philipma1957 and default trust

[hilariousandco]

32nd bronxnua ---------------------------------------- goes don't understand why he was on the list

Probably for the same reason all the others were. A better option would be to remove everyone and only add people who you definitively trust or trust the ratings of.

[philipma1957]

32nd bronxnua ---------------------------------------- goes don't understand why he was on the list

Probably for the same reason all the others were. A better option would be to remove everyone and only add people who you definitively trust or trust the ratings of.

Well in reviewing the list I reduced it from more then 50 to about 23 names

Pretty sure most are good names to leave.  It will get more reviewing . As for suggestions as to the remaining names fell free to post them here and or pm me.

here is the shorter list.

CrazyGuy
Unacceptable
kano
Cablez
davecoin
iluvpcs
crashoveride54902
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
Swimmer63
buysolar
SilentSonicBoom
TookDk
Chris_Sabian
DefaultTrust
stex2009
Stratobitz
Blazedout419
MoreBloodWine
BITMAIN
crowetic
pcfli
Zoomhash_michael
SDRebel


I may need to add :

CanaryInTheMine
mmpool
Spondoolies-Tech

My apologies for not quite understanding the difference between giving and getting trusts vs. putting someone on a trust list.

Lastly @ MR Teal thank you for fully explaining what was wrong with my use of the trust list.


The changes made moved me from:

 88: -0 /  +46(46) to

 59: -0 /  +31(31)

[theymos]

Adding someone to your trust list makes it so that the ratings they give show up in the "trusted" section instead of the "untrusted" section. For everyone, the goal of creating a trust list should be to see many accurate ratings as trusted while excluding most/all inaccurate ratings.

Even for someone in the default trust list, it's OK to trust people who are not trust-with-your-life trustworthy. As long as they've given a handful of accurate trust ratings and you don't think that they are super likely to give inaccurate trust ratings, adding them will be beneficial. It is, however, extremely important for people on the default trust list to very quickly remove/exclude anyone who starts giving inaccurate ratings.

It seems that a lot of people think of adding someone to your trust list as being a far more weighty way of giving them a positive trust rating. But really it's a very different type of trust, which is why I separated it from trust ratings to begin with. You should add people to your trust list if you think that they have good ratings and trust people who give good ratings. It's reasonable to add people to your trust list who you wouldn't trust with much money, and it's reasonable to exclude people who you would trust with a lot of money.

I didn't investigate every user on his list, but I think that the previous version of philipma1957's list was probably fine.

[koshgel]

Adding someone to your trust list makes it so that the ratings they give show up in the "trusted" section instead of the "untrusted" section. For everyone, the goal of creating a trust list should be to see many accurate ratings as trusted while excluding most/all inaccurate ratings.

Even for someone in the default trust list, it's OK to trust people who are not trust-with-your-life trustworthy. As long as they've given a handful of accurate trust ratings and you don't think that they are super likely to give inaccurate trust ratings, adding them will be beneficial. It is, however, extremely important for people on the default trust list to very quickly remove/exclude anyone who starts giving inaccurate ratings.

It seems that a lot of people think of adding someone to your trust list as being a far more weighty way of giving them a positive trust rating. But really it's a very different type of trust, which is why I separated it from trust ratings to begin with. You should add people to your trust list if you think that they have good ratings and trust people who give good ratings. It's reasonable to add people to your trust list who you wouldn't trust with much money, and it's reasonable to exclude people who you would trust with a lot of money.

I didn't investigate every user on his list, but I think that the previous version of philipma1957's list was probably fine.

Can someone schedule a trust seminar? 

But seriously, this is good information about trust everyone should know. If members of DefaultTrust aren't fully aware of how they affect they trust system, how are newbies going to know how to use and process it?

[dogie]

I didn't investigate every user on his list, but I think that the previous version of philipma1957's list was probably fine.

There were some accounts with 40 or so posts and no real trade history, which I think is what the jist of the OP was.

[MadZ]

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.

I'm sorry if this came off as an attack thread, it isn't, I actually don't think you had any malicious intentions when you added all these people to your list. As I said in the first post, you probably added these people as you did business with them, which is understandable.

The reason I made this thread instead of PMing you is because you had already removed people from your list, so I assumed you were aware of the fact you were now at depth 1 and had made a decision to keep it as is. No one doubts that you are trustworthy and deserve to be at depth 1, I just disagreed with the degree of trust you were placing in a large number of relatively unproven people, and most people agree with me here. There is added responsibility at the level of default trust you are at, and people who are fine to keep on your list normally should face more scrutiny once their ratings count at depth 2. Making this thread accomplished this, and I don't think it has hurt your reputation, since everyone understands that you had no bad intentions.

[koshgel]

Did I just witness someone being pressured by other forum members to delete half of his trust list? It's his trust and his responsibility.
"I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list" = you should kick some people from your trust or we'll have you kicked you from default.
Soon when someone gets added to default trust we'll have a crowd asking for the right to vote him out.

There was no pressure. It was an observation and philipma agreed with it. He willingly pruned the list and even commented that he wasn't sure why certain members were apart of it.

[MrTeal]

Did I just witness someone being pressured by other forum members to delete half of his trust list? It's his trust and his responsibility.
"I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list" = you should kick some people from your trust or we'll have you kicked you from default.
Soon when someone gets added to default trust we'll have a crowd asking for the right to vote him out.

There was no pressure. It was an observation and philipma agreed with it. He willingly pruned the list and even commented that he wasn't sure why certain members were apart of it.

This was far and away the most productive and least unnecessarily aggressive thread about default trust I've seen in Meta.

[Blazed]

Philip was a great addition to default trust..always helpful and honest.

[philipma1957]

Did I just witness someone being pressured by other forum members to delete half of his trust list? It's his trust and his responsibility.
"I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list" = you should kick some people from your trust or we'll have you kicked you from default.
Soon when someone gets added to default trust we'll have a crowd asking for the right to vote him out.

  Yeah that annoyed me,it was also worded really too hard.


 But It did bring my understanding to the level it should be at.  I will most likely do a few more changes in it. 

[Vod]

Did I just witness someone being pressured by other forum members to delete half of his trust list? It's his trust and his responsibility.
"I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list" = you should kick some people from your trust or we'll have you kicked you from default.
Soon when someone gets added to default trust we'll have a crowd asking for the right to vote him out.

  Yeah that annoyed me,it was also worded really too hard.


 But It did bring my understanding to the level it should be at.  I will most likely do a few more changes in it. 

It's good that you were able to adapt to the requests of the community.  Every default trust member should be like you.   

[Quickseller]

Did I just witness someone being pressured by other forum members to delete half of his trust list? It's his trust and his responsibility.
"I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list" = you should kick some people from your trust or we'll have you kicked you from default.
Soon when someone gets added to default trust we'll have a crowd asking for the right to vote him out.

  Yeah that annoyed me,it was also worded really too hard.


 But It did bring my understanding to the level it should be at.  I will most likely do a few more changes in it. 

It's good that you were able to adapt to the requests of the community.  Every default trust member should be like you.   

Agreed. Like I said before there is nothing wrong with how your trust list was before, it is just that now your just list affects the entire community, so you should ensure that it only has people that you would personally want to be on default trust list.

IMO your actions are very reputable and trustworthy +1

[Grand_Voyageur]

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

I suppose You could prune DefaultTrust from your list if You don't feel confident enough about the judgements made by the people who are in it. Also IMHO if You don't understand why bronxnua or any other forum member is on Your trust list/s probably it would better to prune them from it. However, kudos to You for trying to keep your personal trust list up-to-date since being in DefaultTrust is a privilege with a lot of responsability since you're helping provide the community with an important service.

Did I just witness someone being pressured by other forum members to delete half of his trust list? It's his trust and his responsibility.
"I don't think he should continue to be at depth 1 if he refuses to be more selective with his trust list" = you should kick some people from your trust or we'll have you kicked you from default.
Soon when someone gets added to default trust we'll have a crowd asking for the right to vote him out.

  Yeah that annoyed me,it was also worded really too hard.


 But It did bring my understanding to the level it should be at.  I will most likely do a few more changes in it. 

It's good that you were able to adapt to the requests of the community.  Every default trust member should be like you.   

+1. As I have said before kudos to him for it.

[hilariousandco]

I didn't investigate every user on his list, but I think that the previous version of philipma1957's list was probably fine.

There were some accounts with 40 or so posts and no real trade history, which I think is what the jist of the OP was.

There were worse additions than that as previously stated. I personally don't think it's fine to just put everyone who has left you feedback on your trusted list and doing so or allowing it sets a really bad precident. I think people would bring into question my choices if I added to my trustlist the user alcaz who has three posts and left me feedback for a small PayPal trade and baitty who left me feedback for being helpful along with pretty much everyone else who had ever left me feedback. The bigger the list is the larger it opens up for abuse and the harder it is to spot infractions. All we need is one nefarious character to get on there or buy up a cheap account and they can do some damage with it. Once people realise there are certain users that put them on the trust list for merely leaving feedback it can get silly very quickly. 

Did I just witness someone being pressured by other forum members to delete half of his trust list? It's his trust and his responsibility.

No. You witnessed someone bringing up an issue and the person involved appropriately acting on it. Both did the right thing here IMO.

Also IMHO if You don't understand why bronxnua or any other forum member is on Your trust list/s probably it would better to prune them from it.

He did prune that one. Now all we need is Canary to do the same. 

[Chris_Sabian]

Philip was a great addition to default trust..always helpful and honest.

I agree.  philipma1957 has gone the extra distance to help me with problems that I was having with a miner.

[philipma1957]

    Being on the default trust was was new to me.

   I was told I was placed on it and that  maybe some   problems that turn up.  I was pm'd and asked to remove names a few times and did  so.  I honestly thought that was how it was to be fixed.  If there was a bad name you get a contact pm and fix it.


   I suppose this method was quite a bit faster, although I really would have liked a pm from the op. At least telling me the thread was there. The thread was posted around 7am on the 9th I posted my first reply round 2 pm on the 9th. I got the first pm around 1pm.  I needed to compose myself a bit to reply with a decent respectful answer.


   I found the thread only because others sent me a pm without those pm's I would have not seen the thread.

    

     Without seeing the thread  I would have never replied to it.  I would have looked like I was blowing it off. It is something to think about. If you post a thread about a member in the title let the member know about the thread so that he or she can address it.  A thank you to those that let me know about the thread.

@op  I get your concerns about the default list and  I addressed them.

I hope you see my point of view about being notified of the thread by third parties 6 hours after the thread was started.

[TookDk]

I initially felt a little bad when I saw this "topic", since I know your are not here for the drama, you are here to help and do business.   
Nevertheless, you handled this matter as a true legendary member on the default trust list, professional and calm - like you always do.

[DiamondCardz]

Cheers philip. It's good to see that you resolved this quickly.

[redsn0w]

Thanks @philipma1957  , you've solved the problem quickly.