There should be the opportunity for some civil dialogue in order to repair the already-strained relations. I see no reason why the Russian forum must create their own DefaultTrust list to follow without having the security of the (literally thousands of) negative feedback targeting scammers. **provided that we reach a resolution Is there any chance that we can resolve this? There is a language barrier, so if there are sensible members that are bilingual or understand a reasonable amount of English then we can tackle the differences in our thinking. TheFuzzStone maybe? You're already a soft-DT1. If we can highlight the differences in our logic and come to a compromise, the exclusions should be lifted. (still not sure why I was given an exclusion)
The ironic part, though, is that this kind of "self-created" list is in the uncanny valley of what we want. The point of the new system is to encourage making your own lists. Unfortunately, the Russian community has missed the mark slightly if they decide to create another centralized list. |
|
|
|
Plagiarism - I think a lot of people would argue that this is a moderation issue and not something that members should be taking into their own hands. Simply report and the user will get banned and that's a far more effective way than leaving a tag because its permanent and actually achieves something.
Ban Evasion - Again for the same reason as Plagiarism. I didn't mention harassment in my system. Misquote? Sometimes users plagiarize/ban evade and moderation is slow. We know how slow moderation is. It seems better to at least "soft-ban" these users first. |
|
|
|
Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:
Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others.
Account sales
Merit sales / swapping
Harassing a DT
Offering escrow without a track record
Asking for a no collateral loan
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults. Here's my input.
Any ponzi-related behavior.
Any behavior that involves an involuntary monetary transfer.
Buying reputation ≡ Buying trust ≡ Buying merit ≡ Buying accounts
Self-escrow.
Loan defaults (only if unpaid for an unreasonable amount of time)
Shilling scams.
ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Using an alt account to abuse bounties/giveaways.
Selling gambling scripts or any "strategy" in a statistically -ev game.
Plagiarism.
Fake translations.
Ban evasion.
Hacked account.
What I consider not taggable: Criticizing others.
Posting an unpopular opinion.
Leaving an unsubstantiated negative rating, if the user is not shady outside of this.
Promoting altcoins.
Using an alt account.
Anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence*
*case-by-case |
|
|
|
i sleeped and have a dream you are scammer ( i not remember details) anyway you are scammer may be you have some proof im wrong? can you proven you not scammer? i sure no so relax your ass and not buthurt please  Acceptable. We will now use your system of beliefs. I may be a scammer, but I dreamt that the word "scammer" actually means deity. Bow down, cretin! If evidence is not necessary for claims to be valid, then we shall make any claim we choose. |
|
|
|
That's no good. It'll trickle down your leg!
evidence you must provide to this. to whom I owe, I forgive all debts If your system of validity is not based on the evidence provided and hence if any premise can be declared true, then it is of no pragmatic use to anyone. If we're using your system, I could claim "all of the Russian Local board are scammers" as a true statement without any evidence. |
|
|
|
Your premises of the slave or Lauda's pet label are still invalid and have not yet rejected the null hypothesis. its your opinion and its false That would imply that your premises are true by definition. That is, we have an axiom which implies "actmyname is a slave" or that "actmyname is Lauda's pet". I don't think this is the case but we can change the evidence you must provide to this. Provide evidence that this axiom exists in our language. |
|
|
|
hey slave i answered you
you have no authority to ask me cos you slave and Lauda's pet
i will answer to marlboroza if he will want Your premises of the slave or Lauda's pet label are still invalid and have not yet rejected the null hypothesis. If you would like, I can accept your method of syllogism which forces validity of the conclusion regardless of the soundness of its premises. |
|
|
|
Now, why this sounds so familiar...  Yes, it is important. i will if you tell me why it iportant for you also i can answer all of your questions thus I have a litle bit of respect to you..still  but it temporarily Similar to accepting premises as valid without evidence, if you have no foundation for the inclusion or exclusion of members then you are doing so without any reason. If there is no foundation to one's actions -- if they act without a rationale, then clearly their actions matter less than someone who does have a solid backing for their decisions. This is similar to the acceptance of pragmatism: if one doesn't believe in it, then their beliefs don't matter. |
|
|
|
who are you to ask proof ? you just fucking slave
and you think i must spend my expensive time for you? If you do not prove that the premises are sound, then we are unable to draw a valid conclusion from the premises. The onus is on you to reject the null hypothesis. proving who are you?
you must be enough accusation and shut up not write here If your premises and conclusions cannot be refuted then your system of verification is flawed. Assuming that we all follow the same system, we can make arbitrary premises without evidence and derive conclusions thereof at will. |
|
|
|
Lol, why so hostile? Is it not true that most other campaigns average at 10 users per campaign? I haven't done the maths, but isn't it not true that from the 50+ users on your campaign, about 5 to 10 probably make over 70% of the total merit of all users in the campaign? I still said that it's just an observation, and of course all of this is still a good thing, but it makes it very expectable for this campaign to make that much merit. Chill out  Apologies if you thought I was acting hostile: I did not intend to have any malicious connotation. I'm just saying that all you're doing to equalize the campaign's merit earnings compared to other campaigns is essentially stripping away all elements that do bring forth merit to this campaign. The tautological effect is similar to that of stating that a chocolate bar is healthy if you remove all the sugar, fat, carcinogens and unhealthy substances. |
|
|
|
I don't want to be a bum, but ChipMixer does have the largest campaign with over 50 participants That's probably 5 to 6 times more than the average list of every other campaign. Not to mention that almost all those participants are fresh blood, where the majority is extremely active on the forums. And not just that, a lot of the 1% merited users are also participants https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topusersAll those factors easily add up to make the campaign participants one of the most merited users on the forum. If you took out DarkStar_, Loyce, a few other big names, and maybe reduced the number to double the average number of every other campaign, it'd look slightly more "normal". Like I said I don't want to undermine DarkStar or his ability to pick great users, because that's still true, but I had to say this. Essentially: If the campaign did not have users that earned a lot of merit, then it would not be a campaign that earns a high amount of merit.
It just feels like you're making a tautological comparison. Sure, subtracting the merit elements of the campaign would make the campaign hold less merit. That's just by definition. |
|
|
|
FIRST! Lauda is proven scammer, you are Lauda's pet so if you pet of scammer you also scammer  you not agree? do you wanna SECOND? Interesting syllogism. P1) Lauda is a proven scammer P2) I am Lauda's pet P3) A pet of a proven scammer is also a scammer. C) I am a scammer. None of your premises can be considered sound without definitive evidence however I will make it easy for you. Suppose that P1 is true. Prove that P2 and P3 are true, thus creating sound conclusion that follows from sound premises. |
|
|
|
Currently, I noticed with myself that I can only go to depth level 2 when using hierarchical view. If I try to view either depth level 3 or 4 on hierarchical view, then I get a loading error (the page will not load). Maybe too much data if viewed on depth level 3 or 4? Yes, I found that too. Yeah, I did a bunch of testing with trust before the DT changes. I assume that with the massively increased number of DefaultTrust members, depth 3 has already exceeded the threshold. |
|
|
|
|
@peloso do you have evidence of my scams, or is that just a lie?
@TheFuzzStone who are you? I have no idea who you even are.
DT1 is susceptible to 51% attacks without third-party intervention so if there is a cj group, that's pretty bad.
|
|
|
|
Hello!Are you angry? Befuddled? A little frustrated? Stay right there! Don't hit that new topic button just yet!
Frequently-created Topics
Evil DT members
Hang on... There's a problem with the system, right? A DefaultTrust member has sent you negative feedback and now you're angry! Before you get to Hulk Smashing around the forum and creating threads about how you don't deserve the red trust and how instead, the DefaultTrust member actually deserves it. Because they're a scammer. Right? But why do you only care now, when you have red trust?Because you are retaliating. Because you feel that you have been wronged. Perhaps you are right. However... if the thread that you are going to post is only going to contain insults and lashing-out at users without evidence to prove that YOU don't deserve the red trust, then your thread will be useless.- If you do not have solid evidence to back up your case, then it will be dismissed.
- If your evidence is not related to your situation but is concerning a DefaultTrust member, then it will be dismissed.
- If your evidence is based on circumstantial evidence in regards to the way the forum operates, then it will be dismissed.
Most importantly: wait 24 hours before you create any reply.
you should be thinking clearly before posting.
acting like a fool really does not help your case.
Regarding Moderation
Mods are censoring me! Mods are biased! The forum is c̳̔or͡ru̍p̏͟t! NooooooNo. Not really. Moderators don't moderate scams. They also handle moderation through reports and most are unable to target specific users or threads to remove. **this changes in egregious cases but if you aren't spamming like crazy, then it most likely does not concern you Regarding biases, perhaps you posted an off-topic reply in a thread? Usually, this is about DefaultTrust members. If so, refer to the previous section. Topics about people belong in Reputation. Topics about the forum belong in Meta. The forum is not corrupt. It is privately-owned. If you are planning on making a thread about corruption, don't.
Regarding Forum Conspiracies
If you have a feasible solution to making a part of the forum better, please post it in the Meta section. If this is about specific users, refer to the first section. If you are just complaining about the system, don't make a thread.
TL;DR: you probably don't want to make a thread.
|
|
|
|
Where does one find a priest of the Cult of Lauda to confess my sins? I'm engaging with that asshat again. Hello, my kitten. Atom. **(Amen) |
|
|
|
Anyway it seems we all agree on this so i'm not sure there is much more to discuss. Perhaps we should redirect the topic to specifics of free speech. Surely, despite enabling the majority of speech there should be some limitations, right? As an example, an exception to one's right to free speech could be a call to action that is probable to cause danger to an individual. (i.e. fire in a crowded theatre example) Is this limitation acceptable? Why or why not? |
|
|
|
Up! Let's get some more discussion going. Hopefully. |
|
|
|
It's a real shame, too. Take a look at this account: PMmesexycoinsPost history: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1072406;sa=showPosts;start=0But before they decided to go on this tirade of the giveaway spam, they had posts like this: They don't have the means to trade for it and are missing much of the infrastructure to make it work.
Money's worth isn't just about people recognizing it as such, there's the very real resources, manufacturing and services provided that are limited. Money ultimately facilitates the trade of these elements, the distribution of them.
Printing more money in itself is not necessarily bad, but too much can definitely be. Now, the problem with cryptos is that who's gonna stop people from replicating them. Not as limited as you thought now, eh? Also, one should mind that if it were just one of them it could still add to the inflation due to it not existing in a vacuum, they are attached to an existing system. Essentially also printing money as they gain value.
It's not really much of a problem if, say, diamonds cost a billion times more or whatever, because they don't have the liquid potential that crypto-currencies do. If the flood gates are opened they could bring some crazy hyperinflation that could be disastrous. See, cryptos, if mainstream, compete with currencies that stood alone within their national territories, you have effectively increased the amount of money, and probably slowed down productivity due to all the speculation. That means as a whole there would be more money to be traded against the same or less stuff than there was before.
One should remember that bitcoins and the other top alts, same as much of the wealth of the planet, is in very few people's hands. Great minds behind it, but I wonder if this was the right way to implement it and distribute it.
Without governments and laws, everyone would be fending for themselves, and unless you are a big fish in the vast ocean it might not be as great as you think. Even the concept of private property, never mind money being worth anything relies on the pacification brought by laws and enforcement. Or it would be the few elites and their private armies running the show and most everyone else as serfs. And sure, there's quite a bit of difference between one country's leadership and another.
It's pretty bad for most on this planet now, but it could certainly get much worse. To help people help themselves education is the way to go. Got to be capable of producing things, for there to be things to trade. The real wealth is, again, in the goods and services that someone needs to provide.
Let's hope I'm wrong, cause I'm a bit scared for the future of us all. It does surprise how people miss that alternate currency gaining valuation has this effect as well. Merchandise cost is adjusted to total currency flowing towards it. These coins add to the dollar, and else, that's already in circulation.
The reason this looming inflation beast still lies in wait is not only due to its current lack of circulation, but also the market valuation for the whole not yet being terribly large. For now.
Currency of any flavor being added to a world with other currency can only add to inflation. What can cause deflation, instead, is having an excess supply of useful products.
Having a bit of inflation might even be for the best, but we are talking about going from somewhat high inflation into monstrous inflation here. The adjustments will be paid by those that least can afford it. |
|
|
|
|
A transparent poll can be conducted by creating a thread that poses a question. Those that reply "vote" with their posts.
I don't see what the problem is.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
