Bitcoin Forum

Is it really necessary to put an immediate decision upon putting some negative trust on one's account?

Remember its hard to rank here

I think neutral trust will be the best way

Shit posting can be change

Bidding on account sales can be corrected

And although i understand what they want to impose their but I think neutral trust will be the best way to put before putting some neg trust among those user who got red trust.

Theymos should address this, since this furom has been by jackals for their self-interest.

Theymos should address this, since this furom has been by jackals for their self-interest.

Shit posting can be change so this offense deserves some warning.

Yes, if the bidders fear negative trust from DT members.  Change isn't always comfortable.

Yes.
And idiots are ranking up as fast as possible by making bitcointalk a joke of a forum.  Pick any new topic and 75% of it are padded shitposts made for financial gain.
Um, no.  Neutral trust does nothing, and these people are too manipulative and way outnumber the good guys.  The only way to stamp them out is to 1) Ban them, 2) Nix sig campaigns altogether, or 3) Prevent them from joining campaigns. 
Negative trust might help a little with the #3 solution.
Not with people who can't speak English, sorry to say.
Yes, if the bidders fear negative trust from DT members.  Change isn't always comfortable.

Yes.
And idiots are ranking up as fast as possible by making bitcointalk a joke of a forum.  Pick any new topic and 75% of it are padded shitposts made for financial gain.
Um, no.  Neutral trust does nothing, and these people are too manipulative and way outnumber the good guys.  The only way to stamp them out is to 1) Ban them, 2) Nix sig campaigns altogether, or 3) Prevent them from joining campaigns. 
Negative trust might help a little with the #3 solution.
Not with people who can't speak English, sorry to say.
Yes, if the bidders fear negative trust from DT members.  Change isn't always comfortable.

I know that I shouldn't use this as an excuse or try to justify for my poor grasp of my English but really, able to master one language is very difficult.

This is an online forum, not an academic broad where everyone has to post a long wall of text. What are you doing right now only make the trust system lower its standard for the shitposters and not scammers or illegal activity.

Is it really necessary to put an immediate decision upon putting some negative trust on one's account? Remember its hard to rank here and those newly one abuse this system. And although i understand what they want to impose their but I think neutral trust will be the best way to put before putting some neg trust among those user who got red trust.

Shit posting can be change so this offense deserves some warning.
Bidding on account sales can be corrected also so deserves neutral trust unless the user continuously doing the same action.

Scamming this one deserves real red trust since it involves illegal activities.

So don't be one sided and bubble headed guys you don't own a place to put some immediate judgement.

Theymos should address this, since this furom has been by jackals for their self-interest.

It most certainly is not. The word 'master' is very vague and you most certainly do not need to "master" English to post as a regular user.

Here's a simpler and more elegant solution: Do not posting in a language which you do not know well enough.

----

-------: Do not posting in a language which you do not know well enough.

This is an online forum, not an academic broad where everyone has to post a long wall of text. What are you doing right now only make the trust system lower its standard for the shitposters and not scammers or illegal activity.

Well, better make a sticky banner at the top of bitcointalk say 'English Only' then. Did you know a language in the end just a way to communicate with each person? I feel very disgusted at the sign of a person that takes proud of his English and consider everyone else are inferior to him when his English was his mother tongue language.

9. Discussions in the main boards must be in english. All other language discussions should be posted in the appropriate Local board. [e]

It most certainly is not. The word 'master' is very vague and you most certainly do not need to "master" English to post as a regular user.

Here's a simpler and more elegant solution: Do not posting in a language which you do not know well enough.

You don't need to write a thesis for every post but you don't need to force yourself to just write a hollow sentence of nothingness either. It's clear that you don't actually care about contributing anything here because you don't seem to have made a single constructive post nor one that is more than a sentence. In fact, they're barely more than a handful of words. Why is that? Because you don't need to write anything else so why bother. I'm betting the only reason you post here like 99% of the other users who sign up now is just to earn and in the laziest way possible without putting any thought or effort into their posts whatsoever. This forum has become useless for any sort of discussion as it has been taken over by shitposters and crapcoin ICOs churning out posts just to rank up and/or claim payment and that's why people are fighting back by using the trust system because it's the only weapon they have until theymos finally decides to do something about this issue.

And shitposters are far worse to this community than scammers. Scammers don't pollute every sub board like a cancer spreading. They stick to the Marketplace and if people are stupid enough to send them their money then it's very likely their own fault in 99% of cases.


Bitcointalk is an English-speaking board. It's also stated in rule number 9:


Anyone who isn't fluent should stick to their local boards.

Look at how many complaints he got up in recent day and don't tell me you could easily dismiss all of that cause "They are just bunch of haters because they receive negative trust from him" or "He did nothing wrong". If you could say that then I will call this broad is governed by a bunch of elitists that so detach from the community.

Just this could show how your blind hatred over for a bunch of shitposters to consider them worst than a scammer. Lucky that is your own opinion anyway. If you want to save the "perfectly English" in here so much then step up the game, hired an English Nazi squad, wear a badge and going around abuse the trust system for your own selfish way of hatred over shitposters or 3rd world English garbage.

Just this could show how your blind hatred over for a bunch of shitposters to consider them worst than a scammer.

I added a trust system to the marketplace sections. When you're logged in, you'll now see something like this next to Marketplace posts:

The first number is the user's trust score calculated based on how consistently they've received positive feedback. Probably no one will get a score above 0 until the system has been around for at least a month. The second number is the number of reported scams. The third number increases with the number of positive reports, as does the fourth number in parenthesis, though the fourth number is more resistant to abuse. This text changes color depending on the score. Users with a negative score (attainable through scamming) get a red warning attached to their posts.

These scores are taken from your trust network. They are not global scores. You can edit your trust network here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
If your trust depth is set to 2 (the default), you will trust feedback by people you trust, people they trust, and people they trust. I might change the default in the future; we'll see how this works. Your trust list is public.

On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

If your trust list is totally empty, you trust "DefaultTrust", which includes some trustworthy people that I'll select. But if you add anyone to your trust list, even if they don't trust anyone, DefaultTrust will no longer be considered part of your trust list.

In the near future I'll add these same ratings to PMs.

Tell me if you see any bugs. I didn't test this much yet.

Everyone hate shitposters btw  ;D

---

This is pretty much not a big deal .  If you only post to get paid, This becomes a big deal because you wont be able to participate in the signature campaign anymore.

Getting red tag will not hinder you in participating in any discussion on the forum

---

Before someone else jump on me and started raging, I am one of those that got tagged as well but it is not a big deal for me though  :D

The trust system isn't moderated, you're better off addressing this to Blazed (assuming you're talking about who I think you're talking about).

If I do not need to "master" English to post as a regular user then who going to decide which users have good English and not?

Look at how many complaints he got up in recent day and don't tell me you could easily dismiss all of that cause

Get it and not putting a cent into those coins.

I hate how the fuel jump up when that crypto cat happen.

Damn, OP nailed it.

Put a bit in it but not too much.

No need for Theymos to review the trust system.
Some members should just pay attention to the guidlines carefully.

Good find! But, although his post is older than my account, I think it's safe to say spam wasn't such a big problem 4 years ago.

I didn't find it. A member in reputation thread pointed it out. At least DT members should know the guidelines. If there is a need to change the rules they should discuss with theymos on the right thread, before the whole stuff will get out of control.

These days given red trusts may be generally accurate, but on my short research I found at least one,  who is also flagged as "third world shit poster" without spamming, who accidentally went into crossfire on bitcoin discussion.

There must be found a better solution.

Yes.
And idiots are ranking up as fast as possible by making bitcointalk a joke of a forum.  Pick any new topic and 75% of it are padded shitposts made for financial gain.
Um, no.  Neutral trust does nothing, and these people are too manipulative and way outnumber the good guys.  The only way to stamp them out is to 1) Ban them, 2) Nix sig campaigns altogether, or 3) Prevent them from joining campaigns. 
Negative trust might help a little with the #3 solution.
Not with people who can't speak English, sorry to say.
Yes, if the bidders fear negative trust from DT members.  Change isn't always comfortable.

False positives will occur in just about any system. As long as their percentage is low enough, it is fine.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

False positives will occur in just about any system. As long as their percentage is low enough, it is fine.

This is the best that we can do until theymos wakes up or gives control of the forum to someone else.

Signature spam is already out of control and it's because theymos won't act on doing something about it that people are using the trust system to fight against it because it's the only thing they can do. I actually hope people do keep leaving negative for the worst posters and I people also keep complaining about it because it might force theymos to actually think about what he can do to curb spam because it got out of control a long time ago and it isn't going to magically get any better.

How is this not to be considered an abuse of the trust system?
I have been given a negative trust cause my latest posts were only one-like questions and following ann threads posts, but I have a bit more quality overall post history. What's wrong with it?
This was my very first signature campaign, and I do not intend to join another one, I was just supporting the project.

Feel sorry for you but "The  Pharmist" mind does not work.  ;D He has written  Garbage one-line shitposter.


Well A person "The  Pharmist" who is Garbage himself, born and breed in Garbage everything seems to be garbage to him  :P

If my perception is right, then red-tagging is not 100% accurate? And some of the tagged members might not be involved in shitposting or any event that had led to tagging?

I love the red paint getting splashed everywhere!  It's about time TBH.  It is refreshing to see the slew of butt hurt shitposters crying!


A lot of viable easy methods exist to virtually eliminate the current shitposting plague but they stop once they hit the top of the ladder, why is that exactly?  Why is banning account sales or paying member fee for signatures off the table?  I get that they are off the table but why?

I am left to surmise (quite possibly wrong) that implementing these options would significantly reduce traffic, thus the traffic generated by the plague is highly valued?  For example, on the vast majority of the forum the plague is running wild.  The staggering amount of users here only for a paycheck is sickening. A test solution is to set up a little tiny quarantine corner for those actually here for learning and sharing about BTC...  

So if we look at the traffic as "highly valued" then we need to retain the traffic and improve quality of the posters.  As we can see from the current state of things this does not seem to be an achievable goal?  Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Perhaps their is another reason for taking some of the more effective methods off the table.  If we knew this information it might make it easier to provide useful suggestions for fixing things?

The risk I see in letting this go unchecked is that eventually the plague takes over completely.  When the only people left are the plague the value of their traffic will dwindle.

Anyway that's my rant!  Keep up the red paint Dt'ers hit em where it hurts!

If my perception is right, then red-tagging is not 100% accurate? And some of the tagged members might not be involved in shitposting or any event that had led to tagging?

You have no better solution right now, because activities of some DT members (not yours) are against the rules/guidelines.

And hopefully he won't give out the forum to members, who are earning money with bashing posts.

Is it really necessary to put an immediate decision upon putting some negative trust on one's account? Remember its hard to rank here and those newly one abuse this system. And although i understand what they want to impose their but I think neutral trust will be the best way to put before putting some neg trust among those user who got red trust.

Shit posting can be change so this offense deserves some warning.
Bidding on account sales can be corrected also so deserves neutral trust unless the user continuously doing the same action.

Scamming this one deserves real red trust since it involves illegal activities.

So don't be one sided and bubble headed guys you don't own a place to put some immediate judgement.

Theymos should address this, since this furom has been by jackals for their self-interest.

There are no DT rules and you can't break guidelines. Either you follow them or you do not. It's a choice.

I'd take legitimate "bashing" posts over 3rd world shitposting any day.

I vote for that. Had to restart a profil because of an idiot giving red for no reason.

The rate of false convictions in the US is over 1%.

By massively red-tagging users without a proper analysis for each case, i believe that rate is by far higher in this forum.

Do you have any suggestions on how to restore my status? I can't believe my 2013 account got redflagged for no reasons whatsoever.

Your posts are horrible. You should never be allowed in a campaign of any kind again.

By randomly doing statistical analysis based on nothing other than your own belief, you surely are going to get some very accurate estimates. ::)

In addition, I should have been given a warning at least.

"randomly statistical analysis based on nothing other than your own belief". What is this, a stretch from Mein Kampf?
looks exactly the justice model and parameters used by Nazi Germany or USSR. Quite unfair in my opinion  :-X

Anyone have any idea how many DT members are abusing the trust system?

Your *warning* was received on    2018-01-10.

It looks like you don't really understand English. I implied that you did this for your statement, and the accuracy part was sarcastic. Do I really need to explain this? Maybe you should go back to school.

The rate of false convictions in the US is over 1%. What makes you think that forum members, especially with such different backgrounds, can reach an accuracy of 100%? You lack common sense.

I have seen a few wrongly given negatives.

Has it crossed their mind the "DT members" to check and evaluate if the imposed RED trust they have given is accurate? I think no.

I'm sure that they've checked before leaving the feedback (duh), but of course false positives can occur, and they can be easily fixed if it is in fact false by PMing that user who left the trust, or by creating a thread in Reputation if they don't respond or refuse to change, even if you are obviously right.

...

But that's where the problem is since accuracy is not perfect. Some of the DT members haven't given the chance to these "ShitPosters" to redeem themselves. Instead of giving them a chance to speak, they will get a ton of "English Lessons" as to why they should never react. Creating a scare to the whole community that "when reacting to a DT member you will get tagged".

Stop trolling.

Maybe instead of:
a) Instantly sending complaints via PM in the form of: "Please sir, remove trust I need money from this job".
b) Opening complaint threads in different sections;

you should take the time to improve yourself and ask for a review. Is that so hard?

No not for me.

The problem is DT members should actually recheck and evaluate their tagging to be more accurate.

The tagging should be improved and only be tagging the worst of the worst as VOD said.

Being polite does not harm one's pride anyway.

I meant *you* as in *everyone* who got tagged and is complaining right away.

Rechecking of all ratings periodically is not possible unless you the development of an AI for me as that is not constrained by organic limits.

Disagreed. We should be tagging anyone who deserves it.

TBH, it's an outright waste of time.

Don't think too highly of yourself it's as if you're the only one who got a masters degree in here.

But don't you think its too vague and generalized to tag anyone without a thorough investigation?

Sorry, just a technical question: why in this thread the red trust doesn't appear? Just curious.

I send you a pm about that and you even didn't reply. Its not hard to hit reply and write a message. You gave me trust 2 years ago when i was pretty newbie. now it turns red cause of your dt. Btw on that bid there is lots of people bid but you just gave red trust on couple people. I just bid once.