If theymos doesn't approve, he could simply not acknowledge the vote whatsoever and pick (or not pick) based on his own accord. It would be a let down, of course, but the vote will just be used to perhaps help in the decision.
This is the part that worries me because it's creating a default bias that unless Theymos objects that this should go through, which is the opposite order. I actually think quite the opposite as I do not expect theymos to act based on these votes (alone or even just primarily). I'm not voting. Even though it's not official, it can be used in the future against me to imply bias or favoritism.
That's a fair point. I think the best that we could do post-election is to *archive* the thread into the trashcan section. However, someone could still archive your vote in the meantime to use it against you at a later date. That said, I wouldn't understand someone using their vote against them (this in particular). |
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan. Reason: Illegal. |
|
|
|
|
Please stop bumping up your thread so frequently. You are allowed to post 1 bump/update per 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
I don't particularly care as long as persecutions and subsequent bans are not going to be made in public.
I don't think they ever will. ...the whole process of publicly electing new global moderators doesn't make much sense, and to me, looks more like farce and mockery
Read the fine print: Disclaimer
This is not an official election. The winner is not guaranteed to be promoted to Global Moderator, however he/she will be suggested to theymos to be promoted. This is only to determine who the community wants as a Global Moderator. Theymos may choose to promote the winner of this election, he also may not. He may choose to promote no one, he may choose to promote someone else.
|
|
|
|
Here's a picture of mine finally.  |
|
|
|
Nice auction lot here. I was not even aware that this book existed? Were the coins taken out of the airtities?
0.35 BTC |
|
|
|
Some mods are more active or exactly are less silent in their actions than others. I feel that the vote is a little bit biased by this fact but it remains valid imo.
That is correct, however that raises more questions. For example, does being the most active moderator make you the most *qualified* one? Does being a moderator for the most amount of time (regardless of activity) make you the most *qualified* one? If yes, why? If no, why not? et. al. You could gain *some* insight in regards to mod activity if you analyze mod payments but that's about it. In most cases you will just end up attempting to guess which address belongs to whom. |
|
|
|
1. EAL
2. EAL
3. EAL
EAL did not respond to the PM regarding the ballot IIRC, thus they are not on this list. This vote is invalid. |
|
|
|
Its not off topic. If you are going to elect a "Global Moderator", voters may want to know where they stand on the issue, and I might add its arguably the single most important issue facing this forum.
Well, if you are going to discuss the stances of individual moderators regarding it, then you are right. If you're going to discuss whether spam needs to be tackled and how, then it may very well be off-topic. Being a global moderator is not limited to this specific problem. I know know that the forum ticker talks about "the next phase of the beta forum software", but I will believe that there is a new forum software when I actually see it rolled out.  FYI those features are implemented. Also you may not have noticed the new 'News' above regarding the new forum. I am a bit confused about the difference of moderator and staff.
The staff ranks: patroller, section moderator, global moderator, admin. The first two are going to be marked as 'Staff' in all sections excluding the ones that they are assigned to (does not include patroller). Example: If you go to the Speculation section, you will see 'Moderator' under my name. |
|
|
|
|
1) A person does not have to deal with you to leave you a rating.
2) That rating is not visible by default, and thus does not affect your trust score. Your current trust score is: 0: -0 / +0
3) Trust system is not moderated unless in extreme cases of abuse.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
This discussion was beaten to death in several topics already. Tl;dr: Signature campaigns can be considered fine, and there is nothing wrong with genuine people, that are trying to contribute, earning some bonuses along the way. The problematic lies in people that are heavily farming accounts, shitposting and whatnot which is killing the forum from inside out. That said, this discussion would be kind-of off-topic so let's not derail this. If you want to continue discussing this, then bump up one of the older threads. |
|
|
|
Voted, can't see theymos promoting a staff member to Glob mod based on public votes though.
To be honest, neither do I. However, I think this is quite an interesting social experiment for our little community here. Can do community make such important decisions as a whole? (no drama and other nonsense) How resistant is this to *corruption*? et al. From other thread: I'll give my top priorities to Mitch since he can make tasks more easier with his custom bots.
AFAIK the new forum has those features built in, ergo the bot will likely be obsolete. However, yes, the bot was a tremendous help against the KNCMiner and Speculation section spam. |
|
|
|
personal matter between the two persons (knightkon & lauda)
It is most certainly not a person matter. I had no idea who this person is, nor what their business is/was. What I could say in this case is that the accounts served as collateral do not belong to scammer or spammer but to Knightkon Who paid them with his own money And who have changed ownership with a signed message; So the feedback sent to these accounts was not received by the people who deserved it But by this innocent person who is Knightkon With whom I have no relationship from far or near.
This makes the discussion a global thing, and not localized: If an account that has been neg. rated changes hands, does that invalidate all previous negative ratings? I will strongly say no. If we start doing this, this will open a lot of windows for potential abuse. The most simple solution to this problem is to not take accounts as collateral, period. 2 Hypothetical scenarios: 1) You give out a loan to account X without validating whether they're a scammer, spammer, etc. Sometime between loan begin date, and loan ending date (or even after) the user get at least 1 negative rating. User defaults on loan. Did the person leaving the rating scam you? 2) You give out a loan to account X which is part of a group of farmed accounts. Some moderator/admin bans that account sometime after loan default. Did the staff scam you? [2] All my respect for you @Lauda but you should review this situation because it is the busenesse of an innocent pesone who is at risk.
I have, several times now. At least I am not aggressively orientated towards the other side. And I apologize if I am wrong.
No need to apologize for making your point in a constructive and non aggressive matter, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
[2] - This is actually a somewhat dangerous situation. You could implicate yourself into a web of farmed accounts/spammers which could end up getting you permanently banned as well. Tl;dr: Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Was there a conclusion on this?
Still trying to get a hold of theymos so I can tl;dr him and he reviews this thread. I am very much for the feature or at least a trial of it. If it doesn't feel right then we can discontinue it but otherwise there seems little reason not to implement it.
Most of the people were supportive of this, with some raising concerns of whether it will be really useful or not. |
|
|
|
Hmm wait a minute, yours say "original" right? I think these should say authenticated on them, could wait and see if someone else cares to reply as well, sorry for any misinformation.
It says 'authentic' between those original lines. It i just hard to spot due to the way that the picture has been taken. I got 3 holograms of this type. |
|
|
|
Not with my coins right now but that looks the same as mine did, can double check tomorrow. Do they look off to you or?
No, no it's not that. I got a huge box of items shipped at once, and was not sure which holograms belonged to which DIY coins.  Thanks. |
|
|
|
Received mine the other week and they look very crisp, high quality and better looking than most higher end coins! Needless to say I love them, and with the documentation it's a very nice addition to any collection. Love that I can keep one safe and throw around the double  Could you check your holograms and post a picture/compare to these (sorry for bad quality picture)?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
