Bitcoin Forum

Trust system, feedback and merit...
none of them are used properly because they are all subjective
I think rank jumping with the time spent in the forum (activity) was a fairer system.

people spend time with these vacant jobs
instead of discussing projects and the market
for what!
nothingness

To be fair, paid signatures are even worse because these things are acting as a ground for the persistent corruption.
People are free to wear any signature of their choice, of course, but this action must lead to restriction of their electoral rights. Just like we have similar restrictions for those who are holding various positions in the public offices. For example, you can't be allowed to receive funds from the foreign power while working for the court. That would be simply a crazy loophole for corruption and fatal risk for integrity of the state. DT1 is actually no different from the MPs, judges or court officers in that term.

However, there is seemingly no way to deal with this issue, unfortunately.

That's no minor change. New signature campaigns are made every now and then and it would be almost impossible to automate looking for the signature markup on some user's profile because there's no database of them all.

That being said I don't have a grudge against people wearing sig ads. I don't get your reasoning behind this either.

You can start by not including such users in your own trust list.


DT1 is not a paid position. It's more like a town council or a school board - not a full-time position and members typically have day jobs. If you have specific examples of how signature campaigns corrupt DT members you should probably bring it up.

In my opinion, the whole point of the suggestion doesn't make much sense.
While politicians are determining the laws for companies and dividing interests from politicians and companies makes sense, the forum (or especially DT) doesn't make any laws how (for example) casinos have to operate. I don't know how you are going to compare that, just doesn't make sense to me. DT doesn't have any influence how companies advertising here have to do their business while politicians ofc do.

Where is corruption? Is DT making laws for companies advertising here? Determining tax rates etc.?

Significant grop of them essentially does. De jure, each DT member has unlimited degree of autonomy and permitted to do whatever he wants. However, de facto there is a system of precedents which is enforced by trolling the "inappropriate" individuals as well as using other shady practices against them. That is corruption as is.

There is no way to verify that itn't so. So, the only way to guarantee absence of any kind of pressure is to isolate all paid signature wearers from the decision making process.
Trust, but verify. Remove the conflict of interests and you won't need to puzzle yourself with a question how to settle it.

Nothing personal, just logic as is. Occam's razor is your friend.

Wouldn't be hard at all for BPIP or LoyceV to scrape signatures when they scrape the profile.  Duplicate signatures can be detected instantly.

Or, Theymos could create a database of paid signatures, and you'd have to select one if you wanted a sig.   How many people notice signatures anyway?

Meant this to be a 5 merit transaction but enjoy the 25 fatfinger.

Is this because nobody wants to hire the Turkish monkeys into campaigns? :D

I don't think this is something to implement on DT1 selection since signature campaign isn't directly related with forum administrators. The simple solution is as @suchmoon said simply ~distrust the user who wear paid signature. If in case implement your expected points then most likely maximum DT1 will be red tagged users. Its because most of campaign manager doesn't accept red tagged users.

😂😂😂

Why? Can you support your claim by evidence?
I can present a counter argument: users with negative feedback are often not allowed to join a signature campaign, and your proposal would increase their chances to reach DT1, which means they can influence their own negative feedback.

You're suggesting to reduce Bitcointalk's freedom, while this forum aims to be as free as possible.

I would flip the script and say that you shouldn't have voting power unless you are being paid to wear a signature.

I don't understand why you insult us.Harming people causes deep wounds in the soul of the person performing this act.You're a pretty old member.I love and respect you.

OP had a crazy idea in mind and you came up with a better one so far. :-P
These dramas are more enjoyable when it's in reputation board :-D

What are you doing about the abusers from your section? Have you excluded them? Have you called them out and called on others to exclude them? If you are not doing anything, you are essentially a passive accomplice and you can not reasonably expect any better treatment than this. Fair, innit? The remark does not reflect on every Turkish member anyway.

OP has a point. After all, money is the root to all evil.

/s

Minor change   ::)
Is this topic created because OP got several negative feedback from some DT members so he wants to make revenge to all DT members?

Forum war games continue...

It's kinda funny: peloso just excluded me out of retaliation. There can't be any other reason to do so, and it's the same thing wolwoo did a while back. I believe anyone who uses the Trust system for retaliation shouldn't be anywhere near DT. It's such a childish thing to do.

Lauda puts it a bit harsh, but I've noticed the "Turkish clique" for a while now. Nationalisme doesn't really work on a global forum, and it seems to be stronger amongst the Turkish locals than any other nationality I've seen on Bitcointalk. You're using the word "us" when referring to Turkish people. I would never use the word "us" to refer to Dutch people. Nobody cares about your nationality, unless you make it about nationality by yourself.

I can think of many things why some members should be excluded from DT system, and signatures is not one of this things.
Retaliation, bribery and merit abuse is.

If so, 100%, chipMixer sig members are DT, Staff and almost all are useful and best for the Bitcointalk Forum community.

OP if they are not in DT and don't care what happens to this forum community, the damage is placed like you are in the DT position, don't know what will happen, spiteful, revenge. will happen every day here.

Sig is not a problem that needs to be debated, this forum must have DT (Destructive) testing using allows for local and global communities with pressure, want to damage the Bitcointalk forum because greedy humans, swindlers, liars, etc. directly to the brain of the instrument to eradicate the destroyer.
DT cannot be associated with Signature, must be separated, there is no relation between DT and signature.
If you understand the meaning of freedom that's what happens in this internet world.

I think Occam would disagree. You're hypothesizing that there is corruption in DT and you're making a fairly complicated set of assumptions that signature campaigns have something to do with it (without providing any specific path of how that would happen, let alone examples). Occam's razor would be picking the simplest possible assumption, which I think would be that if someone wants to corrupt/bribe/etc a DT member they can do so regardless of them being in a signature campaign.

Just some thoughts ...
Those who cannot wear paid signatures, because are tagged for different things are suggesting that those wearing signatures to be removed from the DT. Wow
Why not remove the DT lottery and let theymos to decide who will be DT or not like it was before.

I hate politics, especially in the forum, here everything is much more subjective, as you deal with just anonymous usernames, not real people.

Just another proof that there is no system that can please everyone, there always will be fights, drama, plots, extortionist, doxing, etc. Distracting the people from the main purpose of the forum.. :(

Several people have asked theymos to be excluded from DT1 elections because they're sick of the drama. How about we put them and only them on DT1?

yes put lauda to dt1 its amazing idea  :D

That's a bunch of BS, just like OP's proposal.  There are plenty of honorable members of bitcointalk who are in sig campaigns and don't abuse the privilege.  

Mostly it's the members who've come to the forum specifically to earn money through bounties and/or sig campaigns that end up being the corrupted ones (though there have been exceptions to that, of course).  

And as most members are wearing paid signatures, I'm not sure how you'd put together a DT list that wouldn't be laughable on its face.

Oh yeah, by far.

The alleviation of this problem is very simple, but we hesitate because we want to pretend that extensive liberties on this forum are the better option. Guess what? They are not, regardless of how long theymos wants to pretend that they are. The bad people will always outnumber the good people. It requires very extensive effort of the later so that the former do not prevail.

Their behaviour is very weird.

My remarks are always about the gang, yet this happens more often than not.

More interesting point is why are the signature campaigns taking trust ratings so seriously, no one else is...

It's been demonstrated time and again that the Trust system is being manipulated in favor of nepotist gangs who make their living on this forum.

If the signature campaigns were themselves not part of the conspiracy, no one in his right mind, outside of the psychotic gang members terrorizing this forum who have caused its hits and engagement to take a nosedive in recent years, would even spend a split second debating the bullshit that is the Default Trust system...

Most people would beat the crap out of character assassinating hateful criminals like ~lauda and ~jollygood in real life on sight, and yet there is a visible effort by even otherwise respectable veteran forum members here to keep these losers (and their numerous alt / sockpuppet accounts) as part of the system so they can be used as a tool of controlling who gets into well paying signature campaigns...

@theymos needs to step in and divorce the signature campaign monopoly from the hands of nepotist gang members, otherwise only 15-20 mediocre people (with no qualifications other than bitcointalk cult membership) who get gratuitously paid on this forum will remain, and this place will start resembling a retirement home...

The advantage of paying people from the 3rd world is the fact that you can attract really high quality talent to a forum with modest amounts because 1000 USD / month means a lot in many developing countries, whereas people with advanced degrees in the developed world wouldn't even agree to be seen in the same room with the likes of petty terrorists like ~lauda and ~jollygood, even if you offer them double or triple that amount...

Can you provide some examples?

---

Nop, it is pretty much because OP's attempt to manipulate (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg54369475#msg54369475) DT fail.

Lauda left him negative feedback on 2020-03-30
That is what I mean.
And not just Lauda, others also.

yes i can but i ll nothing provide you thus you stupid liar


lauda always manipulates trust system and abused but this morons not see that
you can follow reference (http://archive.md/wip/iuO2I) that i tagged lauda
they attack all peoples that support me

Ok.

Post some examples.

Except when "people from the 3rd world" start treating bounties as "jobs" and spam the shit out of the forum for pennies. A signature campaign is not job. This is a discussion forum. It doesn't need to bend the signature campaigns to your liking, in fact it doesn't need signature campaigns at all.

I'm a little curious about this topic, even though I'm not in the placement of DT1 there are interesting things to answer, what exactly is DT1 and how can I place it in the DT1 group.

DT1 members are human beings who need to eat and drink, of course they have to work, not just rely on the position of DT1, they can be scolded by their wives and children at home, if asked at home what is the father's position in the Bitcointalk Forum, DT1 yes, Then did you get something there or just the position of DT1. What your answer.

For that it is necessary to know DT1 is responsible for the Forum in helping Admin in all fields, Admin can not work without the support of DT1 or DT2 and DT3.

Back to the problem, at the Bitcointalk Forum all know the signatures are paid by the companies that advertise them, not only the DT1 position can be promoted, other members can also, DT1 and DT2 I think that should be prioritized because it helps the forum to get ahead and get rid of pests.

If the signature must be questioned in the selection of DT1, you are wrong, and if DT1 must match everyone don't use your signature wrong, the selection of DT1 is very professional in complete testing of the eligibility of a person to become DT1, not because of a signature.

The selection of DT1 in my opinion should be based on the background of each member.
First: look for data on the perpetrators of crime in the forum for the security of each member who is a victim of fraud.
Second: do and place trust that is consistent and appropriate for members of the Forum destroyer.
Three: able to collect the requested data in accordance with the case being run in the forum.
Fourth: provide accurate data that has been obtained for the benefit of members and the forum.
Five: take one appropriate action based on the rules given by the Forum Admin.

On this basis the members are selected and eligible to be DT1.

I wish you said a couple to those who were irrelevant insults in the middle of the debate :-*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzYS5Od0psM

Respect for people who write for free
I wonder how many people remain in the forum if they are prohibited from wearing signatures?

The suggestion will be very unpopular. In this thread there are numerous DT members that are wearing the signatures.
I can see where wearing a signature could create a conflict of interest.
A need to earn from a signature could be an avenue to exploit.
It does not automatically make them untrustworthy but I see your concern.