Your messages were received. It looks like you were there for only ~15 minutes. IRC is quite slow, sometimes takes hours before a reply. You've been granted edit rights. Welcome.

Thanks!

May the ATH come back some day...

Merry Christmas!

That (campaign management) is not really the problem either. The real root is in the incentive model. The incentives currently encourage people to shitpost (in various ways) to make money. It's just simple as that. Loads of the shitposting is in a hidden format. E.g. a drama/opinion threads full of nothing, straws of nuances "sophistically" discussed for hundreds of posts. You can make "contributions" that are actually not interesting to anyone (and nobody reads them anyway). Walls of text, directly from brain to keyboard without any filtering or attempt at coherence. So many posts are just mindless blabbering, stating the obvious or stating some nuances or semi-irrelevant aspects/ideas about the subject.

So shortly, content is highly uninteresting, people just post and post and post but never really carefully read or dig in to the topics (at least in certain boards). Deeper thinking doesn't happen, because moving on to shitpost elsewhere is so much more easier and gets you more money.

Solutions? Change the incentive model, but how?

You seem to be new to IRC.

It's a chat. You need to find out how to message the channel after joining it. If you're using the web client, there's a red tab with the channel name at the top bar. Click it.. And write anything in the white box at the bottom of the screen -- that's the chat message input box. Just write something in the channel, someone will reply to you there and give the permissions.

I see you joined the channel earlier, but did not say anything there. Check out some guide, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypbZ_5mmF-o

Thanks for the raffle. I'll pick slot A.

Merry Christmas!

10. Anduck

Merry Christmas everyone!

Ok. Just tell in the channel that you want editing rights and state your wiki username. By "ping" I mean "message".

That's not going to be effective ever, especially if the case is slightly more complex, events timeline is unclear, or multiple DT1's have added person to DT2, or if the bad DT member is DT1. In any case, such would require a huge effort and waste loads of everyone's time. It's very unreasonable expectation that such DT member would be removed.

For example, you can see that Vod is on DT2, added by three DT1s. They're quite inactive and unresponsive, so practically Vod can't be dropped out of DT2 no matter what he did. He threatened to red-rate me unless I removed my rating towards him. I did not remove my rating, so he proceeded in red-rating me. Is that abuse or not? Somehow vocal people here in bitcointalk seem to acknowledge that as fair and not abuse, which is insane and tells about the cliques and DT system badness more than about anything else. Well we all know what happens if you don't bend to DT'ers will.

You have a choice: do a neutral rating. Then it would fulfill what you want to achieve. Wrecking my trust score and making that "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" red text by making it a red rating is unfair. I've traded here for years, I've never scammed anyone and have honored all my trades and auctions perfectly. Only way to look at your behavior is power tripping.
I can see your position -- we've talked about this. I completely understand that the auction standard here is different from my local (RL) standard, and that's fine -- I also expect majority of users here to be incompetent regarding auctions, but what I do not understand is the rating. It's unfair to red-rate me because I didn't know these forum standards which are unspecified and vague, and this was 3 years ago and I've held tons of auctions since without any complaints. And you feel it's justified to wreck my trust now? Totally unjustified and unfair.

I agree. The link should lead to that 'suggest' page, so the custom list would really get made.


Actually not even that bad idea, as I am sure it would work quite nicely. But it's a bit silly... no real need for new shitcoins & it would cause loads of problems for the future to have such a bag to carry.

I think that force is the best way. Just remove DT and people have no other choice than to use the 'suggest' page to make their trust list. A "personal DT" would be much better, because users would know that the list is formed by their own choices, by their hand-picked users.

Your actions contradict what you say. You've rated me this: "User does not honor their auctions, and self bids to get out of having to sell an item at a price they don't like."

This feedback is misleading and untrue. I've honored all my auctions perfectly. I've done a vendor bid (self-bid) once ~3 years ago in a reserve auction I held, which is probably what your fresh rating talks about.

It's a different thing to leave such poor feedback when it shows in "trusted" feedback compared to "untrusted" feedback. It's hard to ignore the "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" red text and ?? score. You're just a power tripper, that's all. (Although you probably mean good, just blinded.)

When you put 1000 people to look into something, I am sure some of them will see dishonesty and injustice in whatever case. It's just so sad when they happen to be in a position of power. Some of the cases get highlighted and get randomers like you to present their incompetent opinion. Most of the cases go totally unseen by those 1000 people, maybe just 10 see them.

Please join the channel #bitcoin-wiki and ask for the edit permissions. Ping ops (+o) in there if nobody responds in timely manner.

The problem with DT is not solved by making custom trust list. The problem is that DT exists. It's used poorly, in a way that encourages people to specifically not make custom trust list. They contribute significantly in portraying DT as an universal "super trusted users" list, which is only an illusion. There have been (and still are) scammers and dishonest people in current DT.
DT should only be a ramp-up "people who are unlikely to scam" list of users, and it should require absolutely nothing else to be on DT.

Anyway, there should be no such DT thing at all, IMO. More about possible solutions, presented by theymos. My thoughts about DT are also in that thread in here.

About the trust system: Trust system itself is not working very well, but it's quite hard to make it much better.

It's a game for people with nothing better to do. Why people play it? Some play it because they genuinely think they're doing something good. Some play it, because they want attention (to their opinions). Some play it, because it's kind of a strategy game. (I.e. be friends with the correct people, do not piss on the wrong people, and you'll do fine.) All sorts of cliques. Players trying to reason and wiggle stories up and around to justify any kind of behavior, which in reality is often being out of all proportions. It can be compared to some other forums meta level struggles, but here in Bitcointalk people seem to think they're more advanced or more correct, while in reality it's more like an alternative reality, like you mentioned. Leading to a significantly worse outcome.

It's no surprise that a huge amount of old-time users have left and are never coming back. Additionally, deep toxicity is growing and already beyond ridiculous levels. I would argue that increased BTC/USD has a lot to do with all this...

Why do I care to post this? Because it would make me more happy if I got to see some people realize what a shit show this is.

Any updates regarding this?

2471.78 EUR

I'm answering to a troll, but whatever:

Obviously it is not the view of the forum. I am only telling you that some countries allow plagiarism even on academic level studies. I have not mentioned anything about myself.

Extremes are almost always the incorrect way. So maybe forum policy should not be to permanently ban these users... Maybe just some years, or maybe some kind of appealing process?

39. anduck

Nobody should really care about DT1 as much as people do right now. The whole DT should be diluted to have almost no status at all. I've presented points about this in my previous posts.

You're not the first one to come up with gimmicky "reasons" to justify whatever trust/rating activity.
I'm not fixed on retaliation, I'm not doing anything based on retaliation. You seem to be very confused.
If you're however talking about the Vod rating case: the root of me being so vocal about Vod's misuse of current DT is his unjust rating towards me. Go find out what it's about. Shortly, Vod threatened to rate me red if I didn't remove my rating towards him. So he rated me red. Wanting that sort of rating behavior to stop, especially when done by current DT, is now "fixated on retaliation"?


Is this "vigilante justice in the form of the ability to silence" what DT can do currently? Insane, and totally not what DT should be about!

I don't want to silence anyone. I want everyone to not be able to cast stigmas on anyone in the form of DT ratings. Current DT is being used poorly -- you're a prime example of that.
I don't want any "vigilante justice in the form of the ability to silence". I don't know how you came up with this anyway, but obviously it's made up of thin air. Stop doing that.


I am working on trying to make this DT thing, at least in the current format, not exist, so it wouldn't be there to enable e.g. power trippers & bird brains to have any wrecking power. It doesn't really matter who uses it right and who uses it wrong, it's a systematic problem as there are always going to be wrongdoers.


This is exactly the problem. People are "forced" to care about your feedback, and have your feedback as "trusted" by default, because that's how the current DT works. I want to change this. Of course you're now being against changing DT status because it would reduce your power. I didn't expect you to be able to objectively look into this anyway, as you already did show me how you are not even trying to be objective in your actions. (E.g. when you care more about your prejudice than quite simple facts.)