Why reset the valid ratings too? Maybe it's even time to start moderating feedback, and only allow feedback that follows this: Of course, that risks moderator abuse and for sure much more drama, and there are gray areas which could be interpreted differently by different people, so it won't happen. |
|
|
|
In case there are still people who love scrolling, hate clicking, and don't yet know that I made this: All posts in the Wall Observer thread in the past 1h, 24h and 7dAll posts in the past 1 hour: WallObserver.tk/1h.html (updated every 3 minutes). All posts in the past 24 hours: WallObserver.tk (updated every 30 minutes). All posts in the past 7 days: WallObserver.tk/7d.html (updated every 2 hours). Domain WallObserver.tk expires a year from now, I'll see by then if anyone uses it. All times are set to Amsterdam time. I moved it to a new server, and it's back online now  |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for all the comments, the "5 DT1 downvote" thing sounds like a good compromise.
I'm just fed up with what I consider Trust abuse, and I noticed another thing: the moment veteran members receive their first negative feedback (on something controversial), they often quickly collect a few more negatives. It's as if people are waiting for someone else to make the first move.
|
|
|
|
I have been thinking for a while that it would be fun, and possibly even productively educational, to create a big online test/quiz about all of the various systems, etiquette, and history of Bitcointalk.. If you create a topic for this, you can use Merit as an incentive for correct answers, but that means the answer will be instantly visible. Another thing that would be good, is if more users get involved in the Flag system. Currently, there are only 2027 users who Created, Supported, Opposed or are the Subject of a Flag. It would be good if more different users take the time to pick a Flag, read through the Reference thread, and Support or Oppose the Flag. Currently, only very few users are active in judging Flags, which makes it quite centralized. |
|
|
|
I also just recently updated the OP to include a notable change I forgot, which is that profile.aspx can now handle ID's, so this could be a way to access this particular profile directly, by using: https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?id=2347750There's a bug with unbanned accounts, it looks like the account status doesn't change from Autobanned to Active, and it remains Archived. That resulted in many Meta Log entries instead of just one: 12/31/2019 9:38:44 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:38:31 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:38:19 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:38:06 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:37:55 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:37:42 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:37:29 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:37:17 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:37:04 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:36:50 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:36:38 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:36:26 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:36:13 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:36:00 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:35:47 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:35:35 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:35:22 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:35:11 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:34:01 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:33:49 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:33:36 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:33:23 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:33:11 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:32:59 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:32:47 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:32:29 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:32:16 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:32:03 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:31:50 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:31:37 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:31:25 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:31:12 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:31:00 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:30:48 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:30:35 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:30:23 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:30:10 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:29:57 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:29:45 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:29:32 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:29:19 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:29:06 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:28:55 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:28:42 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:28:30 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:28:17 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:27:50 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:27:38 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:27:25 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:27:13 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:27:00 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:26:48 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:26:35 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:26:23 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:26:10 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:25:58 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:25:46 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:25:34 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:25:21 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:25:08 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:24:55 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:24:42 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:24:30 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:24:17 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:24:03 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:23:50 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:23:38 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:23:25 PM Profile unbanned New post
12/31/2019 9:23:13 PM Profile unbanned New post |
|
|
|
Sorry if I have a silly request, I will use Electrum for a segwit address, is this any problem? I don't make vanity SegWit addresses (DarkStar_ does). In Electrum, you'll need to create a new wallet to import addresses, so either one should work. |
|
|
|
Is the idea just to goto their exchange and send them whatever sats I have and request it back to the wallet on-chain address? I don't understand how that will create inbound/outbound capacity if I do that?  Each LN channel is like a pile of coins, "shared" between (only) 2 parties. At the moment, all coins are on your side, so the other party can't send you anything. If you send some coins first, you can receive some back later (except for 1.2% channel reserve). The other party (the node) will do the same to the next node, creating a chain of channels that all move some of their coins to the other party. Am I supposed to create a channel first? No, it should work if the nodes are connected already. |
|
|
|
I can easily see this ending up being a clusterfuck I might indeed be terribly naive here  |
|
|
|
One focused on activity - Early adopter for those who have more than 3000 activity I'd say give that Rank to anyone who signed up in the first 15 years since the creation of this forum! See what I did there? |
|
|
|
I strongly believe that what I wrote in LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system can contribute to improving this forum, if enough people follow these guidelines. However, that's not happening, and I see more and more well-known users get tagged for petty things. The current solution is to exclude them from your Trust list, but that "removes" all their feedback, and many users (including myself) seem unwilling to exclude a user based on the 1% or less feedback that they disagree with. Some users have been posting "counter ratings": a positive feedback to point out they disagree with a negative feedback, but this still doesn't remove the orange negative number from their profile. I've tried Just a thought: make orange and green feedback black if it's a small percentage., but that topic seems to have been forgotten. So here's a new suggestion: would it be possible to give DT1 the power to "downvote" certain (negative) feedbacks so they are no longer shown by default? That could potentially solve many of the current disputes that have been fought through negative feedback for many months. I'm not sure if this "voting" should be anonymous or public, unlimited or very strictly reserved for very rare occations, and needs just one or a majority vote, but all that can be figured out later if Admin thinks my idea has any merit. |
|
|
|
I'm keeping an eye on IsLaudaStillOnDT.tk if this Flag happens. I still need to figure out how to serve different domain names from one VPS, so unfortunately this one is temporarily out of order. You can however view Trust settings as DT to see that Lauda currently has 5 Trust inclusions left. My isLaudastillonDT.log was last updated on December 20, 15:10h (Amsterdam time), at which moment it showed this: YES! Lauda is on DT2 with 11 inclusions. So the recent "Lauda topics" took away 6 inclusions. It's possible even LoyceV thinks someone is getting out of hand here, but Switzerland and all, and I don't want to directly speak for this person either.. Switzerland is broken, but indeed, Trust has been getting out of hand for quite a while. Feedback from DT used to mean something, but nowadays anyone can be on DT and anyone can be tagged for anything. I've partially read the topics recent on Lauda, but the number of topics is getting out of hand too, and apart from working on getting loyce.club back online, it's also Christmas time and if I do respond, I want it to based on complete information (this post doesn't count, as I haven't read everything yet). However, I'm thinking of creating a slightly related Meta-topic. Update: see Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT. I've spent quite a lot of time describing what I consider correct use of the Trust system, and judging by the 10 translations on local boards, many users agree. I strongly believe in this: These are mere guidelines
Trust isn't moderated, but how you use it is your "business card" to the community. Use the above as guidelines only. It's meant to give you a general idea of what I consider good behaviour. It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified. The tale of the "virtue signaler" As a non-native English speaker, I have no idea what it means, and " a pejorative neologism for the conspicuous expression of moral values." just adds more words I don't know. |
|
|
|
Have repaid testing loan: fcbbce4b6758420c6d5a429d69d02519564e6203709d19b3802a6ccd790e275b Received |
|
|
|
I would however lock it until I took applications. The continuous bumping ensures many people see this topic, so that a record-breaking 200 people will apply when there is an open spot |
|
|
|
I am still having the issue regarding loading 12/21 page, and even 12/14 (#48), but as I was typing this, I did just get 12/28 (#50) to load and was able to see the data on that page and to click on links therein, but it took a while to load onto my browser, and then seemed to have gotten stuck and then finally seemed to have loaded completely. I don't know what causes this. My big index files take 11 seconds to load in Firefox here, and I assumed that's because my (quite old) old PC isn't faster. I usually try not to load that huge (4.6 MB) page, but navigate from one user Trust list to the next. Command line, I can download the page in 2 seconds, so I don't think it's a server problem. Any chance you can try a different browser? |
|
|
|
Duplicate Flags:- Have the same Flag type (1, 2 or 3)
- Accuse the same user
- Use the same Reference link
It doesn't matter who created the Flag. Automatic detectionI've automated duplicate Flag detection: Flags 32 and 472 are duplicates.
Flags 33 and 473 are duplicates.
Flags 347 and 961 are duplicates.
Flags 423 and 424 are duplicates.
Flags 468, 505 and 942 are duplicates.
Flags 48 and 59 are duplicates.
Flags 60 and 109 are duplicates.
Flags 600 and 616 are duplicates.
Flags 657 and 764 are duplicates.
Flags 658 and 765 are duplicates.
Flags 692 and 716 are duplicates.
Flags 727 and 732 are duplicates.
Flags 787 and 788 are duplicates.
Flags 789 and 799 are duplicates.
Flags 827 and 922 are duplicates.
Flags 828 and 830 are duplicates.
Flags 987 and 988 are duplicates. There's one limitation: it shows the duplicates from the previous update, so it lags behind one day. Note that the list in this post won't be updated. Example2019-12-30 Mon 15.49hsource: loyce.club32 Insufficient support. Pamoldar flagged ky94PjDw (type 1, see why). Supported by nutildah, Pamoldar, pandukelana2712, Quickseller. Opposed by Hueristic, mocacinno, mindrust, DarkStar_, bill gator, Steamtyme, ky94PjDw. *** This is an automated comment: Flags 32 and 472 are duplicates. 33 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged ky94PjDw (type 3, see why). Supported by dbshck, Steamtyme, Quickseller, ky94PjDw. Opposed by Hueristic, mindrust. *** This is an automated comment: Flags 33 and 473 are duplicates.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
