Changes to trusts

Unfortunately I fear trolls will be created just to fire negatives at accounts or just to prop up other trolls.

If only VIP members can generate these trusts it may work.

Off the top of my head I didn't see a need - what's the point of stating you don't like someone?

But now that I think about it, I can see the use - e.g. a TUSCL newb could more easily determine who's comments/opinions can be trusted and who is a troll or speaking/posting out of their ass - kinda a way to "separate the wheat from the chaff" sorta speak and more easily identify the trolls. for those not in the know - sorta a way of "reviewing the members/TUSCLers"

^ You are assuming that no one would be malicious enough to post a nasty trust, but you'd just be assuming.

Stop, stop the nasty thrusting.

But(t) seriously,

Minus 5 to plus 5 would be too many graduations, 11 in all.

Are Papi's contributions (say a 4), worth twice Rick's (say a 2). (no offense, anyone)

Won't dancers try to up their score with more and more boob pictures? Hmm, maybe that would be ok.

Maybe minus 2 to plus 2.

Minus 2 - complete jerk, a-hole, wish they'd go away.
Minus 1 - disagree with much of what they say.
Zero - eh, ok, misspells somme.
Plus 1 - I like, almost as smart as me.
Plus 2 - Mirror, mirror, on the wall. Or he shared his ATF with me, yeah!

I think it would get dumb, current thing is fine

"on paper... in a vacuum" it's a thoughtful idea... but I would expect it to be abuse more than it would help

So in other words, the proposal is to take the most easily manipulated and, hence, useless user stat on this site and actually try to make it mean something? And, in the process, further encourage people with baskets of troll accounts to pile in and create even more troll accounts for the purpose of yet further manipulation?

How could that go wrongt? 😄

You already have perfectly good contribution metrics, which are the number of approved reviews a user has and the number of clubs he/she has reviewed. In fact, since you added a community approval process, these stats have become even more meaningful. While this is also subject to a certain amount of playing, as has been evidenced by the marked increase of drive by reviews that have been published by relatively new accounts, it is much harder to accomplish than simply creating several troll accounts.

If you can protect it from abuse, then it could be an interesting metric.

Site features I think would be good:

-- Ability to upvote or downvote posts or even entire threads. See Reddit.

-- "Experience" rating that is separate from "Trusts". Experience would be solely based on the number of approved reviews, number of different clubs reviewed, and number of different regions (if possible).

Trusts would be a solely user-based metric. Experience would be solely review based. Perhaps the two can be averaged together for an overall "Reliability" rating.

My 2 cents.

No and not necessary, encourages cliquish behaviors.

I guess I'm ambivalent, at best, about this... it seems a little bit like reinventing the wheel... but...
I guess I wouldn't know til I tried it. 🌞

Sounds awful. I either value the user's contributions to give them a trust, or not. Not interested in giving school grades (A through F) of how much I trust or don't trust the user.

Bad idea. You either trust someone, or you don't. Grading degrees of trust is like trying to grade degrees of pregnancy. Plus degrees of trust is multiples of another way to abuse the system.

So, would you cancel all current trusts and start blank slate? or Would you give all current trusts a zero (neutral) value and have members create the +/- values if they choose? Seems like an unnecessary complication.
Why not just come up with an up or down vote on a reputation score. That way if a character like SCpandit shows up talking about spreading HIV it will quickly be reflected in the rep score.

Really don't think it's necessary and would probably be prone to abuse.

Sounds like you are trying to fix something that's not broken

Agree with minnow and lone wolf. I don't think this is necessary. If I trust someone. I don't feel the need to grade the level of trust. If I haven't trusted someone, in general they haven't done enough to earn it.

No need IMHO. For me, I either trust a person or I am Leary of a person. There really is no in between for me.

Fine the way it is.

The trust system is already silly and pointless. Adding gradiatons and demerit trusts would be even sillier.

^ coming from a silly lightweight who already tried to abuse the system what a fuckwit.

Perhaps the trust feature only turns on when you get verified. And only verified members can give or receive trusts.

I don't like the word "trust" but I guess that wasn't the question.

I like the idea of rating, but I'd rate other objects besides users. Rate Threads, Posts, Reviews, etc -5 to +5 (or 10). Then me hide those things based on their scores. If you could use the metrics Rick mentioned (Accepted Reviews, # of Clubs, and maybe age of account too) to weigh those scores, all the better, but maybe not required. The weighting could be fairly simple, anyone with > 10 clubs reviewed scores are worth 2x or something.

If you do change trusts again, I think it's time to clean them up. Last I looked there were still folks out there were seriously inflated numbers from before you made the first change, when "Props" could be given repeatedly. Maybe just start over and call it a reputation score or something.

Or you could go full on points based type thing, where users earn tokens through posting reviews or whatever you feel is something that provides value and use them to give other users points.

I would say only verified members can give trusts.... that cuts out the trolls abusing. Anyone should be able to receive trusts so that the trolls can be properly identified. There are also some assholes who like to talk shit but would never get verified, let them be identified also

@25: Is there a reason why you're trolling gammanu across multiple threads? I wholeheartedly agree with his comment on this one and don't think that he posted anything controversial.

Even more than silly and pointless though, I could see it quickly becoming a shit show. Even if it was limited to Verified, the verification standards aren't exactly a high hurdle to clear and we've already had some trolls do it. On a site where multiple aliases are not only allowed, but actually celebrated, there's no way that this doesn't get manipulated.

Don't get me wrong, it could be quite useful as a commercial tool. But if the site becomes a club placement tool available to the ones willing to pay, then founder might as well just add a Manager Login section and be done with it already.

^ He posted to my trust list that I was a pedophile I had to have founder remove that nastiness from my trust list, plus he has PMed me several times to tell me how he’s going to be trolling me so yes @ Rick there’s a reason for my retaliation

^ Ah, got it.

Well, this is an argument to have trusts actually provide a benefit of some sort to the recipient.

A lot of people use the trust feature solely to pin a shitty opinion to someone else's profile. That would be reduced if it's actually beneficial to the recipient.

And though I like being able to comment when I provide a trust, perhaps that should go away (again).

^ Or better still, they get rid of the pointless trusts altogether and move back to objective metrics. After all, if trolls behave badly using the comment feature, how much worse will they behave once they have the ability to shit bomb a reviewer's trust "rating?"

Sure, as it stands right now, the feature provides not a lot. But on most social sites, there is a value to being able to 'prop' another member, and it is a metric that users pay attention to when interacting with other members and their content.

I would prefer to see it fixed (or improved) rather than deleted. But if it isn't going to be improved, then it should be deleted.

I agree that there should also be an "Experience" metric based solely on accepted reviews.

^ Propping individual comments isn't the same as rating reviewers. We already have the equivalent of this with review comment sections and the ability to respond to comments in discussion threads.

Also, this is not your normal social site - this place is troll central. What you're suggesting will turn into a Grade A shit show, with ratings being controlled by those with the most time and ability to create new accounts.

it’s really not complicated but as long as there are people here that don’t believe any sort of rules apply to themselves, there will be a problem I agree with the idea of low to no moderation but there needs to be enforced norms, that’s why I said on the other thread you can say what you like anytime or place but don’t be surprised by a punch in the mouth, or worse.

And of course we know where it will go from there. Once a collection of highly rated users is created by the uber troll(s), founder will be back to ask us if we think that their trust ratings should as a weighting tool for club ratings. 😉

Right. Hate to be the broken record, but this, multiple forums, user moderated areas, etc. is an awful lot of complexity for something that every other forum solves easily. Yes I know, wasting my breath, but still.

Subraman... Well, not entirely. Or at least not on me.

It does seem like the acrobatics to avoid any moderation is creating more complexity and effort (and indirect moderation), as compared to what could be achieved with light moderation.

One. I sent one PM to 25IQ, and the demented old loser screams "multiple PMs." If you are so interested in serving no useful purpose to society, would you at least be kind enough to hurry up and die?

^ how about sending a vile trust that I had founder remove, you are such a hypocritical fuck wit it’s not even worth discussing. BTW I’ve saved all of your PMs and took a screenshot of the trust you posted you’d best shut the fuck up before I creat a thread liar.

Fuck it, get rid of trusts all together then. Go back to # of reviews/clubs & joined year being listed under a user name instead of the silly tag-lines. Let users determine trust for themselves.

I’m fine with that @Dolfan

I agree with Dolfan. Just the facts. Stick with contributions and duration without any editorials. Too many personal vendettas for a negative trust system to work anyway.

We don’t need it. The power to give and revoke trusts is enough

We already argue about review ratings, this would be a shit show with multiple threads devoted to whether anyone is actually 5/5 trustworthy.

Appreciate the effort to innovate but no to this.

I could care less what your do with them. I don't pay any attention to them.

I don't think it needs to be changed? Seems unnecessary

The only upside I see is in being able to identify trolls/aholes via a negative Trust score (for newbs and those not in the know as a heads-up to not put much stock on certain-member's posts/behavior)

^^Agreed

I do not recall any more than one PM. I do remember giving you a fake trust, and got a good chuckle out of it, too. It was well-written and utterly hilarious. So please, post that thread. Do it, you demented old codger.

And I think a return of previous metrics (reviews, posts, comments) would be useful.

If a newbie sees JohnDoe has a 1000 comments and JohnDoe's comments today are trolling/stupid, he can form an opinion quickly that JD is probably a waste of time.

Same situation for GoodGuy, who also has numerous reviews, and his post today is relevant/useful, newbie knows quickly that GG is worth reading, probably trustworthy.

===> "The only upside I see is in being able to identify trolls/aholes via a negative Trust score (for newbs and those not in the know as a heads-up to not put much stock on certain-member's posts/behavior)"

Sadly, I think it's far more likely that the trolls would win out in that type of negative rating game.

I think its unnecessary to add levels to trusts. If you think highly of another member, and find their posts useful, then give them a trust.

I remember there were lists a long time ago too. Those were fun to check out from time to time.

I agree with Papi, Trusts should be positive only. And I agree with Pink Sugar Doll, that it is fine the way it is.

SJG

Negative trusts are a bad idea; trolls will try to farm them to have the highest negative trust count across all of TUSCL. If you still choose to implement negative trusts, you'll want to cap the cumulative total like at 0 or something.

Founder, it seems like in your efforts to improve the website that you like to tinker and adjust various settings, add features, etc but personally I prefered the previous simpler incarnations of TUSCL circa 2014-2015.

The simple interface will be back soon

I'm not sure I know what that means. The UI has changed a few times since I've been here.

But I'm all for simpler solutions.

I enjoyed the lists, too.

If the simpler UI coming back includes listing # of review, I hope it gets fixed. Mine show fewer than actual.

I agree that graduated trusts are probably a troll's wet dream. The current single up-vote seems to be sufficient.

In the past, changes made to TUSCL were often originally not well received but w/ time seems most of us got used to them especially after the kinks were worked-out - the changes Founder has recently proposed I don't think it's something I'd make use of but I don't think would affect my TUSCLing much either - as for me, Founder can implement those changes and see how much use they get - IMO it's good for the site not to get stale, some changes are a hit, and some are - sometimes it's hard to know if they'll work or not until they are implemented.

You guys are getting a new site for Christmas 🎅

^ that sounds like a threat
😄

Maybe just add a spot for how many people have them on ignore.... That way you could see 25 people trust this guy but 50 ignore everything he says, you can then decide for yourself