Quote from: Don Pedro Dinero on Today at 03:20:02 AM

Quote from: 1miau on Today at 02:24:29 AM

In general, I'm in favor of giving DT a possibility to remove certain feedbacks, for example if at least a net amount of 5 DT1 members would oppose a certain controversial trust feedback, these feedbacks would vanish in untrusted feedback, even if it's a feedback from a DT1 member (like our case here) if enough DT1 members agree on removing it vs. don't agree to remove it.

Such a feature would be able to solve issues like mentioned by OP.

This is interesting. I guess you mean being able to vote, for example like with flags, but with trust feedbacks.

Yes, you are right, I've meant that. Mainly for voting out controversial or very outdated feedbacks in a decentralized way.

Quote from: Don Pedro Dinero on Today at 03:20:02 AM

I think the idea is worth to open a thread in Meta

LoyceV did it few years ago and the community was generally supportive about it. I've supported LoyceV's suggestion as well and I've also explained why: because as additional argument in favor of that suggestion, many currently active DT feedbacks will have a high likelihood to tend getting inaccurate over time. In such cases, we would need to choose between keeping the account on DT and have an increasing number of outdated feedbacks or we would need to remove the account entirely from DT making ass of his feedbacks untrusted.
Both options are not satisfying.
LoyceV's suggestion is a nice solution.

And disputes could be solved in a decentralized way. Yes, some people would still feel offended by that as well. So probably not really less drama but just a different drama. However, in my opinon, it's definitely worth a try because it migh be a useful feature for various issues.

OP is one of it, for example.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on Today at 07:30:23 PM

Quote from: 1miau on Today at 02:24:29 AM

Yes, I have JollyGood on my trust list because in my opinion, it's overally very beneficial for Bitcointalk to have JollyGood on DT due to many valid feedbacks left by JollyGood.

You and I will have to disagree on whether he's good for DT or not, and apparently we'll also have to disagree on whether his feedback is valid. To me, his most recent feedback appears full of speculation and projections, not facts or evidence.

No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more.
That's why I've brought up the suggestion of removing certain feedbacks from DT. That way, we could sourt out controversial feedbacks in a decentralized way and keep the good ones, where JollyGood is doing a very good job.
Maybe it's time to bump that topic, implement it and we can have a solution.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on Today at 07:30:23 PM

Quote from: 1miau on Today at 02:24:29 AM

In addition, JollyGood is actively giving our shameless and annoying shitposters a hard time. As someone who's very well aware of certain shitposters not trying to improve anything, it's very important to support community members like JollyGood for calling out shitposters and remind them to improve.

That's commendable, but none of that is dependent on him being in DT. There are plenty of folks who are engaged in hunting spammers that aren't in DT, but that hasn't stop them. The issue with JG is that he clearly WANTS to be on DT, he lusts for the power and he abuses it in situations where he knows he'll get little to no blowback. It's my opinion that anyone who wants it as bad as JG has no business being on DT.

If spammer blacklists would be applied by Signature campaign managers as a default tool, we could shift a part of that workload of hunting spammers, probably.
Until that, DT is a very helpful position to give shitposters a hard time and for that, one needs to be at least DT2.
Like actmyname tagged a shitload of such accounts.

As I've said I'm neutral on that case (pro and con) and hopefully it can be solved by everyone who's involved.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on Today at 07:30:23 PM

My main concern is that when people abuse the trust system the way I see JG doing, the whole system suffers by making it less impactful. More and more people are ignoring DT red-tags because more and more DT red-tags are frivolous in nature.

That's an issue but mainly that's an issue because people need to take DT seriosly and red tags should be applied, especially for Signature campaign enrollment. Like 1xbits scamming operators are ignoring DT...
Evereyone can vote in DT and if the community decided to have member xy on DT, that decision is final.
Once again, removing certain feedbacks is a nice solution for such controversies.

When thinking about it, I'm getting more and more convinced to start another try to push this suggestion in Meta.