Today, I saw Trust issues of Vod, and Hhampuz. Vod has contributed lots of thing to bitcointalk.org community, whilst Hhampuz has been one of the most reputable campaign managers in the forum. Both of them actually contribute lots of things, so what's wrong with them last hours? They both received negative feedback from teeGUMES, that in turn results in ?? ? in their Trust. Additionally, Reference in Hhampuz's Trust page leads to this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140813.0, that does not relate to things mentioned in feedback. It looks like back-and-forth negative feedbacks.   Theymos' opinion: - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views
Is this one of the most vulnerable things of Trust sytem, and easily to abuse and do personal attacks? |
|
|
|
Second chances can be given and you can argue that the punishment is harsh, but at the moment the rules are pretty clear that if you're caught plagiarising then it's a permaban. Once we start making exceptions for people it just opens up a huge can of worms and then everyone else who's had a ban will come out of the woodwork and complain it's not fair to them and people who are banned in the future will use this case as an example why they should be given another chance.
PM theymos or cyrus and make your case to them and maybe they will remove it. I'm not against second chances but there needs to be some consistency so it's fair to all. Hopefully signature bans could be issued in cases like this instead and people can keep their accounts, but at the moment I just wish people would stop plagiarising content so these bans aren't even needed in the first place and it's truly a sad state of affairs that they are.
Multiple posts, but they likely not reasons of your permanent ban. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2246819.msg25983785#msg25983785https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2246819.msg25970058#msg25970058 |
|
|
|
Not specifically "for posts a year and a half ago" but for plagiarized posts and you happen to have done that in 2017.
It does not make sense that plagiarism made in 2017, or some years earlier because theymos wrote there: Plagiarism: If you copy some text from somewhere, then you should have a good reason for it, and you must link to the source. Doing otherwise is plagiarism. Changing a few words around doesn't matter. If we find that you plagiarized, then you absolutely will be permanently banned, even if we find it years after you did it.
Users whom got perma-bans with found plagiarsims, without significant contributions to the forum less likely have chance to see their bans removed.
It's better to accept facts and punishments (perma-bans) if banned users think that they did not make considerable contributions to the forum in the past (before the day they banned). If you think that a ban should be ended, make your case in a new topic from a "good for the forum as a whole" perspective.
|
|
|
|
...
You seems to misunderstood what I meant. I suggested because I think such Reference link to proof of one to three plagiarised posts will help to reduce three things: - Abundantly Ban Appeals and excessive workloads on forum staffs. - Mindful users whom got banned will know themselves the reasons of their bans (for permanent bans) by looking at Reference links to their plagiarised posts. - Less unnecessary Ban Appeals topics in Meta boards, which should only be for things relate to forum pros & cons as well as suggestion to improve forum.
Somehow, it is annoying to see 30 or 50 to 100 new Ban Appeals in Meta per day. By the way, I think that if possible, forum should have a child board, only for Ban Appeals, a child board inside the Meta board. |
|
|
|
do you mean by Reference link here is a url link to the post which user was found breaking the rules?
if that's the case then it would be useless to implement, as it would point to non-existent post
because mods usually delete the post before banning user, or remove all posts for "nuked" user
I edited and clarified a little bit in OP. I suggest Reference links specially for Permanent banned cases, and their plagiarisms. I don't know, but let's wait and do some quick calculation on 300 banned cases yesterday to get something: - How many of them are perma-banned cases? - How many of perma-banned cases come from plagiarisms? I am waiting for their ban appeals and proofs of their perma-bans, then I will let you know later, but I guess it will be higher than 95%. Such a Reference link might be unneccessary for temporary banned cases, because they will come back later. In contrast, Reference link is essential thing for Permanent banned cases. Most of perma-bans come from plagiarism, and with plagiarsim, mods only need to leave reference link to a single plagiarism (mods can leave links to two, three plagiarims if they have time).
|
|
|
|
So in summary users are being lazy and getting ripped off
I don't deny the fact and efforts of DT members to help forum users, but generally when we (includes DT members) try to simplify something for forum users, we likely make situation become more complicated. It is a bit objective to stick to discussion on Trust System, so I will switch to the example of investment reports from stock companies, or from crypto groups, something like that. Lazy investors tend to easily being satisfied with reports or suggestions on projects that probably bring huge profits after short period of investments. Most of such projects are scam ones, but lazy investors like such fake quality, promising projects. It's their faults, it's their responsibilities. We can not do all things for them to prevent and protect them from scam projects. Only they can control their laziness and greediness. It's nearly the same as neutral feedback. Why they want to invest in a project, but don't care to spend around 10 or 30 minutes to read feedback on project's OP? Scanning all feedbacks, and choosing most warning feedbacks (even they are neutral) to dig deeper. It does not cost so much time to read and help them safe. |
|
|
|
Bans (temporary or permanent) come from forum rule violations. There are two types of bans: Temporary and Permanent. Each kind of bans depend on two things: - Types of rule violations
- How many times of offence forum users get
When a user get banned, a Ban Notification pops up with Red immediately after log in, but it is too general message. This one is just one of Ban Notification templates: Sorry User_A, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
You have been permanently banned by a forum moderator, probably due to spam or plagiarism. You may appeal here, but your chances are not good: banappeals...@theymos.e4ward.com) The too general Ban Notifications result in abundant Ban Appeals in Meta board, especially after yesterday massive bans. Yesterday, almost 300 accounts were banned, that's about 4 times more than most days.
Bans likely come from reports (from forum users) or by mods' findings, so it is obviously that when mods Click on Ban button, they clearly know reasons of each banned case (with proof of spam, plagiarism, etc.).
Therefore, I suggest admin to consider adding Reference link inside the Ban Notification that will be send to Banned users. This reference link is the same as what we have in Trust system (feedback, and reference links). If this Reference link for Ban Notification implemented, it will help to reduce numbers of Ban Appeals in Meta board. Consequently, Meta board will become cleaner and a more purely place to discuss about forum issues. Such a Reference link might be unneccessary for temporary banned cases, because they will come back later; or nuked cases. In contrast, Reference link is essential thing for Permanent banned cases. Most of perma-bans come from plagiarism, and with plagiarsim, mods only need to leave reference link to a single plagiarism (mods can leave links to two, three plagiarims if they have time).
References:Ban appeal - How to make it right and reduce workload for forum staffsWriting a welcome message[Report] Ban Evasion [Requesting Admin/mod to check those and ban]Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) (Some information on types of bans, offences, and explanations) |
|
|
|
Even 2FA has not been high in to-do list of theymos, so I believe it is time to lock the topic. Fingerprint is too far from current prioritized things in theymos' to-do list. He likely has never had such idea on fingerprint, but something might pop up next April Fool. That wouldn't eliminate the need for manual recoveries; it might even increase it as people lose their second factor. 2FA would be nice, but IMO the email notifications provide many of the same benefits, so it's not high on my to-do list.
|
|
|
|
In addition, being logged-in enables you to see the Trust scores associated to user profiles (visible on the left by the post in some boards, or when you see someone’s profile). That in a sense is a part (often small, sometimes large) of the context to reading a person’s posts, and can only be seen while logged into the forum.
Agreed, people should have official accounts and should log in to be able to use all features of the forum (Trust, Merit and so on). Even the admin actually added new Warning for visitors, it will be better for them with official and logged-in accounts. Guests - Read Warnings on potential scam projects started by Neg Trust UsersWithout accounts, visitors can not ask for help or simply ask for explanations/ clarifications when they see interesting posts. |
|
|
|
From another Thread, I thought the general point is important.
....
Version 2.2.2 coming soon.
It is good to see you being actively again after around more than one week, audiotopix. The verison 2.2.2 is highly expected, at least for me. By the way, I would prefer to suggest you to use quote block for your post above, because it seems that you made double posts with same contents, that likely violate forum rule. You made first post in my topic, so it will be better and you will be fine if you use quote block in the topic. This rule #12: 12. No duplicate posting in multiple boards (except for re-posting it in the local language boards if it's translated).
|
|
|
|
Firstly, there is no need to quote my full OP just to discuss, you can use some kind of snip (~snip, < snip >, snip, -snip-, < ... >, ...) to save more space and save time of readers (because they will not have to spend their time to scroll over posts to read contents and discussion. Secondly, I agree with you all that Neutron has very low price and low volume recently, but if someone have spare money and have interests to find some projects to invest, I think Neutron is one of their good choices. I don't claim that Neutron is un-risky to invest, but it's good for now and if you want to invest in Neutron, take your own risks and your acceptable losses with it. Lastly, this topic is for news and discussion (a community topic), and not an official announcement topic from Neutron team. The official ANN topic is there: [ANN] Neutron (NTRN) Staking and Masternodes since 2015, longterm crew.
Update on newest exchange for Neutron (txbit.io), last 24 hours there is no volume on the exchange: https://txbit.io/Trade/NTRN/BTC |
|
|
|
We don't know that. We don't know OP's intentions. I wouldn't just immediately come to the conclusion that OP is planning on creating his own shitcoin; we don't know, OP might just be interested in learning how things work.
Yes, it is good if someone have interest to find out something new, and learn to improve their knowledge. However, it will be bad if someone start with intention to learn something that they will intentionally use to scam others. Anyway, no one among us knew thought's of OP. I just raised opinion that there are already so many shitty altcoins and shitty Proof-of-Stake/ Masternode coins launched and been dead since the year of 2017. Based on my observation, within last two or three months, the rate of successful scam PoS/MN projects reduced dramatically, maybe partially come from efforts of bitcointalk.org community (including DT members) to point out scam projects (guides, scam accusations, scam-finding groups/ topics). |
|
|
|
This topic is created to help newbies, so if you are prominent users in the forum, and have years as well as lots of experience in crypto, you can skip the topic. In crypto, when you need to find basics of any coins or tokens (not new born), there is coinmarketcap.com, that is the first place you should start with. By default, when you copy and paste the link to coinmarketcap.com site (or click on the hyperlink above), you will see the site like this: Please notice the Search box in the right hand side at the top corner of the site, where you have to type name of coins/ tokens (their full name), or their tickers. For example: I type Bitshares or type BTS (that is a ticker of Bitshares) - Typing with Bitshares  - Typing with BTS ticker  By default, after clicking on given link to Bitshares from Search Box, you will be led to the page of Bitshares on coinmarketcap.com (~ CMC, from now on I will use CMC) Now, you aldready have an overview on Bitshares historical price, but if you want to see all-year highs or all-year lows of Bitshares in several years, or just within the last two years. How do you do this? There are two methods: 1) Typing start and end days of period you want to see historical price chartFor example: I want to get price chart of BTS from 8/5/2016 to 8/5/2019, I will type like this Results: Please notice the time-window in the Blue Rectangular at the bottom. The first method requires time to type start & end days. Personally, I don't see reason to get exactly start & end days, so there is another method, that will save more time for you. 2) Using the Time-Window in the bottom of price chartFor example, I can scroll computer mouse or touch pad to set the time-window from Jan. 2016 to Jan. 2017. Then you will get results like this: This way, you can fastly move between different time-windows of Bitshares or any coin/ token that listed on CMC.
Simplify price chartsBy default, given price charts on CMC include four components, Marketcap, Price (USD), Price (USDT), and Volume. So, sometimes you don't want to see all of four components, and want to see only price in BTC and volume; or price in USDT and volume. How to do this? First, let's see four default components on given price charts. If you want to see three components: price in BTC, price in USDT, and volume. You have to click on Marketcap to disable this component, then you will get the following price chart. If you want to simplify your price chart more, with only two components: Price in BTC and volume; let click on Price (USD) to disable one more component. Then you will get the following price chart.
Translations for local boards |
|
|
|
|
In short, theymos actually does not give you or anyone permission to do this, and forum members don't support your ideas for sure.
The main reason is:
- There are so many phising sites, phising forum with prefix of their domain names are bitcointalk. We don't need to give scammers a perfect chance to start a new wave of phising sites with fake charity purposes. I meant, if you get permission from theymos to do this, or even when you will keep doing this without permission (with the site domain name like: cabalism13bitcointalk.charity, example), and your charity site get big success, big funds from community, I believe that we soon will see a new wave of x-, y-, z-bitcointalk.charity/.com/whatever) sites and they together will significantly destroy the reputation of official bitcointalk.org.
- Your idea, your charity community originated from the forum (You actually have a topic for charity in the forum for months, I knew it), it's good. So, there is no reason to stick your charity site with bitcointalk word, if you don't have 'shady' intention to get benefits from it (sorry, but I don't offend you, it is not perfect experession, and please focus on my main flow of ideas), you don't care to add bitcointalk to your site name.
You can create something like this: cabalism13.charity, or location.charity with location is the place of community you have plans to spend most of your charity funds in the future; or cryptocharityforfillipinos.charity.
- Additionally, if you succeed with it, we will soon see a new wave of topics in Meta, on Charity Funds, Charity Sites
|
|
|
|
The key question is: Why do you have to worry about Red Trust? - Without financial benefits from your account (campaigns, bounties, etc.): You won't worry about Red Trust. - Without needs to do trade with others: You won't worry about Red Trust. - Without needs to provide services in the forum (Escrow, campaign managements, other technical services): You won't worry about Red Trust. - Without needs to create and manage projects in the forum: You won't worry about Red Trust. For users, whom simply create, log in their accounts here to read and get news, or to discuss, ask for help, and help others. They won't have to worry about Red Trust. There is some other things, like pride or something like this, but I don't think most of users complained about their Red Trusts started from this. Even admin, theymos, does not care about negative trust some users leave on him account. It is the way theymos shows his belief on decentralization. You can check in Untrusted Feedback https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35Or LoyceV: When someone gives you negative trust without valid reason then what does that mean you are a scammer? No, it means someone just disqualified himself from ever deserving a position on DT. If you don't value someone's sent feedback, you can exclude him from your Trust list. I recently got red trust from someone. I left him neutral trust explaining it, and mentioned it in my reputation thread because I was curious why he left it. I'll never know, because he was banned the same day.
In brief, the OP question is too general to answer relevantly. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe the low posting rate of Junior Member comes from more actively reports from forum members. It is obviously that members at such rank usually make spam posts. Hence, when forum users more actively report spam posts, their posts (of Junior Member) will mostly be deleted, that in turn affects on general posting rate of Junior Member rank.
For higher ranks, they have higher posting rates (of actively posted users only), mainly because there are more campaigns for such ranks within last two or three months. So, they have posted more regularly.
fillipone, you missed it. When Bitcoin is high, more campaigns will be run, so bounty hunters will become more actively. Additionally, people tend to discuss more or fake-discuss more. In addition, you are right that it is just raw data, and not exactly reflects real things, but we can retrieve some basic descriptive statistics from it.
|
|
|
|
...
Calculate, really? You only colored figures given by suchmoon, there is no calculation at all. |
|
|
|
I thank DdmrDdmr for valuable suggestions. I made it. Here are results: Note: Excluding all ranks like Founder, Staff, Administrator, Donator, Global Moderator, and VIP. Here are some results: 1. Percentage of active users per rankThe top five rank are: - Legendary
- Hero Member
- Junior Member
- Copper Member
- Senior Member
 2. Average posts of active users per rankThe top five ranks are: - Hero Member
- Legendary
- Senior Member
- Full Member
- Member
There are huge gaps between Hero Member, Legendary, and Senior member ranks, at 49, 40.3, and 31.3 average posts per active users, respectively. 
It seems that Newbies and Brandnews reduce their level of spamming (due to banned, nuked, or they lost hope to rank up, and then give up spamming). Despite of the percentage of active Junior Members per total users at this rank is 20%, that is not much significant lower than the figure of Hero Member rank, but average posts per active users for Junior Member rank is 19.8 compared to 49 for Hero Member rank. |
|
|
|
I think this should be in reputation.
Actually, I think this should be a pm lol
I made it. {c} Where to create Trust Appeal?It is the Reputation child board. Most of users create their Trust Appeals in Meta board, that is wrong, because such things related to Trust don't relate to forum issues. Therefore, it is clearly not belong to Meta board. Please create your Trust Appeal in Reputation child board |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
