So give free reign to scammers UNTIL they scam?

Allows ponzis and other HYIPs until they stop paying out, and THEN tag them?

The issue is that the whole damn thing is based on opinions.

The Pharmacist has a boner for people he feels don't speak English to his standard. This does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Lauda has no time for people she feels don't see as deeply as her. I'm not entirely sure on what map the direction she's looking can be found, but that's my issue. This also does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

You know, I get that all these people are trying to protect the foremost forum for a subject they care deeply about. And they're working with broken tools. Theymos probably never realised this forum would grow like it has, but there you go - yay, crypto

The practices that are happening at the moment are exclusionary. This is not good. The forum was founded for people to discuss crypto, and this includes the clueless, the stupid, the slow, the rude, the arrogant and the just plain weird.

Warn the abusers. Ban the persistent. Trust tag the scammers.

If they're not scamming, leave the trust button alone. It's not what it's for.

theymos has already given his guidance.  I believe the responsibility of DT users such as myself and Blazed would be to exclude users who engage in this behavior.  I have done so.  Blazed has done the opposite. 

theymos has already given his guidance.  I believe the responsibility of DT users such as myself and Blazed would be to exclude users who engage in this behavior.  I have done so.  Blazed has done the opposite. 

To be honest with you, I'd pull the whole trust idea completely. But I realise this might not be practical.

The issue arises when the word "suspicion" gets into the mix. It's not objective, and it's opinion-based.

There are a few ways the current situation could be improved, but ultimately, it needs moderators, and not a militia.

If his reply is the below, what would be your response? 

Their will be no end of discussion here until this man stop his early judgement https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017 all need due process as I seen this as abusive act. Old DT member didn't do that one since they know how to scale things.

I don't want people posting trash one-liners and filling up the forum with 200-page threads with useless remarks and the most general-ass statements imaginable.

You can only handle so many "bitcoin is good?" threads.

---

If you could, just try to stomach some of the spam megathreads in the Economics (and its child board, Speculation) and Bitcoin Discussion sections and you'll truly see what I mean. I'm talking threads with 15+ pages. Usually, they're devolved enough.

So let's sit around and let the forum spam a little more before we get more mods, right? Perhaps this is a strawman but you have to find some way of combatting spam. How long is it going to take for theymos to appoint new moderators? And how effective will they be?

There are vast oceans of spam and certainly, that's a testament to how uninfluential moderation has been. This is certainly not the best of dealing with the situation but it's exacerbated to this level: you have to provide some deterrent to spamming. I mean, look at what happened in the past with account farming (i.e. rizzlarolla's thread). Where was the administrative concern?

I actually disagree: from what I saw, the style of typing has been the same throughout the years. Some good posts, some bad posts.

P.S. Nice multiple posting gaps and nice change of the quality of your posts. Could you make it more less obvious?

That is not a rule.

How about you go away instead?

Hi all,

So, to get it out of the way, this account has newbie status. I don't think that should be relevant, but since this guy is probably about to tag me, let's just get the abuse out of the way. FWIW, I did have an older account (MUCH older), but I can't recover it, so them's the breaks.

So anyhow.

This guy "The Pharmacist" has been on a rampage on the Beginner's board. And that's fine, cos in fairness, there is a lot of crap posted on there.

But his trust ratings are all to do with "No english", "Filipino shitposter", and more "not as white as me" type comments. Yeah, OK, the last one was exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis, but it's not undeserved. Check his lovely trust history.

My question is simple: Is English required to participate in this community?

If the answer is yes, may I ask that all other language boards be closed down immediately. Also let me know, as I am not into that kind of closed-minded thinking. I'd prefer to get the fuck out of dodge before we have to validate with a picture of our KKK outfit.

If the answer, on the other hand, is NO, then why are this guy's trust ratings valid, and who is auditing them?

I get that he's in this "Default Trust" network....which in my opinion is a terrible idea to start with. "Default"? REALLY? I trust my great-uncle to tell me great stories about when he was a child in post-WW2 London. I also implicitly trust him to buy his round at the bar. I do NOT trust him not to grab my wife's ass when he's had a couple of glasses of red. So is he "default" or not? Well, I guess it kinda DEPENDS.

Trusted to perform escrow based on multiple previous dealings - great. No people skills required, just the ability to track a trade, potentially handle some postage, and a facility with wallets.

Trusted to moderate a board? People and interpretation skills most definitely required. Also a cool head, a calm approach, an intelligent approach to cultural issues, a diplomatic manner, and many other things.

Some people have both, and that's amazing. However, when we talk about TRUST ratings, this is not the same as moderation - that's required, and to be honest, the right people are in place mostly....nowadays.

So coming back to this default trust thing....

Someone is given this ability to place the Red Mark of Plague (awaiting proof they don't internally call it this) on anyone they like, for any reason, UNPOLICED? Are you fucking NUTS?

How did they earn it? Escrow? Fine, make them a trusted escrow. Moderation? Fine, make them a mod.

To let people run around like this posting racist red marks on anyone they choose is insanity. This is the biggest crypto-board in the world, and I can tell you that it's quickly building a reputation as the unfriendliest. Most especially among members of non-English speaking countries who don't have a dedicated child-forum.

Who says they are not valuable, or will not become valuable, members of the community?

You lot want Crypto to succeed? Yes? Then we need people from everywhere backing it and being curious. They don't deserve to encounter an arsehole like this guy. FYI: Google translate is pretty popular, but not perfect.

For this guy to run around tagging people because English is not their first language is plain wrong. You don't have to take my word for that. Check his trust page (all four billion pages of it, the arrogant bastard), and look at his remarks from late 2017 to date. More and more racist.

The Pharmacist - feel free to tag this account with negative trust. Don't you dare say that it's because of poor English though, because I'll debate you into a hole. Do the decent thing, and go back on your trust history, and remove the red marks you made on people honestly trying to learn and become involved. Collaborate with Mitchell and the mods on the Beginner forum to ban the genuine shitposters. Get your dirty racist comments off that page, and be a grown-up.

And for the love of God, would someone please get rid of this ridiculous, outlandish idea of "default trust", and the people who abuse it.

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

Yeah, I rather get ban than "Red Trust"
Red Trust is for the Criminals, SCAMMERS, and so on!

Have you noticed the amount of threads and posts there?  I've been here for 4 years and the last few months it's getting completely out of hand.  I counted: in half an hour you get 4 (!) pages of new posts just in the ANN section.  4!!!   Every 10 minutes there seems to be a new ICO or coin.  This needs to stop, there needs to be some quality check.   Any suggestions?

I've previously suggested that ICOs have to pay some sort of fee to be able to make a thread in the Announcement board. This will sort the wheat from the chaff and at least will prove that they're at least willing to put some money behind their scam project. Far too much abuse is going on here because everything is free. Want two hundred accounts to sig spam and claim bounties? Sure, go right ahead. Want one thousand accounts to spam bump threads with boys? No problem. Want to create a crapcoin and pay an unlimited amount of users to spam it all over the forum with the coin you pre-mined for free? Standard practice. Rinse and repeat after your campaign has ended and staff are left to clean up the mess from these greedy and lazy scammers month after month. If people have to pay a fee they'll think twice about listing here but at the moment they have nothing to lose. Charging people to have a signature will instantly stop account farming and people having dozens to hundreds of accounts each because nobody would be able to afford it.