Trust improvements

[kuusj98]

Ok, and now I want to know:
I appear absolutely nowhere on the default-trust page (not even at level 4 depth) but to every member I leave a trust rating (be it positive or negative) the trust is still counted as "default trust" on my account at least.
Is that because I am green? I really don't freaking get it. I made an account (not going to do anything with it: sjefsjaak) to see it from other users perspective and there I see that I have a 4: -0 / +3(3) rating instead of the 3: -0 / +2 (2) I see on myself on my own account. On that new account, all trust I gave is untrusted on those users profiles.

Why can't I see my trust exactly the same as everyone else, this gives me false impressions...

There isn't a universal trust score for people, you are exactly right. On your personal trust list, you trust feedback from Default Trust, and yourself (Assuming you haven't made any modifications to your trust list) however, one can modify their trust list however they like to modify how they see trust. If you remove default trust from your trust settings, you won't see feedback left by default trust members as "Trusted". If you add XScammurzUrMoniesX to your trust list, you will see feedback they leave as "Trusted" feedback, but no one else will.

So you are saying trust given to someone by you will be "trusted' by default? So removing yourself from the "default trust" should solve the problem? Gotta try that then..

Edit: excluding myself from the list doesn't seem to work. I add "~kuusj98" in that text-box, click on the button, page refreshes and nothing changed.
Guess that's something I have to learn live with then, would sure be nice though.

[1714824563]

1714824563

[1714824563]

1714824563

[1714824563]

1714824563

[1714824563]

1714824563

[1714824563]

1714824563

[uki]

If someone used tor then their location would appear to change every 10 minutes. I imagine many people use VPNs to connect to the forum as well and not only would it be trivial to make it look like an account was not purchased you would get more false positives.

I would really appreciate some constructive criticism, meaning not only saying 'this doesn't work, it's not a good idea', but rather 'this doesn't work, but this and that may be done instead'. That would bring the discussion further, because I believe we agree, that in the current shape due to account trading, the trust rank is not of any help.

[Quickseller]

If someone used tor then their location would appear to change every 10 minutes. I imagine many people use VPNs to connect to the forum as well and not only would it be trivial to make it look like an account was not purchased you would get more false positives.

I would really appreciate some constructive criticism, meaning not only saying 'this doesn't work, it's not a good idea', but rather 'this doesn't work, but this and that may be done instead'. That would bring the discussion further, because I believe we agree, that in the current shape due to account trading, the trust rank is not of any help.

I do not agree with that statement as I have indicated above.

The fact that there is value to positive trust means that anyone who buys an account with positive trust is going to pay a premium over an account with neutral trust. This means that anyone who buys a positive trust account with the intention of trying to scam is going to have to risk their initial investment to try to scam. It is not a guarantee that someone is going to be able to be successful in pulling off a scam, especially if their potential trading partners are able to use appropriate precautions (and I am not referring to using escrow)

[uki]

If someone used tor then their location would appear to change every 10 minutes. I imagine many people use VPNs to connect to the forum as well and not only would it be trivial to make it look like an account was not purchased you would get more false positives.

I would really appreciate some constructive criticism, meaning not only saying 'this doesn't work, it's not a good idea', but rather 'this doesn't work, but this and that may be done instead'. That would bring the discussion further, because I believe we agree, that in the current shape due to account trading, the trust rank is not of any help.

I do not agree with that statement as I have indicated above.

The fact that there is value to positive trust means that anyone who buys an account with positive trust is going to pay a premium over an account with neutral trust. This means that anyone who buys a positive trust account with the intention of trying to scam is going to have to risk their initial investment to try to scam. It is not a guarantee that someone is going to be able to be successful in pulling off a scam, especially if their potential trading partners are able to use appropriate precautions (and I am not referring to using escrow)

Well, following your way of thinking we end up with the null significance of the trust ranking, as one who wants to make any business with a 'trusted member' has to use 'appropriate precautions' despite the trust ranking, not knowing whether the 'trusted member' is who he/she actually was in his/her trust history, or someone who just bought this account. Which is also my point, btw. That leaves me with the following final questions:
- what is the trust ranking supposed to mean, other than some random, completely non-significant number?
- what can be the reason for selling a 'trustworthy' account of high level and whether that is ethically fine with the rules of this forum (and whether it is fine to not include such event in that 'trust ranking')?

[Muhammed Zakir]

If you add XScammurzUrMoniesX to your trust list, you will see feedback they leave as "Trusted" feedback, but no one else will.

Only if the trust level depth is 0.

So you are saying trust given to someone by you will be "trusted' by default?

I don't think there any healthy person who don't trust himself!

So removing yourself from the "default trust" should solve the problem? Gotta try that then..

No, it won't.

Edit: excluding myself from the list doesn't seem to work. I add "~kuusj98" in that text-box, click on the button, page refreshes and nothing changed.
Guess that's something I have to learn live with then, would sure be nice though.

AFAIK there is no option to exclude you from your own trust list.

   -MZ

[kingscrown]

trust list update with current active users would fix everything imo

[Muhammed Zakir]

trust list update with current active users would fix everything imo

In DefaultTrust trust list, only Sirius is inactive. All others are active. If you meant something else, please clarify.

[redsn0w]

trust list update with current active users would fix everything imo

In DefaultTrust trust list, only Sirius is inactive. All others are active. If you meant something else, please clarify.

The default trust list is the list with all the username that you are seeing (lev. 2). I think that kingscrown wanted to say "only the users in the level 1 of depth".

[Grand_Voyageur]

There could be but I doubt it will happen because as Quick said the trust system isn't moderated and it is also very hard to enforce or police. Trusted feedback is from those who have been put on the default trust list by someone already on there and therefor their feedback is considered 'trusted' and holds more weight.

@black: Is it that the mods cannot delete any feedback from the user's account? I have seen mods of other forums able to do that and hence I asked.

@green: OK just got the logic now and I added the users who send me feedback in my trusted list. I guess they have sent me neutral trust and hence the trust is shown as 0.

You did it the wrong way. Trust lists are not a way to say thank you for your green feedback to me; they're to include members whose judgments on others you trust since you value their opinion about other users.