Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 12:05:31 PM

Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2020, 11:57:35 AM

I don't understand this. The introduction of the flag system and change of the trust system as a direct effect had a weakening on the criteria for negative ratings. How can something that was valid before not be valid now in this context Huh

I don't believe the rating against TECSHARE would have been valid in the old system. The criteria used to be something like "this person has scammed or you think will scam" which is not something that a reasonable person could say about TECSHARE or Kalemder based on those two ratings and references from today/yesterday. Worthy of exclusion perhaps, maybe even a neutral rating if you feel very strongly about it. Not worthy of a DT red trust IMO.

John K - negative for slander:

Quote

macheng 2013-10-01 Reference Slander on the regard of chip refunds - due to the fragmented nature of refunds ample time is required to verify the refund list. The refund was done within 1 week of me getting the list and the BTC from Avalon, and note that I had to go through about 4 group buy's worth of users in that period.

theymos - negative for censorship:

Quote

QuintoBTC 2014-07-21 Censors reasonable criticism in his self-moderated topics.

theymos - negative for "giving everyone bad feedback":

Quote

btcman 2013-06-23 Gives everyone bad feedback.

BadBear - negative for plagiarism and referral links:

Quote

BitshireHashaway 2014-01-20 Reference Spams the forum with plagiarized guides, then adds donation requests/referral links

Albeit early ratings, but they haven't been much active as the 2nd half of the system was approaching (at least when it comes to giving out ratings, and BadBear has left completely). These were Gen1, and there are many more examples (probably TC, QS, and more) that can be cherry-picked if you look at sent ratings. Nothing to do with having to trade with somebody, as it has never been a requirement. Gen2 (Blazed, Lutpin, Mexxer, and more):

mexxer-2 - Negative for being shady:

Quote

codishmumu 2015-09-29 Reference I believe this person is reall shady, check reference thread

mexxer-2 - Negative for promoting an "obvious scam".

Quote

DIGITAL GOODS 2015-10-27 Reference Promoting a obvious scam , which he calls "renting hash power in scrypt" , scrypt? Really?

mexxer-2 - Negative for running a complicated ponzi (Yobit's x10 is just a complicated ponzi, no more no less):

Quote

Bitspread.in 2016-01-17 Reference Running a complicated ponzi

mexxer-2 - Negative for promoting a ponzi:

Quote

stefin 2016-01-25 Reference Promoting a ponzi scam
bitsmit 2016-01-25 Reference

Lutpin - Negative for dishonest behavior (see trolling):

Quote

Fwdxlsh 2015-11-24 Reference trolling, unfriendly, offensive.
Maybe you think this is funny, but after all, its just annoying.

Lutpin - Negative for a lie (albeit casino itself may have been shady - though out of scope of rating):

Quote

PassiveDice 2015-11-29 "Because it is a standalone bot It has no house edge like the dice sites automated bots."
Barehand lie, cant believe they got any bots at all.

Lutpin - Negative for knowingly promoting a ponzi scheme in their signature:

Quote

Rago 2015-12-21 Reference Knowingly promotes a ponzi scheme as part of a signature campaign.

Lutpin - Negative for promoting something that is knowingly mallicious(!):

Quote

Velkro 2016-05-20 Reference Promoting bitcoinvanitygen.com, a site that is insecurly creating vanity addresses (no split-creation) and suspected to steal coins stored in vanity addresses created by them.

There were many many of these ratings in Gen2 (especially pertaining to advertising a ponzi) as well as in Gen3 (which includes The Pharmacist, myself and others). For context, I consider Gen4 the reign of flags/new trust system rotation).
You could say things like "then we should exclude them", but that would completely avoid and shut down any discussion. These people were always included by a majority of the vital members, meaning that at least most of their ratings had to have been appropriate in the former, stricter system. If they were appropriate then, then they can't be inappropriate now (requirements wise).

Please note that I'm not arguing pro-tagging for any individual reason listed in the examples. They are just that, examples, which serve as evidence for the claim that the introduction of the flag system/change in the trust-system had to have had a weakening effect on the requirements and not the other way around. I have spent time looking for some examples rather than telling you "Hey look at all the years until now" in hope that you see how things really always were.

Hope this helps.

Appendix, quote from theymos:

Quote from: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:13:36 AM

I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).

To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:

Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
General deceptive behavior.
Many, many more..

According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.

I will try to add links to everything, it's really difficult with all the research required.