral  ---------------------------------------- goes
42nd dance191 ------------------------------------------- goes
43rd crowetic --------------------------------------------- stays
44th dyland ----------------------------------------------- goes
45th pcfli -------------------------------------------------- stays be careful of misspelled versions
46th Diddyu ----------------------------------------------- goes
47th Zoomhash_michael --------------------------------- Stays
48th RockDaddy ------------------------------------------ goes
49th SDRebel ----------------------------------------------- stays
50th MunkeySpaz ------------------------------------------ goes
51st Xtra7973 --------------------------------------------- goes