Quote from: SaltySpitoon on April 22, 2015, 07:36:41 PM

Well first thing, the mods dont have any more say in the trust system than anyone else, though we probably have a more open line of communication with Theymos should we figure out the solutions to the trust system issues.

I agree with a decent portion of this, thanks for actually addressing specific points and making suggestions rather than just complaining. Im just going to mention my thoughts on each point.

Quote from: tspacepilot on April 19, 2015, 04:46:20 PM

So, to summarize:

1) people on default-trust <=2 aren't able to use their trust in a normal way
  a) everyone who doesn't dig into the "meta" of this forum reads their ratings as ground truth
  b) they have to defend the righteousnes of what should be simply their opinion
2) people who have a negative experience with someone on a default trust list have no real recourse
  a) mutual negative trust is asymmetric (one person ends up with a GIANT RED WARNING, the other with a gripe buried somewhere in the "untrusted feedback section)
  b) other option is to simply plead and beg, which sometimes works sometimes doesn't
3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))

Several fixes seem to jump out, none would be difficult to implement, some of these suggestions are not mutually exclusive:

1) Remove the "default trust" list altogether. Or set it up as an "opt in" rather than an "opt out". This would restore the trust system to what it probably is intended to do, allow people to build their own trust networks based on experience.
2) Trim default trust significantly:
  a) set to depth<=1 or
  b) set level 1 default trust to only 1 or two people
3) Replace large red "Warning trade with extreme caution!" warning with softer, yellow "This person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list." Even just this latter fix would help calm the hype, imo.

1) people on default-trust <=2 aren't able to use their trust in a normal way
Why can't they use Neutral trust? If someone seems shady but you don't want to instantly mark them with a negative, leave them neutral feedback saying why.

a) everyone who doesn't dig into the "meta" of this forum reads their ratings as ground truth
Agreed, but this is a psychology question, how do you get people to read relevant information? How many people have actually gone in depth and read everything in their trust settings? Where would people go to find information about the trust system? There are stickies on other topics all around the forums, and people still post new threads even if there are 3 related to their questions on the front pages.

b) they have to defend the righteousnes of what should be simply their opinion
Agreed again, my solution would be to remove the red/yellow/green and all numbers involved in trust settings and just have a list of feedback. However that too has issues that I dont know how to solve.

2) people who have a negative experience with someone on a default trust list have no real recourse
Posting about it in meta has yielded many results in the past, so I dont necessarily agree with this point. Everyone is going to disagree with their negative feedback whether they are a scammer or not, posting in meta gets public attention allowing people to read into it themselves and give their opinions. If person B is on Person A's trustlist, and it is proven that Person B does not belong in a position of trust, Person A can remove them, or risk losing their trustworthiness.

a) mutual negative trust is asymmetric (one person ends up with a GIANT RED WARNING, the other with a gripe buried somewhere in the "untrusted feedback section)
I partially agree, you can still go to Meta and post about it if it isn't fair. If it is fair though, and the retaliatory feedback is unwarranted, then its for the best its in the untrusted section.

3) some people on default trust even make a hobby of marking red on people who haven't ever traded with them but with whom they simply disagree (see, for example, Vod vs MSCorp Key Sellers; or Quickseller vs. people who refuse to do business with him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0, inter alia))
This goes back to your first point. I actually see Vod's point of view with the MSkey sellers but I agree that perhaps negative feedback isn't necessary, but perhaps neutral isn't strong enough either. People who abuse the trust system are removed, but what about those people who partially abused it, as they had no better options. I think additional options are necessary, but at the same time, adding 50 different types of feedback would make the system even more confusing and water down their meanings.

As for your suggestions, your third is the only one I agree with. I think the red letters saying TRADE WITH CAUTION have become a safety net that people rely on too heavily. People should be reading who gave feedback, why, and the proof to decide if the claim is valid. As far as default trust, default tends to mean its the automatic opt in, and people opt out from there. Think Internet Explorer, when you have a fresh copy of windows, IE is the default browser, maybe it works fine for someone, but most change their browsers to their prefered setup, why can't it work the same way with Default trust? Sure it will get you on the internet, but there are better options, so change when you have figured out which you like better. Default trust works just fine for newbies, but its not suitable for everyone. Without default trust, newbies wouldn't opt in, nor create their own trust lists, so we would be back to where we were years ago. Trimming the list is the opposite of what should happen, the theory is that by branching out to depth 5,6,20 etc eventually non staff/admins/old trusted members will be the ones moderating default trust, and issues will be solved between individuals as sort of a pseudo decentralized system. While there are still central entities, they become less and less involved.

I really like this last idea... So I extended my "default trust list" out to level 4 to see what it does..... I get a really clear picture now..... scammers stick out like a sore thumb and the well trusted do also..... I suggest everyone do it.......

Thanks SaltySpitoon