Bitcoin Forum

Have the rules of the forum changed? Is it now possible to red tag someone based on personal assumptions and using invalid references?

Is it possible that our feedback pages have devolved into notebad or Todo lists, where you type anything before looking for evidence?

I've never used AI in any of my posts, and there's no proof that I ever did.

If my post irritates you, please report it to the moderator or ignore my profile. Do not red tag me and make me look like a criminal simply because you disagree with what I posted or how I posted.

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/01/12/3Ro9l.jpeg  


Serious allegations without a single proof is abuse of the DT system. I've provided you with enough informations and yet your red is still on your profile. What else do you want ?

Cc theymos, Cyrus, JollyGood

I think you should move this thread to the Reputation section (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0), and maybe you should have mentioned other DT members rather than mentioning theymos. He probably would not engage in this sort of discussion.

It has a lot to do with the entire forum not just an individual, I copied the two forum administrators + JollyGood. Maybe there are changes to the rules we don't know yet.

This thread could benefit us all.

Since DT system is not moderated, you can tag anyone you want for absolutely anything, but if you do it you risk ending on distrust list.


That's just what JollyGood does sometimes.


I am not an expert on AI posts, but seems to me like the post in question for which you got tagged would be way more coherent if it was indeed written by AI and to me it looks more like a standard shitpost.

It looks like your post has been considered to use AI, you can see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224503.msg63382470#msg63382470

I don't think the DT system has changed and as rikafip said, the DT system is not moderated. If you feel the allegations against you are false then you can open a thread on the reputation board. I think you are wasting time if you post on this board and question to theymos.

However, because you will be dealing with JG, in my opinion it is not easy because other DT usually only give neutral tag to AI posts. But there's no harm in trying and good luck  ;)

Whether a member is using AI, or garbage posting is a matter of forum policies and has nothing to do with DT, and seeing JG misusing the trust feedback for many times without anyone doing anything about it, just shows how level headed his peers are for including him on their lists.

Here is the result of the said AI post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5480825.20

He hasn't responded to any of the related thread in reputation board. Assume he has nothing to say.

There have not been any changes to the DT system, people can basically tag anyone for whatever reason. Although I do not necessarily agree with the feedback that JollyGood left you, he has been leaving this kind of feedback on accounts for a while now, so why don't you try messaging him?

I've left him multiple messages, no response. At this point I'm scared he might start reporting my messages to get me banned. I've been trying to sort it out with him on a mutual ground but no way.

Why, are you expecting that shitposting is now allowed?

You may not deserve the red tag but you deserve a ban for being a useless illiterate shitposter. So keep pinging admins until you get that.

To be fair, he isn't the first or only DT member to have a bunch of controversy swirling around him--or even the most controversy if I recall correctly. 

OP, the trust system (as it has evolved over the span of bitcointalk's existence) is pretty damn broken IMO, and I've been saying that for years.  In fact, I think it's broken for the main reason you mentioned, i.e., that anyone can leave any feedback for any member for any reason.  That's just setting up a system of trust for failure, no?  And if the default trust list isn't regulated properly, well....see how many threads there have been about JollyGood?  A lot of his feedbacks are valid, but he's strayed off-course so many times that at this point he probably feels like his position on the list is secured for life.

You have the right to your opinion. If you don't agree with what I write, add me to your ignore list or, better yet, use the report option. Don't use my feedback page as a notepad, and if you don't see anything wrong with JollyGood's decision, you're contributing to the DT problem. You go online and call a random stranger useless? Is everything all right at home?

JollyGood should get a notepad or better still use appropriate references to back his decisions.

You just have to get over it unfortunately.  The current state of DT is an absolute mess...  Look at my trust for example, I've never done anything even remotely shady, have safeguarded nearly 20,000 BTC in trades here, donated to the forum, donated to Bitcoin causes, safeguarded 500 BTC for the forum, spent 10 years donating to community projects to be distributed to members, and have created countless trusted products for users here.  Still, I have negative trust because DT has turned into a circle jerk of autists who are obsessed with gaining trust here not through value they provide, but by teaming up to blackball members who hurt their feelings or see things different politically.  It's an absolute failure and I hope one day it gets the attention it deserves, rather than laziness being disguised as freedom of speech. 

The DT system is too sensitive to be in the hands of sadists at this stage, and it need immediate intervention.  The forum is not yet ready for decentralized system. At this point, the DT system needs to be moderated.

It only takes a few seconds to revise/delete feedback, thus I'm not sure why JollyGood has yet to reconsider as he stated in his feedback.

It's like those contests, where the public votes for whoever wins. I always say... usually the one with the most friends wins.  
And this is noticeable, because often the person who wins is not the one who actually demonstrated the best quality of talent.
But maybe the problem is me.  :-X


EDIT: Either way, I think the DT system is very interesting and useful for the forum. Some end up not knowing how to use the tools they have at their disposal appropriately. But, anyway, I think it will be difficult to change. We have to learn to deal with it.

Nice strawman.

It's not a matter of me agreeing or liking your posts, it's you posting vague useless garbage. Here are some examples, starting with the deleted one that earned you that trust rating. Your post history is full of these similarly sized paragraphs of utter shit.

But sure, I'm the DT problem even though I don't even have JG in my trust list. You're dumber than I thought and it was a very low bar to begin with.

Stay on topic, suchmoon, or go elsewhere. We're talking about inadequate left feedback here, and your comments are irrelevant/unhelpful. Something is wrong yet you can't say it.

Everyone who knows how to use the DT system is against JollyGood's feedback on my profile, but he doesn't care or respect anyone's judgment. I cannot comprehend why he has a personal issue with me; he doesn't even know who I am. Total strangers

I think JollyGood is following Lauda's footsteps. I have been watching his feedback for a while, and he indeed does a great job in tagging scammers. However, he has become pretty heavy-handed, and his use of the trust system goes against what I believe should be. Thus, I had to sadly exclude him from my trust list.

I don't necessarily think he is not fit for DT; I just think I would rather let five scammers slip than be unfair to a single innocent person. I also disagree with how some DT members use the trust system to enforce the forum rules, or even worse, their own rules for posting criteria, political agenda, and I think many DT members agree with this but are just selfish. As long as it doesn't affect them, they remain in their DT seat and don't personally dislike the person; they would just let it be. Maybe some would say something politically nice like "I don't agree with the tag, but I understand why" and move on with their lives.

I hope JollyGood starts rethinking such feedback and focuses only on tagging users who are either proven scammers or very likely to be scammers with somewhat valid evidence at hand.

There's a small core group - (a sub set really) of thin skinned DT Trolls whose only weapons are to employ Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt (FUD) to, one-by-one, pick off anyone that even remotely has a differing option to their own.

They will create flags with little or no substance, give other users negative trust feedback and place negative DT trust telling others that it is your OPINION as to whether or not you trust the other person's trust feedback - then collectively Tilda a user who airs anything that they see is contrary.

Until the mixers were banned from this forum, they spent all day posting such nonsense for the pennies gained from mixer campaigns.

Now they are rudderless and lashinging out at yet more people.

If you want to push back, objectively best them at their own GAME (I emphasise game, because that is all they see it is as a game) - they even maintain a high score site of which I'm ~29 to ~-32 at the moment)

It's just a number.

I can say it and I'm saying it. You're what's wrong. Doesn't make JG right but JG's feedback doesn't make you right either. Ideally JG should be out of DT and you should be banned.

You're the one who started a thread about forum rules. DT feedback is not subject to forum rules. You're the one breaking the rules.

Not (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.msg56605068#msg56605068), really (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5330546.msg56800039#msg56800039)

I have ibweiner ignored, but I assume he posted something about his trust abuse as well.  That idiot gave me negative trust for quoting a return in USD, when literally every single legitimate entity in the world, including the government, only cares about the USD return %.  His denial to accept this isn't based in reality and if this trust logic was applied equally, literally everyone in the speculation section of the forum or anyone who has ever priced anything in dollars here should have red trust.  This is the type of mentally deficient idiot that belongs nowhere near DT...  Yet he's one of the morons along with suchfail (another good ignore) who are running a website all about user stats here while trying to manipulate the trust network.

It's nice to see so many others begin to recognize what a shit show DT turned out to be without guidance.  A failed experiment at this point.

Hopefully the unfair red reputation gets removed. I believe you that you haven't posted any AI spam. I've seen JollyGood respond to other threads as well even after, but seemingly ignores you after days of this same thing going on. I heard one bad reputation from DT1 means your account is partially fucked so that really does suck. IMO he doesn't deserve to be taken away from DT1 but he should definitely be more careful with something like this before giving out a red tag.

Clever.  :D

I'd guess another lie... or is it telepathy? :P
Yep, I could have been posting about anything related to the OP and trust, but he just assumed I quoted him regarding his accurate feedback. smh.

The rest of his post isn't accurate and doesn't seem worth my time.

Except for the bolded part, you're correct. Don't judge based on sentiments, but on facts; now you understand why the moderators were carefully picked, and you aren't one of them. Anyway, thank you for your comments.

Except for mine, he's been responding to posts on reputation and Meta. He has nothing against me and still clings to his errors. With this attitude, he'll only lose more DT votes.

I am using facts. I quoted four of those facts (out of dozens if not hundreds in your post history) earlier in this thread. You're a shitposter. But you managed to find a loophole by expanding a typical one-line shitpost into a whole paragraph. This seems to make moderators not want to read much of that shit and you get a pass. It's cringy how your pea brain made that into some sort of high ground that allows you to bitch about other users breaking the rules even though that didn't even happen (again, trust ratings are not subject to forum rules).

I mean... what the fuck are you even trying to say here? I think a "good project" one-liner would have more meaning than this word salad:

I wouldn't be so sure. 🤫

---

Since the consensus around here is that trust feedback could be used for any or not any reasons at all, then why not we tag everyone we don't like? Oh wait, they are already doing that, next step would be to tag anyone when we report their posts after seeing mods taking no action on our reports?

---

Ps, women after 50 get a bit grumpy, better to ignore them. 😉

JollyGood has been controversial for the last few years now. I kind of wish he would go back to scam investigations & get away from piling on defenseless accounts that may have f'ed up one one way or another so nobody is likely to step up and voice support for them.

OP's question was already answered in the 1st reply or two so no point in clarifying that -- administration will not step in unless there is blatant, coordinated abuse of the trust system taking place. As far as this particular matter is concerned, the trust system is still functioning as intended.


Is moving down from 0 to -13 on this list part of the game?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

When I registered on the forum in 2017 I remember there was a lot of problem with one-liner spam. The merit system was introduced after a while and it helped to reduce spam but not eliminate it. The remaining spammers on the forum learned that if they stretch their rubbish the posts are much less likely to be deleted by the moderators. So it doesn't surprise me that the quotes you post from the OP are mostly from the gambling section. You see a lot of it there. People writing 2 or 3 long paragraphs like: 'Gambling can be good and can be bad, because you can sometimes lose and sometimes win but when you win is good because enjoy the money but when you lose is bad because you feel sad...' Rubbish like that.

You don't know Jolly Good very well. He knows how to observe, and that is why he leaves such long notes. Remember, weren’t you the one who appeared on the forum after a three-year hibernation to help another account remove the negative tag left by JollyGood? You have been very fiercely protective and even brash, saying that you don't like people or even hate people.



https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/01/13/3zMso.png
Today you do not agree with his decision?

But the account you are protecting was also not accidentally noticed. Today he is a successful signer, but in the past, his Bitcoin transactions showed links to alternate accounts that were caught cheating. Everything is not accidental; you agree?


https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/32e41e41341dc69a0451b3836c999936fe67816ba2c884db9858eddbae695cfb

https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=1JKrdC5VHi4hjGN8vuUz1DL1moqRn7iX7H
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg55248573#msg55248573

Just like today, they call you a person who writes crap.

I think JollyGood carefully reviews your account before responding, and the way you showed up will work against you.


Here you are also disingenuous, you were a lawyer, and not much time has passed to forget :)

I'm not sure I ever agreed with his decision; I remember fighting against JollyGood in 2021 for the inappropriate red he left on two accounts - a scenario in which he had no choice but to fix it. This is a revenge tag, it's starting to make sense.

I've advised him not to use the DT system to fight his battle; he's creating a huge mess of things. I realized it was a revenge tag the day he informed me it would take him 12 months to revisit my trust page (Jan 2023), and Jan 2024 was exactly 12 months. He added red with the smallest piece of information he had on me that I used AI in one of my posts, which was a lie.

Edited dates

The moderators see it the other way. This is what matters.

If you steal a chicken and the owner doesn't complain or cops don't catch you, that doesn't make you not a criminal. Anyone can see the type of "content" you're pooping out here, regardless of what moderators do or don't do. And shockingly that still matters to some people on this forum.

I think there's quite a few who use the DT system incorrectly, likely including myself at times. Some use feedback as a notepad, some use it as a weapon, some use it to control, and some use it only for trades. A decent number of the people on DT have no idea how to use it and there's also a few that look to join ranks(DT gang) and use the system in a corrupt way(I have no proof per say, just my feeling on a few members).

I think we give too much respect to scam busters and people who find alts in the past. Most of the time they did a good job, but over time the quality of their tags went downhill. I'm talking overall, not just any one specific user.

Without a reputation system many started tagging scammers, spammers, and account sellers making lines become blurred. Honestly, if users are engaging in what some consider "shady" activities, they prob aren't really to be trusted in a trade. Is the system perfect, no but it's what we have.

If you have a suggestion of how to make the system better, by all means share it with us.

Centralize the system and let the admin moderate it. It's obvious we're not ready for Decentralization just yet.

Can I laugh at your idea? The DT system has long been decentralized and not moderated, there are indeed some things that are not right but everything is still fine. Is it because you got a red tag that trust system suddenly needs to change? I think the admin is already busy enough with reports of spam, plagiarism and AI content. As far as I know, there are not many admins either

That's like... moving backward in evolution. And if we amuse this idea for a second, let's assume theymos revert to the old DT system, and then one of the DT tagged you for this same situation or whatever reason you or someone else think is not justified, I can already hear them screaming, "decentralize the DT system, let the community choose who they trust to be in DT. Why should it be decided by a limited group of moderators?"

You guys are lucky I could take a snapshot from admin after hearing the suggestion, I just saw him moving very fast! 😂😂

I think at this point purging the default trust list for a few months to "see" how things would play out is not a bad idea.

Why was the trust system initially implemented? Its primary purpose was to enhance the safety of trading on the forum. Now, let's consider the percentage of forum members utilizing the platform for trading – around 5%?. In essence, we are subjecting the remaining 95% to potential harassment by some DT members merely to safeguard this small fraction of the forum population. Keep in mind that a significant portion of this 5% (myself included) may not trust the default trust list and often opt for escrow in their trades. When factoring in these considerations, the conclusion is apparent – we are safeguarding a very small group at the expense of many other innocent users, not to mention the forum database inundated with redundant feedback and numerous topics discussing a single feedback.

Theymos probably wanted everyone to participate in the trust system, but that obviously didn't happen and will never happen, we literally have some DT members who blackmail other users for the removal of certain feedback.

Common sense dictates that if you wish to engage in trading, you should put in effort in selecting members whose judgment aligns with your own. If trading isn't your focus, the entire trust system becomes irrelevant. Therefore, providing the community with the option to use or not use the trust system would be a good experiment IMO. This way, nobody would have the right to complain about any feedback since each individual's feedback would hold precisely the value assigned by that particular person.


That is indeed a fantastic idea, and it would certainly be effective if Theymos had a superhuman ability with a 100% success rate. Unfortunately, he does not possess such capabilities, so the idea won't work.


You don't understand what decentralization means. Imagine a scenario where your household spending is centralized—in other words, your father receives all the money and then distributes it among all the family members as they see fit (centralized). Now, contrast that with a decentralized system where the person who receives the most votes manages the family spending, and it so happens that your little brother wins (because he is good at persuading and managed to persuade your other siblings). Do you think he'd be fairer to you than your centralized father? :D

It's like people confusing democracy with fairness. Fairness would involve allowing your broke ass to run for president with the same chances and exposure as the current president. Democracy means your broke ass decides to vote for this powerful person or the next one. It's very easy to confuse reality with terms.

The DT system is indeed decentralized, but decentralization has nothing to do with fairness. What you want is a fair system, whether it's centralized or decentralized makes no difference.

The DT system was already centralized a few years ago, theymos acknowledged this in his post here:


Theymos can moderate the DT system even now. If you think someone is abusing the DT system, you can PM him. I don't know how he will react to such a message or if he will react at all, but you, as well as any other forum user, have this option.

So we've been protesting to the wrong people and on the wrong board (reputation), while Theymos is only a few seconds away to edits/modifies in less than 24 hours. For a long time, this is how the DT should have been.

@mikeywith You wrote beautifully; I wish I had some Smerits, but I'll bookmark your post and return when I do. Excellent points.

For a long time, that's how it was -- including the first 15 months of your account's existence.

The whole point of changing it was so theymos wouldn't have to deal with it personally (not nearly as much, anyway). He doesn't want to deal with it, so he put it in the hands of the forum members.

It's a (largely) self-regulating body - a unique form of democracy - and there isn't much out there to compare it to. In my experience, its working as intended. Theymos certainly isn't going to meddle with it because of your issue with JollyGood. Feel free to PM him if you want, though I wouldn't expect a reply.

The problem with theymos being able to moderate the DT system is that he doesn’t. I’ve seen him make empty threats to people and when they spit in his face he just takes it and moves on. When the only action is empty threats that never get followed up on, he’s basically a useless observer of the system when it comes down to it.

OG, once Theymos and you are removed, the DT system will work as intended.  It's at the state it is in now because Theymos has gone through extraordinary measures to keep you in DT.  

I'll be launching my (non-PII) website https://nastyscam.com in February, based on all the posts I have collected from those two.   We will be able to debunk OG as honest very easily.  


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5474002.msg63511112#msg63511112

Theymos will probably wait until OG kills someone.  :/

You're right, the Reputation section is the best fit for it, this place is not so bad though. But I think that mentioning theymos is good because even though he might not do anything now, but it's still a means for him to know what is going on in the forum. It may be soon or later that something is changed about it or another tough rule is spelt out or the misusers are excluded.

Really, the DT of a thing is intoxicating many, they just jump to conclusions, and at times, I get annoyed with the red tag of some people I read as it lacks merits to have been tagged. Human beings often misuse opportunities, unless you make them accountable for them, or else they will continue to do anyhow.

This is what I love about Theymos. Once he establishes the rules, he abides by them. He's like the guy who brings the football to the street game but doesn't insist on being the team captain; he plays just like everyone else. I still remember his "clash" with Lauda and how they both utilized the exact same tools to battle each other -- lobbying and persuading other DT members to exclude the other person (anyone who was a DT member at that time probably still has those PMs).

Theymos could have easily wiped Lauda's forum history in 5 seconds, but he chose to use only the tools Lauda had access to as well. Can you find a better or fairer administrator? Probably not.

The issue here, however, is this:


I disagree, however, that the system is working as intended. It's evident that he expected too much from the community -- a system where the majority of members would participate, and thus the end result of the DT status would reflect what the majority of people want. However, after all these years, it seems like only 1% of the forum members participated in the system. This resulted in a small minority of people obtaining the DT status, turning it into more of a privilege than a responsibility. It's the "cool guys club." Eventually, some people started abusing it, and because only that small minority of people engage in the voting, it became close to impossible to stop anyone from abusing the system. Hence, we have all these complaints. Of course, I wouldn't say it's completely useless, the trust system itself is a great tool. I just think the DT list shouldn't be there, and everyone must create their own list.

Obviously, Theymos doesn't think that the current level of abuse is significant enough for him to change the rules. But eventually, as more people start complaining about the unjust use of the trust system, he will likely come up with a different plan, or at least, that's what he usually does, fix things.

Anyone (aside from those too new to qualify) can participate in the system. The majority of people who care about DT are indeed participating. Those that don't care, don't participate. There will always be people who don't vote and then complain about the outcome of an election, and that has never made sense.


Only 1% of forum members are active on a monthly basis (probably much less TBH).


For most of your time on the forum, you've only known the new system. You don't have a sufficient frame of reference to understand that things are actually much better now than they used to be.

Regardless, the "new" trust system didn't really start to come into its own until after Lauda was finally voted off DT. After that happened, it became apparent more than ever that the new trust system was "working" and better than the old. But if you don't participate in it, your complaints won't be taken seriously.


But they won't, because things aren't actually that bad, and nobody will offer a better solution that the majority can agree upon.

It is only because the current system indeed works that borovichok (OP) got his negative trust removed and is once again freely spamming shitposts contributing to the forum.

Those who are breaking the system always look for anything to back it up, even if it is clear that the system is completely broken. theymos is wandering around the forum with an incorrect red tag simply because someone disagreed with him. theymos is not stupid he knows that the system is broken and he must be working on something, might take some time to implement but it will happen.

Yes, I had my red removed for speaking out (it wasn't intended to be there in the first place if the system was working properly), and I was right; however, what about hundreds of others who are unable to speak up against theirs?

Cool boys left inappropriate tag => the powerless cries for help=> cool boys removes inappropriate tag. Rinse and repeat. A show of power.

Come to the meta to say someone got his tag removed so the system is perfectly working. Bra bra...

I was here before the new trust system was introduced, but true, not for too long. However, I witnessed the current trust system long enough to see how it isn't working as intended. There is a distinct difference between "working" and "working as intended," and I explicitly stated that I disagree with "working as intended."

Reading various comments and posts from Theymos, it's evident to me that he expected the majority of members to participate in the voting so that the default trust list would be a good representation of what the majority of members would agree on. Obviously, this isn't the case now because only a small minority of "active" members participate in the voting. What's even worse is that the vast majority of DT members prefer to walk in the shadows and not exercise their votes to exclude bad actors because they fear retaliation.


It depends on who is looking at it, to someone who had to delete a post they made in the P&S board to get a tag removed by a DT member -- it's certainly terrible (real story).


I don't think theymos takes our opinions too seriously :D. He does what he has to do even if the majority were to disagree. I think that at some point in the future, we could wake up to a new trust system. But until then, everybody's best weapon to fight abuse is to get involved in the trust system and, obviously, grow some balls.

Big point you are missing entirely are lazy sig managers causing the whole problem because borovichok shouldn't be allowed to get a pay for his spamming.

Stake is a big offender and should hire someone professional to manage sig participants.
OGNasty needs to be kicked out, too.

I agree with this!!  So many people have responded to me that while they do not trust certain people (like OgNasty), they cannot leave him negative feedback because he is protected.  :/

That's a good point!  When folks criticize DT system for being misused, it can be valuable to consider the context behind the critique.  As in this case.

The negative trust rating clearly sparked this debate.  But we could also argue it pushed the rabble-rouser shitposter to reform. So was applying that rating improper? I don't think so.  


I agree. Managers need to bear some of the responsibility for shitposting in their campaigns.


I have no comment on this...

Well, see, this is your opinion. Its not necessarily shared by everyone else. Of course it does not work as intended 100% of the time - rarely does anything - but I think it is largely self-correcting and for the most part manages to keep out bad actors (again, not with 100% success). I haven't actually seen any serious complaints that could be resolved by an actionable solution, other than theymos intervening to resolve somebody's individual problem, which he's not going to do.


That's not necessarily true. What statistics are you using to back this up?


This part I agree with 100%.

---

BTW I didn't actually say that Vod, that's a mikeywith quote.

Fixed, sorry.  :)

Exactly.  I also don't think that only a small minority of active users participate in the voting.

According to LoyceV's Trust List Viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0), there are over 15,000 users who have created their custom trust lists at some point, which means they're actively participating in the voting system. Some of these users are probably inactive now, or have wiped their lists in the meantime.  It would be interesting to know what percentage of active users (excluding newbies) still have custom trust lists.  LoyceV can probably give us a more accurate stats.

I'd need a list (and definition) of "active users" for that. And since many of them are bounty spammers, I don't expect the resulting percentage to be very interesting anyway.

I think you will find a lot of those 15,000 (at least a third) were farmed UID's and their accounts were being marketed as being "trustworthy" with glowing glib trust feedback and a dozen "random" users trusting them.

---

---

Especially the ones who at one time sold those farmed accounts then went on to run campaigns...

---

---

Not all is as it seems on the surface in the Forum.

I've offered a better plan, it's just that "policing" this forum gives people with a god complex a hard-on and they've spent unimaginable amounts of time manipulating the trust network to get into power.  They will not let a change go easily and since most of them utilized many alt accounts to get them where they are in the trust network, their opinion is overstated publicly here.

When theymos added flags, he added a negative to the network that wasn't countered with a positive.  Meaning you have 2 ways to damage someone's reputation, but only one way (positive trust ratings) to support.  The obvious solution is to remove negative trust ratings and let people be judged by how many people trust them, not how many trolls they've offended.  Scammers can still be labeled with trust flags and new users won't be harassed by those seeking to tag everyone they can to prove some sort of value here, chasing away users in the process and making this place an overall negative place to build on ideas.

I'm not sure why the trust system has been left fundamentally flawed for so long, or why negativity is prioritized over positivity here, but it is the result of actions taken by the administration and is 100% fixable with a simple change to level the playing field. It has been proven that DT members are unable to act responsibly as evidenced from my own trust ratings (find me someone on this forum who has demonstrated more trustworthiness than myself, spoiler alert: you can't) and it's wild to me that negativity is still coveted more than positivity right down to the trust network here, especially when it's clear that mentally ill users have found their way into DT due to malicious support from spineless members.  It trickles down, chases away talent, and darkens the atmosphere here by the day.



Oh no, airdrop guy doesn't like me.  :o :D

You can oppose flags. No such option for trust feedback. It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about but feel the need to rage against something.


I take it there also no one more modest than you. Or more capable of punching someone's teeth out.

I thought this thread deserved a bump as a result of recent events that are related to the borovichok account because his compulsive lying is almost laughable.

His chain of lies included his constant claims of not using AI or not allowing others to post in his behalf and the gutter level lying he did that resulted in him getting 95 merits in that one thread when he claimed to fundraise for a now deceased genius shows these people will stoop to any level in order to rank up their accounts by trying to get merits. At least he will be unable to repeat that lie again no matter the other accounts in his farm.

I probably ruffled a few feathers of borovichok by tagging some of his other accounts (without making a direct connection between them or even knowing he was the puppeteer controlling those accounts in the farm), therefore he was very happy after I received three trust exclusions when he started complaining but he has received two negative tags after I revised my negative tag to neutral.

While he still proclaims to be innocent, he said he has stopped using the borovichok account after the recent two negative tags he received for using AI to spam. The borovichok account has become virtually useless to him as he will be unable to enrol it on any signature campaign, competition or bounty. He probably will not waste his time using that particular account any longer.

I removed the original negative trust I placed in January 2024 on the borovichok account before the recent two negative tags were added because the understanding was that neutral tags are sufficient for AI and/or spamming (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481461.0). Until there is an update from theymos regarding members using AI to spam, I will only use neutral tags but others will approach the subject how they feel is appropriate.