Quote from: Quickseller on June 01, 2019, 06:02:15 AM

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on May 31, 2019, 02:33:36 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on May 31, 2019, 08:02:37 AM

Ability to include someone in your trust list as "Ratings Only"

I've thought of this option, and I do think it can be helpful. It would be nice if we could add a custom depth to each of inclusions, but like o_e_l_e_o mentioned, it would add complexity to an already complex system. Maybe a custom depth setting can be implemented as an option, and not a requirement.

Well yea, you don't ever need to use any particular feature.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on May 31, 2019, 02:33:36 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on May 31, 2019, 08:02:37 AM

"Trade with Extreme Caution" warning

This is one of the philosophical debates about the current system; is it a "trader" rating or a "trust" rating? Should it be limited to those who've completed trades with one another, or is more than that?

It's my opinion that the trust system is designed to be more general and broad, and therefore more useful than merely a "trade" rating. There are many attempted scams that don't necessarily involve a trade of goods or an exchange of currency. And anyone could simply start trading in rinky-dink transactions that amount to only a few dollars and still earn a high trade rating. If it was limited to only trades, then every one who dealt with CanaryInTheMine would like a trusted individual. We know that's not necessarily the case.

My understanding of the intention behind the current implementation of the trust system is it is intended to not be limited to those who you have personally traded with. If trust ratings were limited to trades, a scammer could simply never trade with someone on DT (or never scam someone on DT, but trade with them), and no warning would ever show, which on its face would be a bad thing.

This proposal is trying to solve the problem that a single person can effectively torpedo a person's reputation without any real recourse, even if many others on DT disagree. It effectively takes three people to override a single negative rating, and this number grows exponentially as each additional negative rating is given. There is a small group of people who frequently leave negative ratings together, that effectively cannot be overridden -- when 4 people leave a negative rating, it will take 17 positive ratings for for person to show as having not negative trust, and when 5 people leave a negative rating, 33 people will need to leave a positive rating.

The above group of people tends to leave very controversial ratings with impunity and without consequence, and this results in this group of people collecting additional support from others because they fear themselves being targeted by this group, and do not want to lose their reputation for arbitrary reasons (or for the underlying reason of opposing/pushing back against this group of people).

This particular proposal removes the ability to label someone a scammer for an arbitrary reason. If there is pushback to someone being labeled a scammer, it will take many people labeling the person a scammer, and if there is enough pushback, the person will effectively not be labeled a scammer.

I don't think someone needs to have actually scammed to be labeled a scammer, and it is sometimes appropriate to label someone a scammer if they are showing "red flags", however it is my belief it should be pretty clear cut if someone is being labeled a scammer. In any case, everyone will be free to review the text (and references) of trust ratings and come to their own conclusion if it is safe to trade with someone or not.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on May 31, 2019, 02:42:34 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on May 31, 2019, 08:02:37 AM

-snip-
Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network:
This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.

As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.

-snip-

I'm not seeing your example there, isn't that the accountability we are talking about? If BAC leaves controversial ratings, it would reflect poorly on me as me lending my trust in his ratings. As a result, I should remove him from my list, or others will doubt my ability to be a judge of ratings and exclude me. That is a feature we want correct?

Not many people know how to determine who has included who on their trust list.

I am not referring to BAC, but under the old implementation of DT, you had at least one person who not only left many controversial ratings, but also refused to even defend his ratings, and chose to instead troll anyone who tried to defend themselves (which, BTW sent a clear message to others to not even try to defend themselves), and you were in no way held accountable. You were not the only one, Blazed had many people on his trust list who left many controversial ratings, and I am not aware of him being held accountable in any way. Both you and Blazed either ignored the problems, or pretended they didn't exist, and never engaged in any substantial discussion on the ratings of those in question. Going back further, CITM had a trust list that many people found very controversial for many months, if not over a year, and to my knowledge he did not encounter any problems in conducting business, and was only removed from DT1 when he left an indefensible negative rating for Dogie, who was able to concisely defend himself -- I have my doubts that the rating in question would have even mattered had it not been for dogies contributions to the forum.

So no, I don't think having someone on your trust list who leaves controversial ratings will reflect poorly enough on you to resemble anything close to you being held accountable.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on May 31, 2019, 02:42:34 PM

As for the ratings only part, if BAC has someone on his trust list that I think is too volatile to be on DT, the process starts again, the individual gets pressured, BAC would get pressured, and then I'd get pressured in that order if nothing is done about it. In that case, I could exclude that person and it'd be settled.

In this example, everyone who has BAC on their trust list would need to exclude the volatile person, which is not ideal because not everyone will notice the problem right away.

A better example of this is probably Blazed, who as mentioned above, had many people on his trust list who had no business being anywhere near DT. I consider him to be generally trustworthy, have successfully trusted him with $x,000 in the past, and would probably be willing to trust him with $xx,000 if we were engaging in a trade that I believed to be mutually beneficial for the both of us. His ratings were similarly good. His trust list was not, nearly his entire list was compromised of people who I don't want in my trust network, and as such I eventually excluded him, knowing how the trust system worked and how to use it.

While I agree with several of your conclusions here, and you bring up very good points about there being no limiting factor on frivolous negative ratings, I think your solution is lacking and is only adding more complication to an already over complicated system. The system needs to be simplified, not added to. My suggestion is to have a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. This solves the primary issue of there being no limiting factor to false or frivolous negative ratings with minimal effort, creates a simpler system, and less counter productive side effects.