Quote from: LoyceV on January 10, 2019, 09:01:57 AM

Quote

The above is still possible under the new system, however I suspect in many cases the response will be he meets the criteria and there is no manipulation to meet the criteria, so he will stay. Once someone "meets the criteria" it will be difficult to get this to not be the case, as those on DT1 tend to receive additional trust inclusions over time, and over time, people will become inactive, and as such will not respond to (or see) requests to remove controversial people from their trust lists.

Inactive users won't stay on DT1:

Quote from: theymos on January 09, 2019, 06:03:26 PM

- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.

If Bob has a lot of merit and also has Alice in his trust list, assuming many others have Alice in their trust lists, Alice would be on DT1. Later Bob may become inactive for whatever reason, but even when Bob is inactive, Alice will remain on DT1, even if everyone who has Alice on their trust list is inactive.

Quote from: LoyceV on January 10, 2019, 09:01:57 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 10, 2019, 08:29:11 AM

the new DT1 contains much overlap and many "communities" are unrepresented
Roughly a third of new DT1 members are in the same "clique" / "trading circle" and another 15% closely associate with this group.

That's now. I can imagine other communities will make their own DT1 "clique": for example a group of Russians, a group of Indonesians and a group of bounty hunters. As long as they stay out of each other's hair, they can co-exist. The moment they touch, it feels like a black hole collision competing for exclusions.
The old DT-system felt like it meant something, the new system changes every few hours.

The new system is scheduled to update once per month, but the number of people on DT1 will likely increase, as IMO it is easier for someone to get added to a person's trust list than it is to get removed (practically speaking), and more people will get merit that makes them eligible to "vote" on who is on DT1.

Quote from: nutildah on January 10, 2019, 10:32:58 AM

Furthermore QT I don't see why you care what the DT is like because your reputation has been blown to shit regardless how you rejigger your trust settings. Frankly I don't understand why you continue to post under that account.

I am an advocate for a fair system, and I care about the integrity of the marketplace (and of the community). My trust rating is shit, but that does not stop me from being entrusted with large amounts of money when I do engage in trades (which has become less frequent, but this is due to my own choosing).

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 10, 2019, 11:03:45 AM

As I said in the other thread, it seems a bit strange that you could have 100 or more people exclding someone, but if 10 people include them then they become DT1 (unless the other DT1s remove them).

Right. There should be some mechanism for someone to not be on DT1, both having their ratings not count, and not having their trust list count, beyond manual intervention by theymos. This should be beyond affirmatively needing people to remove an account from DT1 to get them removed, as over time people with a lot of merit will become inactive, get locked out of their accounts, etc., and will not update their trust lists.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 10, 2019, 11:03:45 AM

Ranking up does not increase your ability to learn or contribute to the forum, apart from decreasing some wait times, which are only a problem in the first place if you are a spammer. The only real benefit of ranking up is that you can then earn more money from bounty campaigns. If ranking up is your only motivation to continue to learn about bitcoin, then you are here for the wrong reasons.

If you want to do business on the forum, ranking up is very beneficial because of limits (both in delays, and total allowed per day) to the number of PMs of lower ranking accounts, making negotiating and working through details difficult if done via the forum.

One could also argue the posting limits for very low level accounts is excessive.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on January 10, 2019, 03:47:17 PM

Most of that 'clique' are people who tag scammers and so forth,

Most of the clique I am speaking of is a group of people who trade amongst themselves in the collectables section (and those closely associated with these people). They generally have high trust ratings, but much of this is from trading within the group, and in general a person is much less likely to scam their friend than they are to scam a stranger. A few of these people have a somewhat shady history (I am not referring to those who have explicitly scammed) by doing things such as backing out of auctions, and making some questionable escrow decisions (I am not referring to situations that I view as clearly wrong), all of which would likely earn most people a decent amount of negative trust.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on January 10, 2019, 04:34:53 PM

I'd be much more interested to hear thoughts about how its working from the viewpoint of genuine non sockpuppet newish users. To be fair, the majority of the people who have been voicing their opinions for or about the new DT system changes don't actually need DT in the first place. Almost everyone that has posted in this thread so far have been here for quite a while, and have already established their own good trading, risk mitigation practices.

For me, DT serves as somewhat of a reference point. I would generally give ratings from DT a little more weight, especially successful trades, and successful trades with those who have decent trust ratings from the perspective of DT (this is one negative of not displaying the trust ratings of those who gave trust on a person's trust page). When deciding to give a no collateral loan, I will also consider (among other things), the value of their reputation when viewed from DT.

The new system makes it more difficult to gauge the value of one's reputation that someone has to lose if they were to (try to) pull off a scam in a trade.