Quote from: PowerGlove on Today at 06:28:20 AM

uthor=LoyceV link=topic=5515159.msg64705501#msg64705501 date=1730799172]
In that scenario, I'd have to create a much larger Trust list to see the feedback from users who are now shown already.

That's true... I can't imagine too many users curating ~100 inclusions. I don't have a good answer for that one.[/quote]
I'd say keep the Trust Depth:

Quote from: LoyceV on March 25, 2019, 03:08:36 PM

Custom Trust lists have large recursive implications because the users you trust directly (Depth 0) make you trust the ones they trust (Depth 1), and the users they trust (Depth 2)

That easily adds hundreds of people. It's not perfect, and I won't agree with everything, but doable.

Quote

For example, what if instead of "DefaultTrust" (and everything that goes along with it: voting, the lottery, a non-flat user hierarchy, necessarily out-in-the-open trust lists) there were something like "StarterTrust". StarterTrust could be comprised of something like the ~30 users with the most merit that have also posted within the last 30 days. Now, before anyone says "That's bullshit! The people with the most merit are just good at getting merit! They don't necessarily leave good feedback or have good trust lists.", firstly, I'd argue that high-earned-merit-balance is a pretty-accurate heuristic to use for identifying reasonable, intelligent, and well-meaning people, and secondly, StarterTrust would just be about giving new users something to go on.

The first thing that comes to mind is how inflexible StarterTrust would be: it will be very difficult for any new user to reach it.

Quote

The idea would be that nobody is supposed to keep StarterTrust on their list forever, and that a few smart, well-timed, and well-placed account reminders to curate your own trust list would encourage users to move on from StarterTrust.

We could do the same with the current DefaultTrust. But even though I like to think I know how the Trust system works, I still prefer to keep DefaultTrust in my Trust list as an addition to my custom list.

Quote

But, thinking about what you said, and comparing it with my own experience(s), I think you're probably right: most people don't want freedom (or, at least, they don't want it when it comes at the expense of safety, and, even more depressing, they sometimes don't even want it when the only thing that it would cost them is convenience).

Even better: people don't want freedom if that means someone else gets freedom too. This is especially visible when it comes to "being offended" nowadays.

Quote

I think what I'd do for composite (0+1+2) mode is give each side's posts a different background color, or something, to help make sense of the two different "channels" of thought. I don't think it'll be as confusing as you might imagine (I mean, it's already the case that multiple, independent post-streams can and often do exist within a single thread). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, in practice, it turns out to be easier in some cases to make sense of the discussion.

April 1st can be Live Testing Day. If it works, keep it. If it doesn't work: April Fools!

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 07:03:56 AM

It would be much better if the forum administration took the action of banning the scammer after they are tagged.

That will fill theymos' days:

Quote from: mprep on July 21, 2014, 05:27:51 PM

Q: Why haven't you banned <insert scammer username here> who is an obvious scammer?
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

Quote

That's why I think mods should have the liberty to ban scammers at will.

There are always less clear cases. Who's going to decide who's right?

Quote

~ DT could tag scammers as a report (real scammers, not jumping-the-gun preemptive action against probable scammers)

DT could do that right now. But many tag for a lot more than that, which has reduced the value of negative feedback.

Quote

Positive trust is useful. As is neutral trust. But the negative trust is not doing its job.

Positive feedback is also often given for the wrong reasons. The system is far from perfect.