Bitcoin Forum

In person if someone is too over the top obnoxious they might well walk away with a black eye.  Online people can abuse with impunity.  Free from the risk of being punched some people reach hereto unseen levels of obnoxiousness.  In such cases (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5513595.msg64654782#msg64654782) further responding just provides them with more opportunity to misbehave.  The response they need is a good old stab in the face.

Unfortunately, no one has developed the technology to allow you to stab someone in the face over the internet.

Yet.

Has there been any discussion around having a negative merit thing?  Like something that costs 100 merit to deliver 1 stab or something.   Obviously there are tools like the trust system, but the focus of the trust system is on fraud or at least trust worthy behavior.  Someone can be not untrustworthy but still be deserving of a swift kick in the groin. 

I think most of us use neutral tags for this sort of things, even if it was implemented for other purposes..

LoyceV's deMerit source application (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5033455.0)

---

Demerit won't be helpful either in this particular scenario apart from giving us a satisfactory feeling or there could be some kind of restrictions can be imposed if someone receive negative merit like can't able to post for next 24 hours.

I honestly don't want to open this can of worms, and I am sure this member won't care any merit deduction, 100, 1000 or 10.000 negative merits.
You can use one nice remedy called ignore button, than just stop reading all his posts and stop responding to him.
Many of us are doing that and it works very good.

Hopefully nobody will be able to invent technology that makes you stab someone through the Internet 😅😅

But that aside I understand your point here
But there are some people on the forum who abuse this trust system that has already been put in place they give neutral tags to fellow members for no particular reason or to some reason best known to them well I personally I'm not.a victim of this but while going through the forum I actually found at that situations like that are comon on the forum
If such people are able to attain the power to demerit
Other users I'm pretty sure they will abuse it too and cause the delayed ranking of other members (then imagine they are able to stab someone through the Internet 😅)

I remember we discussed implementing some kind of upvote/downvote system before.  I think themos was hesitant about it - maybe he felt it could be misused.  The intent would be for people to upvote helpful posts and downvote unhelpful ones.  but lets face it, folks would likely end up using the votes to show agreement or disagreement more than anything. and  Before long you would have petty rivalries playing out through strategic upvoting and downvoting.  Online forums often become echo chambers where opposing views get silenced.  A downvoting free-for-all could accelerate that.  Perhaps we could disable downvoting abilities for new users until they build up some credibility?

Im not sure if theres a perfect solution to this problem, If someone is being obnoxious, its often best to simply ignore them. People troll for attention as much as anything.  Depriving them of that attention can be a very effective way to deal with them.

Me after reading the first post of someone trying to start an unnecessary argument with me:

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/10/23/KQNto.jpeg

Well there are services for that  ;D ;D ;D

https://rentahitman.com

But seriously, for whatever reason unless it's really extreme people seem to tolerate the name calling, the lies, and all the other crap that people continue to post.
And when you do post a negative the complaints start coming in.

So then you wind up ignoring them, which means that there is a good chance that the BS they post does not wind up with a good counter argument.

-Dave

It is poor use of the feature and should be discouraged, but it is so common for people to use neutral tags for just about anything right now.

The feature that works well in this case is the ignore button.

- Jay -

Unfortunately, the freedom of speech in here has, as always, been very unconstrained...  So, we'll always have people coming on the Internet to suspect or allege shenanigans like this one... With the level of anonymity in here, how does anyone get intrigued in people's personal business/ decide what a person should and shouldn't do?

I ain't even able to read through the wall of text, but a few lines got me thinking.
 Maxwell, the best way to avoid bickering of any sort is to ignore; they don't have any response hence, no reason to keep the argument and, THAT'S IT!

---

I'd poop my panties if this was for me   :P

Or you can leave them positive feedback.   :/

The key is consistency.  If two people gaslight, you can't forgive one if you like them.  Otherwise merit sources will become rich taking bribes.  

As others have already pointed out, I don't think our frank will be the slightest bit deterred by any sort of virtual punishment, whether it be through demeritings or stabbings.

What you should both do instead is have a virtual boxing match using Oculus or one of the other VR headsets. That would be dope  :D Just be sure to record it so we can all watch it later.

Until then, don't worry gmax, nobody takes him seriously.

Unfortunately, only merit sources can stab, and they'll only stab non merit sources who will likely not sacrifice 100 merits to counter stab.

Instead of stabbing and counter stabbing and in order to avoid the blood splashing on innocent passersby, we can just use the ignore button.

I don't know how it is on the internet but the problem in real life when you go to try to stab someone is that you can be stabbed yourself first, if not shot, and that there is a thing called police and jail. Feeling like stabbing someone over a forum discussion doesn't seem like a good plan for that reason, better to use the ignore button.

Wont be allowed in here based on the rule.


Even there is, still weve got rules. If there is a misunderstanding or worse a serious nut cracking for both. Maybe contact one another and settle it personally.

I didnt read the long hyperlink thread but by the looks of it obviously its a disagreement.

I think we should make a soft-fork for that. For example: create a "stabber" account, which will give "merits of shame". Then, non-upgraded browsers will see regular merits flying around, but upgraded ones will see "demerits". And because sending a single merit from "the stabber" will cost 100 merits, people will quickly run out of them, even if they have thousands.

Also, if "stabber" will be a merit source (or rather a "merit sink"), then it can just have N "stabs" per month, so every other sMerit will be quickly burned, if for example that account will receive 1000 merits (500 sMerits), and send only 10 "stabs".

As usual, old browsers should see, that "stabber" is a public account, where everyone can log in, and send a stab. But: upgraded browsers will enforce soft-forked rules, so if the majority of "posting power" will upgrade their browsers, then old browsers can see what they want, but the upgraded ones will ignore the irrelevant traffic.

Also, if having a single "anchor" for "stabber" is not an option, then it is possible to create alt-accounts, like "stwenhao_demerit", send 100 merits there, and deliver a single "stab", by sending a single sMerit from that alt-account. Also, because merits can be traced as "transactions", it is possible to simply not display excessive merits (for example if someone will deliver 50 "stabs" for 100 merits, that should be displayed and tracked as a single "stab", and additional merits and sMerits should be marked as "ignored"; then, browsers following them in the old way, will simply land on a wrong chain).

Works really good at turning lies into accepted facts.  I've had multiple journalists who printed outright falsehoods that I complained to point to some (usually reddit) thread and say "no one disagreed" --  though on reddit it's extra sweet since logged out users don't see neg rated comments, so in one instance *I'd* actually thoroughly debunked the post and reddit helpfully hid it from the person who needed it most.

In any case, I don't mean to argue that anyone needs to waste their time on idiots.  But ignore isn't a magic fix-all solution either and has in its own way cause a tremendous amount of harm, but sure it saves the poster from wasting their time.  It can be easy to forget though that the most readers of many posts over the long run won't be regulars or thread participants, but randos doing research or people that landed in from a search engine.

It occurs to me that keeping a counter on what percentage of posters in the thread are ignoring a poster could help, but that's getting offtopic.

If I may, you are in a (more of a) position to get such ignored information displayed in some way... so BPIP or others can access it and/or rank it.   :)

How about enforcing this rule for once?

He shouldn't confuse other ppl it's like he doesn't care he's made problems. You're trying to protect random ppl from getting wrong info so it's upright concern but you can't stop him in reddit or bitcointalk. You can't use ignore button because you don't want someone's lies turned into facts & you can't reply to his posts because you'll provide more opportunity to misbehave. It isn't easy choice if you stop intercepting him but it's his freedom of speech so he won't stop.

A "stabbing" is a bit much for me. I'm a "sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you" sorta guy. Although, I know words can hurt some people's feelings... and there may ultimately be a time to throw down if the words from the person start turning into actual physical threats that could push it to that point, or overall incessant harassment maybe. But most IRL people I know aren't just going to punch or stab someone who is being obnoxiously annoying.




I have had mixed feelings here. We've had a similar feature before I remember when joining the forum, complete with stats and info theymos was releasing occasionally, which I kinda liked seeing at the time as a newer user... but after being here for this long I think it would just be manipulated and misused as another drama/attack tool, and ultimately cause more people to leave than it is probably worth appeasing... I'd have similar feelings on a demerit system but maybe with various restrictions on how and who can do it, it might be OK, although I haven't begun to think through what might make sense on requirements there.

Overall, it would be interesting stats and info. to know, unfortunately it sounds like it may have been too resource intensive for SMF.

---

Some of the theymos posts & threads I found from the past:

I find this a waste of time to be honest. I just have the protagonist of the story, franky1, on ignore.


Normally when two people are arguing on the internet with such a rant no one is paying attention to the discussion except the two of them. And in the specific case of you and franky1, if the one who supposedly could read you has sufficient knowledge he will immediately realize that franky1 is talking bullshit.

I remember the first time I put him on ignore he responded to me with up to three posts in a row and I had already told him that I had put him on my ignore list.

The best thing to do is to ignore him, you just refuse to admit it. Otherwise you are playing into the game he likes best.

Franky1 can be useful at times on this forum but I do not know why he is weird sometimes. Can you believe that franky1 does not believe bitcoin that are off-chain on lightning network are bitcoin? He believes that they are altcoins. Also he has some arguments in the past which give some wrong information. He has frustrated some people before. If you think he is annoying, best to just ignore him.

bring back that cool glowing ignore button.. the one where the more global ignores an account had the brighter the word "ignored" was on their posts button, but on a per thread basis this time.

im on team glow.

With tracking and counting inside of a thread, [I think] the cost on resources would be about the same as globally or worse, so I assume it would still pose a potential cost issue on resources?  
When I say worse, I'm assuming in this scenario that there would then need to be another table to track the ignores per user, per thread... which then requires an additional relationship on the pull of each thread. Of course, I say this without really knowing where in the back-end the previous feature was the most costly.

Ignore is not a magical fix but at certain point you have to realize that you can never agree with some members and you will never be able change their mind.
After that point it perfectly makes sense to ignore that member, move on and stop wasting time with him.
You can however write any feedback you want on his profile, that can serve similar purpose as demeriting.

I understand your point of view, but we shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the people who read us. IMO, people who are interested enough to come across the topic in question and to read it, will certainly have enough interest in the subject to make their own opinion on the matter, whether there's misinformation / lies, or not.

I hope that in 2024, Internet users know that there are trolls, haters and grumpy people on discussion forums, and that they're able to keep things in balance (sometimes I catch myself being optimistic..).

2 ideas so far (no stabbing in either of them... sorry G)

#1
Perhaps it's not the most thought out plan but I'll throw it out there: peer review ! Might sound like corporate lingo but hear me out !

Add a report "Troll" button. And after a certain number of reports by different users, let's say 21 ( blackjack!), than 5 random users that do not have the alleged troll in their (un)trust/ignore list, did not quote any of his posts, did not post in the threads with reported posts, have over 50 days logon time and similar rank (+/- 1) will receive an automated PM with 2-3 random posts that were reported and to reply with TROLL or NOT. If 4 of them say TROLL... then he receives a 5 day temp ban. Next time X2 (10 days), next X2 again (20 days) and so on and so forth...

Upsides:
- the community will decide
- it will incentivize not to reply to the troll so you have a change to "assist" with a temp ban
- the responsibility does not fall on the shoulders of only 1 person (be it mod, admin, satoshi etc)

Downside:
- most likely a bit too much db info should be stored.

Similar to a few games community version anti-cheat systems.

#2
Probably been mentioned before but adding another trust list related to post message, logic, thought process etc Another trust that does not reflect on trading risk... let's call it a bullshit-meter
You have the same options to add users to the list of people you agree with, that sound coherent, that come with relatable examples... in other words people you think have a lot of value in their posts or ... bullshitting trolls.

And you could see messages like "most of the posters you trust consider this user to be a troll"

The only catch is: you can have different "troll ranks" for each main board. There might be a guy who is very technical, helps out other users, contributes a lot but... he's a nazi. (not pointing any fingers here, it's just an example). In the Bitcoin main board (Bitcoin Discussions, Technical Discussions etc) can have a status of "people trust his judgement" and in the politics and society board ... meh. This will only appear for others, not something that the alleged troll will see him/herself on his/her profile.

This also has it's own ups and downs but I do believe there is a need for this as there are lots of trust feedbacks given for trolling and not all trolls are thieves. Orcs yes, but not trolls  :D

Food for thought...

I think where I was really going with this thread on stabbing is that there isn't a mechanism to say basically "the other people in this discussion don't consider this post, or even this poster, as being worth responding to, due to their obnoxiousness/bad faith/persistent stupidity/repetitiveness.... caveat lector".

I think the trick is establishing a culture where people will allow posts they disagree with even profoundly disagree with-- so long as they appear to be a good faith contribution.  I think it's hard to communicate this to a lot of people.    

I tried proposing something like this for *all* posters on some technical mailing lists:  basically idea that any time you send a post it picks a couple active posters and asks them to review-- and they're supposed to review it sympathetic to your position even if they disagree.  Like if you post proposing eating babies, and someone who really opposes eating babies reviews your post and they notice you fail to mention the best argument for the subject or make a really trivially dismissed argument they should bring these things to your attention.  .. with the idea that a mailing list message will expend the time of hundreds or thousands of readers so it's best if it first gets turned into the best version if itself with the help of just a few readers.

Without a commitment to allowing the best version of an argument you oppose though these sorts of mechenisms risk being a distributed group-think amplifier.   But on the OTOH the absence of discussion quality improvers is also one since they inevitably cede the discussion to the least reasonable and most persistent people.


They do but unless you're deeply versed in an issue it can be damn hard to tell a troll from an idiot from a contrarian truth teller.

One thing we could all do is make a personal commitment to demand receipts: If you see an argument that, if true, ought to have easily cited evidence you should encourage people to provide it even if you agree, disagree, or don't know.    Having to provide receipts is kryptonite to some kinds of gaslighters. :)

If i am not mistakenly i have came across where someone passes wrong information and still act proves to be right which i knew too well such information was wrong but what do i do, i don't have to go reacts negatively but it's left for those who are listening or reading the information to make additional research for themselves to know if that information is right or not. What matters most is public composure, at least respecting each others choice is one of the best thing to keep and stay clear. So the best is he write or say that people should sources for additional information from other various writers or authors before accepting fully into what such person is passing through, because it is true that on the internet when someone are passing wrong information we can't stop and even if we ignore them it's not also helping matter because other people or newbies would still come across such information to start using them. So the best is, if any information found that is not correct then it should be reported and mod/admin should carefully evaluate such post before having deleted entirely, but in terms of reddit downvote could be more appreciable to factor out how low such comment and post could be.

The idea of negative merit has been brought up before in the sense that users who misbehave could lose merit and be demoted in rank. It hasn’t been suggested, as far as I know, in a way where you could burn merit to be able to give somebody some other kind of punishment.

Forum trolls are really persistent and they are not discouraged by losing merits or having negative trust. Even more severe consequences like being able to ban them for a period of time would not suffice because they will just create accounts on other platforms, like Reddit, so they can continue trolling and spreading misinformation.

The trolls you are talking about are quite persistent, that is their way of life. At some point, the community will lose interest in ripping them off, while the trolls will continue their story again and again with the same intensity. At some point, the community will lose interest in kicking such people in the groin, while the trolls will continue their story again and again with the same intensity.
You can't beat idiots on their turf.

aww gmax getting emotional that 2016-2019 i warned him that segwit will cause junk data by miscounted bytes and bypassing validation processes on the blockchain.. he then cried to his fan base that it was me giving misinformation, to ignore me and let segwit succeed. he then sent them on a witch hunt and then let them report back to him that they too got emotionally hurt so he can then do silly moderation things to feel more important and back up his flock of cult followers

.. years later the ordinal meme junk proved me correct and now he still crying that im calling him out on his BS(Bull Sh*t, BlockStream, and BarrySilbert(sponsor))..

its amazing how he only wants one brand of implementation and hierarchy governing/controlling bitcoin via a small privileged dozen sponsored devs, while he pretends bitcoins is not centralised and everyone again should ignore the centralised risk highlighted by me because [insert his stabbing emotional insults].. his ego cannot let go of wanting to control the narrative and plea to his fanbase to blindly follow his narrative and witch hunt and stab anyone that scrutinises, reviews and calls out the BS said by core devs

in a real rational and fair world the core devs should be the ones that are scrutinised the most and ensure they dont do things to the networks protocol that cause more headaches and tx costs for the community.. but hey lets just give gmax a knife because he wants to be judge jury and executioner(oops whilst also wanting to pretend he is retired/never been involved in any aspect of bitcoin(his narrative))

everything i have pointed out about cores control of bitcoin network protocol changes can be proven by github changelogs, dev communication quotes and blockdata.. all gmax can defend his narrative with is his traumatised emotions of being attacked.. he doesnt see that me not kissing the royal ring is called independent peer review and scrutiny and critique of the core governance system of bitcoin.. to him he see's me as a enemy that must be stabbed because im not blindly kissing cores ass

it is funny though. that i can mention the availability of real hard data to back up core events in the last decade that have not helped bitcoin scale.. yet all gmax can quote is how he gets emotionally triggered to the point of wanting to stab people that highlight such failures of core devs governance.. when will he realise that defending centralisation is a failure of his part and its time to wake up to his own failures if he wants to avoid people mentioning his failures

...
as for someones idea of a "peer review of trolling" this has already failed because even in github the so called privileged peers of github comments/commits are part of the small privileged set that blindly follow the core roadmap, so they will always side with one narrative even if that narrative is not the truth, but just sides with allowing core to continue un-scrutinised.. just look at whom the moderators of technical discussion are and github privileges are and also whom moderates the mailing list and bip submissions.. the same small group of 'peer' monarchy/privileged names pop up, self enpowering their narrative whilst controlling anyone scrutinising and reviewing them

..
as for "require receipts" over the main egomaniacal emotional triggering of gmax 2016-2019 trying to control the narrative of his co-founded corporate agenda.. i personally have showed proofs many times and he just deletes the posts and then starts another rant that says i dont make sense because my narrative misses out on certain things(he deleted), he then months later acts like discussions have not occurred and then asks for me to prove it again.. hoping by me just saying "do your research and check the historic data of blockchain and forum posts and github changelogs" he will say 'cite it".. and then delete the cites and then ask me later to prove it (repeat repeat repeat)

as you can see 8 years later he is still crying asking for proof even though people can find it themselves and knowing if i did cite it directly he would just delete the post and ask me to prove it next month pretending we never had the conversation

in short. his emotion and ego cant allow him to be scrutinised and reviewed and informed that he is the one thats not on the correct side of helping bitcoin scale and get better, he just relies on a fanbase of people that like witchhunts because i dare to speak negatively about a core "god"

I wholeheartedly agree with gmaxwell.

This place is a mess!

Case / Current situation:
Most users use the negative trust for this purpose.

But trust should be meaning "Can I trade with them? Are they trust-worthy?"

Being rude, or in general not being polite, shouldn't have anything to do with the trust meter.

Thought:
Thus, I reckon we should have one more counter (similar to merit & trust), that would basically count "obnoxiousness level".
Giving someone an "obnoxiousness" would be like claiming this user is bad, this user is constantly rude, this user swears etc.

1. This meter would be a simple negative decimal number. Could also be positive, but I believe a negative number would better indicate the "meaning" of the counter - which is showing how bad this user is.

2. Should work like:


3. We could use the merit system to avoid spamming of the obnoxiousness meter, like so:


Examples:

Example 1:

User A (obnoxiousness = 0, merit = 781) -----> User B (obnoxiousness = -1 so far) -----> final obnoxiousness level = -1 (already) + (-3 because user A has obnoxiousness = 0)*(0.5 because user A has merit 501-1000)

Thus final obnoxiousness level = -1 + (-1.5) = -2.5

Example 2:

User A (obnoxiousness = -2, merit = 129) -----> User B (obnoxiousness = 0 so far) -----> final obnoxiousness level = 0 (already) + (-1 because user A has obnoxiousness = -2)*(0.25 because user A has merit 501-1000)

Thus final obnoxiousness level = 0 + (-0.25) = -0.25

Example 3:

User A (obnoxiousness = -5, merit = <doesn't matter>) -----> User B (obnoxiousness = 0 so far) -----> final obnoxiousness level = 0 (already) + 0 (because user A has obnoxiousness -3 or lower)

Thus final obnoxiousness level = 0 + 0 = 0

Example 4:

User A (obnoxiousness = 0, merit = 2812) -----> User B (obnoxiousness = 0 so far) -----> final obnoxiousness level = 0 (already) + (-3 because user A has obnoxiousness 0)*(1 because user A has merit 1001+)

Thus final obnoxiousness level = 0 + (-3) = -3


P.S It's early in the morning so if the numbers don't work, forgive me. Just keep the idea  :P

I like the idea, but it cannot be all about merit. It should involve activity, merit, and trust ho have a more "holistic" adherence to the spirit of the forum.

I would use the "most recognised" feature in bpip.org:
https://bpip.org/Report?r=mostrecognized

Great idea.

Alternatively, just like you have set merit as a multiplier, you can also use posts and activity!

Considering the level of personal enmity and grudges we see people have with each other, what makes you think such a system wouldn't be used unfairly by such people to make each other look bad in the eyes of the general public of this forum?

User A giving obnoxiousness to User B will give a negative obnoxiousness number to User B, but what if User B is not a rude or bad person in general but User A has some personal problems with them? A person doesn't have to be called rude or bad only if they have problems with one or a few people that they had some argument or fight with in the past. If you are giving another user obnoxiousness makes them have a negative value, the person might not be a bad person to me but now he would look like one to anyone who sees their profile.

Even if you propose that there should also be a way for people to give them positive points to reduce their negative obnoxiousness level, it will still not stop the unfair usage of the system, in my opinion.

What we are doing is trying to introduce a third rank in the forum:

• merit system: effort put in post writing
• trust system: credit worthiness when dealing
• obnoxiousness: un-popularity contest

If I am not wrong:

• The first system would be the only one not allowing for negative vote.
• The second system would allow negative votes, yet not weighted.
• The third system would low negative votes, weighted.

I know, I understood what is being proposed, but you probably didn't get my point. Let me explain.

Let's take yourself and me as User A and User B respectively in this example. So you and I had some argument in the past, and since then maybe you dislike me for whatever reason best known to you based on the argument we had. However, I'm not an obnoxious, rude, or bad forum member in general. When such a system is implemented, you decide to give me "obnoxiousness" points based on what happened in the past. So, this happens:

User A (You) who has 0 obnoxiousness and more than 1000 Merits gives User B (Me) obnoxiousness.

My "obnoxiousness" rank gets to -3 because you have 0 obnoxiousness yourself which gives the person -3 points when you give them obnoxiousness and it is multiplied by 1 since you have more than 1000 merits. This is based on the explanation from @apogio above.

Now, if a new user looks at my profile, does some research to find out what "obnoxiousness" is for, and finds out it means the user is rude or bad, he would have that image of me. Does that sound or seem fair at all? I don't think so, because, even if we had problems, I'm not a rude forum member or a bad person in general.

Besides, some might even do it out of jealousy or other emotions without even having any personal grudges or a history of arguments, etc.

As User A, I will have a counter under my name like so:

obnoxiousness: -7.5 (9)

the number in () will portray the number of users who have given user A an obnoxiousness feedback.

1. The larger the number, the more serious the accusations are.
2. The final obnoxiousness level can scale more rapidly if the number in () is larger, or more slowly if it's smaller. Thus, the number in () can be a multiplier as well.

I understand.
If you get a bad vote for obnoxiousness, I guess there isn't too much to do about that, but to expect that if this vote is not justified sooner or later this will be offset but contrarian votes, weighted or not.

Yeah, I can already imagine the amount of minus obnoxiousness points some people are going to have based on their history in the forum and personal problems with other users.  ::)


If such a system is implemented, there has to be a way to counter the problem I have stated above. I would never want my profile to get painted with negative obnoxiousness only because I had a heated argument with a high-ranked member because he didn't agree or like my point of view on a certain matter, nor would I want to have such results for trying to expose a high-ranked member for either breaking a rule, being involved in something suspicious, or doing something such as posting AI-generated content, etc. Even if the account is bought, it will still be able to ruin my profile based on the system and the rules we have discussed so far.

even just a obnoxious meter is just another core overlord way to recruit cult ass kissers and make people fear scrutinising devs, out of fear of being de-merited/stabbed for saying something against a ill intention dev..

if a core god overlord cant handle the heat maybe he shouldnt be cooking

devs should expect criticism and scrutiny, not look for ways to remove it or stab people for speaking up

we all know what gmax would really want is a ham radio squelch dial where he as mod can make people he doesnt like into white noise and stop it..

I got my account suspended for merely insinuating that I would punch someone in the mouth for lying if I saw them. It seems this forum’s stance on people getting what they deserve is anti and there is a zero percent chance something like stabbing would be implemented.

As always though, let me be the one to say that this forum doesn’t need more ways to express negativity. If anything, we need to find ways to bring more positivity to this forum.

It will drive a lot of people away from the forum and make people think that the mods are pro-censorship.

they are pro-censorship, both personally and professionally..
and its not just their ego, its their agenda.. its why they fight so hard to be and remain as mods, they want to control the narrative and suppress any critique that goes against their corporate manifesto/roadmap

I’m not a fan of Franky; however, I find him quite interesting at times, despite his confrontational behavior. For someone in your position, it’s pretty normal to encounter people like Franky both online and in real life, you are going to have to stab a lot of people!

That said, the points Franky raises here are also discussed elsewhere where they are not being challenged, so I prefer to have them discussed here than elsewhere,  I personally believe everyone has the right to express themselves freely without losing merit or getting negative feedback.

Please think about those who could be hurt more by this system if implemented. The system will favor those who are DT 1 or DT2 members. Imagine an argument between DT members if member A gives member B a negative obnoxiousness user B could give back and if inturn it exceeds that the trust system gets into use. They can both tag each other with their trust meter. But in a case where a member does not have any DT power he might be the one who loses at the end.

The trust system, merit system, and suggested obnoxiousness shouldn't be for fights in the forum. Its expected to be served with good reasons and not a personal conflict between two members.

i usually highlight issues initially without provocation, but when certain entities start trying to act a certain way, my intensity raises and when they get ignorant, abusive or just pander to their dev-god out of loyalty.. i dont back away. i dont fear idiots or those with agenda's.. if they have ego problems and just want obedience, then they have to learn how the real world works, its not my job to spoon feed them like a caring parent

if you want to avoid my harsh but needed pointing out of issues. simply think about what you are going to say and not just act like a sheep reading a script that sounds like it has some agenda behind it that does not help bitcoin(EG defending core devs even when said dev introduce issues into bitcoin code)

admittedly im not a boyscout/choirboy that uses pleasantries to garner fans of sheepish loyalty into a social cult of obedience..
im not here to make friends. im here to highlight issues that matter. .. because they actually matter
im not afraid to call people out, i dont need to play nice and cower to the governance of bitcoin authority(dev gods)

those that want to treat this forum as their social club of cabin fever obedience and entice their fans to ignore the things that matter, should never be the ones given a knife to stab people

..
freedom of speech exists to allow debate, review, scrutiny, critique between people to allow issues to be resolved/fixed.. however when we have dev-gods of authority with moderation power trying to hide/delete or avoid conversations of issues. ban any subjective discussions of issues and then want to threaten users with being stabbed.. that becomes an obvious problem where maybe its time the moderator steps down instead of escalating their ego trip

I guess that’s why not everyone is weapons qualified!
That piece of metal gives you so much guts you would want to blaze it at any disgust in an attempt to show respect and simply that you can.
We don’t need any such technology in our world and certainly not on the forum.

The silent treat has been some of the means to put certain cases to sleep, it works like a good KO. Can’t say the feeling of a good old stab isn’t something but, really, don’t scar no man like that, we don’t need many grumpy faces around our world.