Bitcoin Forum

Gentlemen.

The amount of inane and misleading posts on this forum has become overwhelming. To assist new users in separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, I propose a solution: my Default Ignore List.

Implementation should be trivial: the code will be virtually identical to the Default Trust List. A new user, "Default Ignore," will be at the root of the list.
Level 1 ignore list will consist of myself and users I consider to be constructive and relevant.
Those a part of Level 1 will be able to both add to the default ignore list (the list of posters which won't be seen by default),
and add the names of those they deem worthy to Level 2 Default (who will also have the right to add to the list of posters to be ignored).

If a user is dissatisfied with the Default Ignore List (good God, why?!), he may unsubscribe from all or parts of said list through his account's profile settings.
Thus, in the manner of the Trust List, fully personalized lists may be created, etc., etc.

Thoughts, gentlemen?

Wouldn't that equate to censorship?

Not at all.
A user is free to make his own trust list by changing his account settings, no one is forcing him to use the default. It's merely a suggestion.
Like default trust.

I think it's a horrible idea.  It would only lead to people trying to do multiple accounts if they were on this "ignore list".  The best way is to use your own ignore, and if they are really bad report it.

With OP only having 1 post, I wonder if this is a possible trolling attempt.

Yes I think the same, it is not really a good idea and for the question of the newbie account maybe he is only trying to hid his main account (but I can't understand why he doesn't post from that other account).

Not at all. Some may create new accounts to circumvent the Default Ignore, but this currently happens with Default Trust. Soon the alts will be spotted & added to the Default Ignore.
Works no different from Default Trust.

@redsn0w: My Default Ignore list will make what I'm currently doing irrelevant.
You, being on Level 2 Default Ignore (I already like the cut of your jib, a sharp fellow like yourself can be useful), you'll quickly spot my shenanigans, and add my username to the Default Ignore List.
Problem solved.

It's easy to criticize, gentlemen, but which one of you is willing to propose a better solution?

I don't like this feature. There shouldn't be a "default ignore list". The tastes of users are different and hence, their ignore list.

You can't compare default trust list with default ignore list. Those are basically two different things except both are "default".

So if someone was on the DefaultIgnore list, they'd essentially be shadowbanned right? No one would see their expanded posts (by default), and they won't necessarily know it.

Your proposal is not better than the actual system, however I am not saying the actual is 'good' but..... In any case the 'ignore' is a subjective and personal thing and a default ignore list is not really necessary (in my honest opinion).

How so? Just like Default trust, Default Ignore is not mandatory & can be simply altered through account settings panel. It's simply a suggestion, like Default Trust, something to help new users.

@dogie re. "No one would see their expanded posts (by default), and they won't necessarily know it."

Sure, just like Default Trust. Where do you see a difference?

@redsn0w re. "the 'ignore' is a subjective and personal thing and a default ignore list is not really necessary"

No more subjective than Default Trust, and far less dangerous. The system will punish the Level 1 and Level 2 users who unjustly or needlessly add names to the Default List. They won't last too long on Level 1 or Level 2.
Just Like Default Trust.

You are free to post your ignore list, as many other users have done. I'd  appreciate if we had a way to massively ignore people by just copy-pasting their usernames in a field actually. Right now I'm ignoring certain trolls when I stumble upon them and sharing the created list is a bit hard.

But I don't think that ignore lists should be public (unless one would like to share his own publicly) for the simple reason that they can be personal.

You misunderstand my proposal. The Default Ignore List will be enabled by default when a new user joins this forum. Just like Default Trust is enabled, by default, when a new user joins the forum. By default.

According to your logic, people could also just post their Trust Lists, yet that's not how the Default Trust works.
We're here to protect new users.
You don't want newbies to start with an empty trust list, do you?

The major function of a forum is to post, this would inhibit that. Trading/trusting another user is not the major function of the forum.



You can bulk edit here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;sa=ignprefs

What is the purpose of the default ignore list? Protect some users to read bullshit? It is really an useless "request". C'mon, again : the ignore function is a personal thing the Trust is another thing.

The major function of this forum was once the exchange of bitcoin information. This is no longer so.
The forum is being used to profit from posting--either on a small scale, through signature ads and account farming, or on a grander scale, through selling bitcointalk accounts, hacked accounts, warez, ponzis, scamming, etc., etc.

This (the fact that this forum is about information sharing) is the reason Default Trust was implemented. If you feel Default Trust aids in sharing ideas about Bitcoin, please explain how.

@redsn0w: What is the purpose of the Default Trust system? The Default Ignore system will, at least, make the forum readable again, by eliminating all the spam posted by account farmers & signature ad post bumpers, which currently constitute more than 90% of the content here.

This has to be a Satire on default trust, right?  Surely everyone can see the ridiculousness of the proposed default ignore list.  But I think the OPs point is to compare this to the situation with default trust.

For some reason, we expect people to manage their own ignore lists, essentially you have to opt-in to start creating an ingore list.  But with trust, it's an opt-out system, where you get the default trust settings, along with the alarmist warnings ("...EXTREME CAUTION..."), unless you learn how to opt-out.

I think the satire is clever and I wish it would lead to a more careful consideration of the opt-out nature of default trust as it stands.

But you will 'leave' the work to mods... if there will be a default ignore list what will be the work for the staff? If no one will read & report those posts? I do not think it constitute the 90% , but more than 95% of the whole content here in the forum. This is why the mods exist, to delete and ban the users (and this function is useless).

The purpose the defaultTrust system /list is to help the newbie users (I have copied this concept written by someone else).


PS: now I think it is the time to reveal what is your main account.

^does that help?

I totally understand your proposal and disagree. I replied with what I would consider reasonable. I wouldn't want a default ignore list forced on me in any way, I wouldn't want a ignore list forced on anyone that creates an account here. IMO ignore lists should be personalised and kept private unless someone want to share his.

What I find hilarious about this thread is that this is already effectively implemented with "trust exclusions", and if some one on the default trust excludes you and gets a buddy to do it with them then you no longer ever get to be on the default trust, therefore ignoring you by default regardless of your actual trust ratings. The funny part is not that, but the fact that a lot of people here shitting on this idea were also supporters of using trust exclusions. When Theymos says it, its automatically gold. When some random guy says it, its shit. Oh BCT.

Yes, thanks. It is not bad for me but for the mods.... it will decentralized more the forum. If the majority of the users use a default ignore list, then it is not more necessary delete or ban an user (simple because you do not notice him).

But you do want the Default Trust to be forced on new users, correct?

I think he created the trust system so he can include or remove any users from that 'list' without any sort of explanation. So yes, basically he is the admin of this forum and I know someone will say "you can always leave"

That would be fine, except for the fact that he pretends like it is a decentralized distributed system and that he does not moderate trust. Not to mention the very idea of him sitting at the top of a centralized position of authority and dictating to everyone what they can and can't do without even publishing rules ffs, is completely antithetical to the idea of Bitcoin itself. Why is it that he should have this extreme amount of authority and not even have to justify his actions?

I do not know what he is pretending, but you are confusing the bitcoin concept with bitcointalk forum. It is impossible to apply all the bitcoin ideologies to this forum and it is near impossible to create and maintain a decentralized trust system. If someone has "an extreme amount of authority" why should he justify his actions? That doesn't make sense at all.

If someone doesn't agree with the rules here I think he can leaves, or am I wrong? Try to argue is really hard (also if someone is saying the truth).

Than try to argue and 'fight' from your main account, or is it banned? However what makes you thing that I do not have a job and I am living from my sig ads, I am simple posting because I have something to say... like you and all the other users that have wrote in this thread (if you don't like my thought, use the ignore function or wait the default ignore list ;)).

No one from the "powerful" is paying me to say these things, simple I am here for a long time and I have learned it is really hard to change the things here (a simple coherence).

---

Have you been really banned or are you only joking? Can you post a screenshot, please or will you attack me again http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif?

I am confusing nothing. Impossible? Please. Everything is impossible... until its not.

If someone has an extreme amount of authority and doesn't bother trying to justify their actions, that is usually known as a dictatorship. You seem to believe that authority = right. Authority can be squandered and stolen. If I point a gun to your head I have authority over you, that does not mean I have a right to do so.

Leaving would be great, except I have already invested over 3 years worth of work into building my reputation on this forum. Theymos is not the only one that makes this forum happen, WE ALL DO. You and all his other toadies seem to forget that.

If the OP issue is about the advertise in signatures, this topic has the solution: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0

But the proposal is ridiculous. Ignore list is a personal thing. Default Trust isn't. I suggest to the OP to use a private mailing list.

See my post on page (1) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1062508.msg11394331#msg11394331), this is clearly a satire of default trust.  You say that an ignore list is a personal thing, but it clearly doesn't have to be.  Trust is, in theory, a personal thing, but we have an opt-out default trust system which is used as a weapon against some accounts/users.  In practice, you are correct that for the moment, trust is a shared thing and ignore lists aren't, but in principle there's nothing that says that things have to be that way.

Default Trust is a good idea - when a users scams one person, everyone is pretty much in agreement they are a scammer.

Default Ignore is not a good idea - when a user posts things someone does not like, other people may still like it.

Exactly, this is why I have said the ignore is a subjective thing and it should never be created a rhings named "Default Ignore list".

The 'problem' of the default trust is another one, it is not moderated (or at least I have read someone said this thing).

This is true if there's some objective proof that a user has scammed one person.  However, as you know, not everyone considers your marking of sellers of microsoft projects to be perpetuating any scams.   In my own case, I've been marked as a "scammer" simply because someone on default trust took a personal hate of me for constantly calling them out for their hot temper.  Point being, if people marked as "scammers" by default trust were objectively scammers by some universally agreed upon criteria, then your point would hold.  But the state of affairs is that people on default trust can do whatever they feel like they should be doing, and there's a lot of disagreement from person-to-person about who is doing right and who is doing wrong.  It's not at all agreed upon that someone marked by someone on default trust has done anything at all.I still believe default ignore was intended as a satire of default trust, not an idea to be considered on its merits, but an idea to be compared to default trust, as a way to reconsider the merits (and flaws) of the default trust system from a fresh perspective.

 :)  I hope so.