Bitcoin Forum

I've just given this guy negative trust for bad posting.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2534030

What he did was to make a post which was solely a quote of the opening post, and not adding any comments whatsoever.
Quote abuse like this is so annoying, and it is destructive to the forum in my opinion. Do you think that negative trust is an extreme penalty?

I would just report the post even he has that one only done !

Maybe a Bot or newbie how dont know all !

Don't do that. Whenever you see one of these use the report to moderator button.

Yes.
 

Well it is more work for the mods, and unless the guy gets an explanation, then he won't know what he did wrng, and may even start a thread on the Meta board.

Hopefully this action may serve as a warning to other newbies. I can always remove it if he contacts me, or if people think it is not a good thing for me to do.

I don't understand any of that logic.
Being in Default Trust and red tagging newbies because you find them
is not the way to go. IMO.

Insubstantial or low quality posts are not related to trust.  I get that we're still finding our way with the new DT system, but some of this stuff is fairly self-explanatory:

Breaking forum rules = report to mod

Dishonest conduct = trust

If you want to give them some pointers on their posting habits, a private message would be best.  They're more likely to see it that way.

I see that often when i am on the Report Mission that Newbies or most times Bots quote just the opening post !

I report them to the Mod and they get deleted !

If they feel misunderstanded and they are a real user they will ask way the post was removed.

Well, your negative trust has nothing to do with his account considering he is a newbie. But both Negative and Positive Trust is not meant for that. Just quoting the post and shitposting doesn't mean that you don't trust him. So, if you see a quality poster will you trust him?

As the trust quote says,
What did he actually do? Did he scam anyone or has he traded with you and you don't trust him?

We should give time for newbies to use this forum and understand how it works. Even though he may be a legendary guy, you should not distrust him. Trust is not meant for that.

Regarding spams, I report and mod removes those posts. If the user repeats that, I always PM them stating that they are spamming. Some have realized those and started posting meaningful.

Negative trust is not really necessary. What if the quote was just a mistake by the newbie?
Imagine someone carrying a "trade with caution" tag for the rest of his time in this forum just because of a quoted post.  :-\

Come on, I think reporting to a mod would be more appropriate.

Report to moderators and/or send a PM to the user explaining what they did wrong. I think it's not a good thing for you to do :)

Breaking the forum rules does not make you untrustworthy, the feedback-trust is designed for that. Reporting should be enough, Mods are the one to take care of such things.

I've always thought of the trust system as a measure of a persons trading integrity,but recently it has started to be used for other purposes, and I think those are more related to reputation.  Example are merit abuse, account buying and selling, and signature spamming. I'm still trying to get a feel for the place when the line should be drawn in the current forum environment.

Hopefully this thread will highlight a bad posting habit, and if a few members read it and take note, then it will have been a success.

Once you believe that the user is posting poorly in an abusive manner that would deem their conduct untrustworthy, it would be fair to leave them trust (neutral, or negative depending on circumstance) at that point. Everyone makes honest mistakes and there are legitimately new users finding this forum daily.

Leaving negative trust for one bad post is over the top, in my opinion.

Side-Note: the post has been deleted.

This can be consider as abuse of the trust system. I know your intentions were clear but getting a red tag can discourage user from forum. Instead a pm directing user to rules of forum will be great and reporting post as others have suggested.

Just report them, and/or instead of leaving him negative trust just send him a friendly PM warning instead. It takes the same amount of effort.

Thanks for all the replies and comments. I've removed the red trust as a result.

I'll leave this thread open for comments as an indication of my displeasure with the practice. I would also like to thank the mod who deleted the subject post.

Definitely just report posts/threads/whatever like that to the mods.  Funny you did this on the anniversary of the merit system, because tagging shitposters was exactly what was being done right up until January 2018.  DT members aren't doing that anymore, and it's generally been accepted that it's not a good use of the trust system and that nobody should be tagging morons for their low-quality posts.

Happy anniversary to the merit system!

Generally speaking, if something violates forum rules then it should be reported to moderators and the trust system should not be used. Don't take their jobs away :)

Having said that, I have neg-trusted some egregious spammers that e.g. distribute malware. This is against the rules and mods will likely nuke them but in the few minutes or hours until that's done it's worth putting the red tag on.

This also creates some gray areas, e.g. extreme trolling. It's against the rules but one is unlikely to get banned for that (makes me wonder what happened to our favorite troll but I digress) and some users consider such behavior untrustworthy so there are some red tags flying around for that now.

Some of those gray areas could be mitigated via merits perhaps. Spammers and trolls won't be getting many of those.

IIRC, theymos has asked people not to leave negative  trust feedback for shitposting. I think people should tag only with valid reason.

Maybe I'm too much of a purist.

I think that the merit system should be used solely to encourage good posting and beneficial forum behaviour. However, many merit awarders just think of it a a ranking tool, and their decisions seem to be based on whether they want to help a member to improve his ranking.

The trust system has now become a reputation monitoring tool. For example, if a new member buys an account because he want to trade in Bitcoin, then he will probably get a red tag, and this is despite the fact that he has not breached any of the forum rules. He may be as pure as driven snow, and not intending to defraud anybody. However his purchase of an account has turned his reputation into yellow snow.

I would not say you are too much of a purist but you the type that want things done the right way.
But this is a forum and just like most forum it's bounded by rules and regulations and once a user is within the jurisdiction of the laws of the forum irrespective of if the user committed an act which from a moral, intellectual or other wise perspective is wrong so long as its not against the forum rules then it can't be called an offense.
But the fact is once one engages in activities that are not right like buying of account but are not against the forum rules there is a high chance of the user going against other forum rules.

It could be accidental how long was it there for? I've seen users hit post to quickly after quoting and not writing anything and the coming back to edit it when they realise.

Repeat offenses could require a neutral tag though if it persists or maybe a negative if it continues beyond then...

The trust system was never about forum rules as the forum explicitly refuses to moderate scams or trust feedback.

Merits - post quality
Staff - rule enforcement
Trust system - trust and reputation

If we can avoid overlap with our usage of these systems I think we'll be fine. Let's not send positive trust for good posts or negative trust for spam. Let's not report shitty posts (unless they break forum rules) or scams to the moderators. Let's send merits based on the contents of the post and not the user's reputation etc.

Leave them neutral feedback, report them to moderator and please read this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851) and join discussion.

They should be always tagged, I remember one case where moderators didn't ban accounts even evidence was provided in many ways https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg28915532#msg28915532.
But yes, in 99% cases users will be banned and this is to warn others before moderators do their job.

He just did, or I might say he didn't actually?
I also noticed that post after mine, and reported it immediately, but it seems it hasnt been deleted yet. And then it follows the post of JC where he tagged the user.

I came to check the tagged for it wasnt appearing on my face, I even check my trust settings and it seems fine. So I think JC didnt tagged that user in the first place, he just said that as a warning I think?
At first I also think that it was some kind of mistake and I patiently wait for the user to edit his post but seem that it is a work of a bot.

I agree that the big quotes looks very annoying and I also saw a thread explaining how to use ~snip for newbies here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095740.0). But this is totally a moderators issue and a DT or any normal user here should not be concerned of it and that's not what trust system should be used for.

---

I personally think this is a good approach by a DT member and it could help more members work in the same way and try to give some space for new users to join and adapt to this place. By this I don't mean just don't tag newbies some of the are truly a big issue.

I did red tag the poster, and I removed the tag based on the community comments in this thread. I didn't use the comment "trade with extreme caution", as I didn't think the posting behaviour had anything to do with trading.

This business about full quotes of opening posts is really quite extraordinary. We have legendaries and other long term members who do it, and this is despite the fact that many members try to discourage it. Don't they realise that it makes them look ill educated and desperate to provide content, or is it just laziness? I really do just skip over theses posts, and I can't be bothered to hunt for the replies. Is this what the posters want? Maybe they are just embarrassed by the inadequacy of their reply.

There's no reason why anyone would have to buy a bitcointalk account in order to trade bitcoin.  Jet Cash, you've been here long enough to have read all of the explanations as to why account dealing is toxic to the forum and thus why those who engage in buying or selling of accounts get tagged.  If you don't agree with that, don't tag 'em.  Me, I'll still be happy to.  There are exceptions, of course, and I don't think every single account seller is an evil person or even has bad intentions necessarily, but this is one of the issues where the forum rules haven't caught up to community standards--just like scamming, which isn't tolerated either.

Edit:
I agree with this completely, but like I said it's a case of the forum rules not reflecting what's acceptable practice here, which is why DT members have stepped in.  I've got nothing against alt accounts per se as long as you're the one who created them from the start.  The problem with buying an account is that the account's reputation/rank/merit history/etc. doesn't reflect anything the new owner did and that new owner could easily try to deceive someone when asking for a loan, trying to buy bitcoin, selling something, and probably a lot of other things.  If someone got their hands on an account with green trust, it'd be very easy to scam someone. 

Anyway, we're probably on the same side of the issue so I don't feel like writing a huge essay condemning account sales.  I've done that before, and I'm sure you've probably read a few of my rants.  Theymos isn't likely to prohibit account sales anytime soon, so tagging members engaged in that activity is really the only thing that can be done to discourage the practice.

I think account selling should be banned - it is on most forums. Despite the fact that I have four accounts here, I think that members should only have one, or perhaps two if they want one to use with insecure connections. I'd be happy for them to be merged if such a restriction were to be implemented.

A new user wanting to buy Bitcoin may want an account to bypass the signature and image posting restrictions. I sometimes wonder if it would be better to make buyers of accounts declare their purchase, rather than red tagging them. This would act in a similar fashion to the copper membership. It would also give some value to accounts that are used as security for loans. Loans are another thing that should be discouraged, but I can understand that some people may need them as a temporary measure.

Even though it's annoying, it's your right or decision, giving negative trust to the member concerned, I think? for that man who is full of spaciousness and humility?
Of course there will be many people who contradict this statement.
even though emotions approach, hate others, can destroy yourself.

There are several reasons why, even though it's annoying, you have to be willing to force yourself to forgive others.

1. No human lives without error.

2. Keeping anger and revenge makes you stressed throughout life.

3. Don't let yourself feel negative feelings and thoughts.

Once you hate and harbor anger to others, that's where you plant the seeds of negative thoughts and feelings for many things. You will still think of bad treatment, anger and guilt.

This user has been archived.
Leandrojavier7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2534030)

There is. Its Lauda...
Oops,... Witch are also humans don't you think? :P

I must say, as a "newbie" i find this discussion very informative  :-*
Thanks for the info shared  ;)

Nah they're angry cats ;D.

---

I'd still suggest a neutral tag even if just to help the mods for reference.

if you are on DT then even an "empty"negative feedback will give that user "trade with extreme caution" on his profile. that user could be a legit and honest person who honors his deals and your feedback could have been the end of his business journey on this forum.

we can argue about this forever, but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only (a person who is a scammer, likely scammer or  trustworthy).
a person who plans to do business with that user doesn't care if his posts are bad.

as suggested by others, a report to moderators is all about it.

* it's good to see people seek opinions and sometimes accepting  them when it comes to trust system.

This is a perfect example of the noise that is introduced into the trust system that makes it impossible for the people it was designed to protect, to tell who they can trust with funds. I know you are trying to help Jet Cash, but all this ends up doing is drowning out real con artists in the cacophony of negative ratings over nothing giving them cover, while creating endless conflict over what ratings are ok.

Agree. They are two different concepts, and should not be misused.
Or, I think that neutral trust with a warning message attached is enough.
Negative trust is a misuse.

I tend to agree with this, but it seems that the new system is trying to combine reputation with trust.

True but you know bitcointalk forum is bigger than we think and it's not possible to check whether the feedback is for a trade or not. A lot of resources will be needed just to maintain if there are any rules for leaving feedback. It will be like recovering accounts, in fact, it will be more worst than it. That's why I think the current system is okay. No fixed rule but some limitation like one is what JC has mentioned here.

People who were posting pointless posts for too longer may turned their way of style when they really understand why we are in this forum,in the mean while time ruining someone's reputation is not acceptable.That is upto mods to decide what they want to do when people posting pointless posts for too longer don't take their powers JC. ;)

Except the system is supposed to be designed to help noobs not get ripped off right? They already are put in a situation of having to check if ratings are for trade or not. You don't think this ambiguity is confusing and might lead to people getting ripped off as a result of the need to blanket every pet peeve with a negative rating? Having a rule doesn't require a lot of resources, in fact it will require less because there will not be as much disagreement over which ratings are acceptable, ending most disputes before they even happen because either it falls within the rules or it doesn't. The only time mediation would be needed of any kind, community or otherwise, is if they are not providing evidence to support their rating.

I totally agree with you;) Some new member also don't read the rules and this is a bit extreme.

Jet Cash,
I agree that those types of posts degrade the forum. Yes, negative trust is too extreme, I'm glad you took it back.
I'm in the group that thinks trust ratings should be tied to direct trade experiences.

there are only a few DT members, not much resources to be used here, when we have a clear rule that says for example

(DT users you are not allowed to tag someone for anything that is not related to trade and scam)

then when and if someone get's tagged for using the word lemon, that DT member will be in deep shit, but now, we have no rules, so everyone can tag everyone for every reason on planet earth, and when they try to appeal, what rules/law will the community use to judge ? it's like going to the court whereby the judge does not have any law or rules to use and his judgment might very well depend on what was his breakfast.

Trust points should be use for following violation cases:
- Scamming efforts: including accounts of scam projects, or users try scamming others with trades, and so on.
- Exchanging trust points in order to build up pseudo-trusted accounts.

Once again, thank to everybody for their replies and constructive comments. The sharper amongst you will have realised that my negative trust, and the starting of this thread, was intended to make posters aware of the damage they do to their images by the misuse of quotes. Red trust is an extreme penalty, but it does draw attention to the damage that the lazy use of quoting does to the boards.

Hopefully the lazy and inconsiderate posters will become aware of the other penalties that result from their actions.

- Their post may be skipped as readers may not have time to hunt for their replies.
- The full quotation is probably an indication of a lack of substance in the reply
- Full quotes are often used by those with extremely limited command of English.
- The member shows a lack of consideration for other members.
- The member may be placed on ignore by those who prefer to read quality posts.
- Bounty managers may become aware that excessive quoting may reduce the number of signature impressions for the poster.

Most are aware of the consequences but are only interested in fulfilling their post counts if they have can wear a signature. The few correctable ones would takes down notes and make adjustments.


I think almost everyone got the idea, it was just wrong to red tag the user. Attention can be drawn using other means. The message has been passed now, surely

Totally agree with you.These are the exact reason IMO, As a member of this forum i beleive its not a place to share meaningless topic. Every single member of the forum wants to learn something new everyday. Basically red trust will remind them to think before posting again.
 

Something wrong with this picture.

DT is shown


1. evidence of another DT lying in black and white = no action
2. evidence of another DT abusing the trust system= no action
3. evidence of another DT deviously creating sock puppets to racist troll for btc dust = praise for that person
4. someone makes a post that is annoying  = gives red trust?

okay

I vote that we create pink trust for crypto hunters. :)

I see... people presenting facts that prove wrongdoing by DT members get pink trust.