Hello. How can I look at history of put or received merit? thanks
You can see that on this page.
Also, I've not clear what happens if I'm caught selling merits points for BTCBTCBTC. Am I free to do that? Will I be publicly shamed in public plaza? Will I be permabanned from all our galaxy solar systems?
If you are caught selling Merit you will likely be negative trusted, and possibly have your ability to give merit removed. |
|
|
|
I write decent posts but I haven't received any merits!
You do? Where? Perhaps you can upvote some of my posts?
That kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
Also, post length doesn't indicate quality. I could write 100 characters of pure drivel, that doesn't make it a good post.
|
|
|
|
I would actually like to see the number of required merit increased double or triple in order to rank up. The users have 35 weeks to hit sr member and 70 weeks to hit here, so to encourage therm to make more quality posts by needing a high # of merit would be great
It could also possibly be interesting to fiddle with consequences if someone were to get negative merit (once implemented). Perhaps ranks could be lost, or privileges such as signature styling/avatars or something similar. |
|
|
|
Following your logic if my own account would be hacked by someone, and if it wasn't been connected with my btc, I'll not get any possibility to recover it.
Essentially, yes. You're correct. This strong security system acceptable for real equal something accounts even member account - but not for 2 month account
It's unreasonable to give different levels of security to different accounts based on characteristics that account may have. can u ban this guy udivkx then for selling accounts?
No. While discouraged, selling accounts isn't technically against the rules. or let him do money back, as u said before.. ?
He can do what he likes, that's between you and him. Look - if this account been hacked - real owner would be contacting u - but this not happening.
Unless the real owner was inactive for whatever reason. the real value of this account for me - not 50 msgs that been wrote by it, only airdrops that already registered..idk what to do now - can facetime you Moderator and show telegram, impossible to fake right? Can prove even KYC docs lol
No. The moderators will make specific edge cases for accounts that could be an issue if not returned. A bought account used to farm airdrops doesn't fit into that category. this acc wasn't registered with bitcoin - it was created and promoted only for sale.
Is that meant to make it better? Telling us that the account was only made to do something that the forum discourages? |
|
|
|
I usually go to the Beginners & Help forum, so that I can help newbies, I like it. But why I'll do this now? The newbies don't have sMerit to send me if they like my post, right?
To be nice? To help people? Not everything has to have some sort of measurable reward. |
|
|
|
I'm very happy that things have started to happen, hopefully we can all stop bitching about account farming now (including me).  Thanks so much theymos, I'm looking forward to this becoming a forum I enjoy visiting again. |
|
|
|
Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system: - On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
- This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
- If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him
I'm a big fan of this, especially regarding the third part of the suggestion. I think that part is near crucial though. Without this, we will just reach a similar issue that we are having currently where people are getting all riled up and not much is actually changing.
The only solution is to limit each thread topic in Bitcoin Discussion up to 24 hours only (forum standard time), Because even if the topic is relevant/necessary the majority of it to be spammed is up to 100%.
What about the spam problems outside of Bitcoin Discussion? and a lot of color tag ill only confused the new member of this forum and it will be laborious
I'm unsure quite what you mean about it being laborious. Laborious for who? The people that volunteer to do it?
Only a DT would be able to tag a spammer, right? Otherwise, everybody will tag everybody and I smell the "he tagged me with his alt accounts to get a slot in the campaign XYZ!!!"  It could perhaps be an interesting idea to have a special list of users that use this system, and only this system (unrelated to DT). I know for a fact that I wouldn't trust certain DT members to judge post quality, where as I would with others that aren't necessarily on the network (perhaps rightfully so).
Although that yellow is hard on the eyes. Maybe orange? Spammers
I'm not sure I'd go for Orange, as that is already in use by the Trust system. I don't have a good alternative though, and may be overthinking it.
why noone cant see the solution its to remove the sign campaign on this forum?
This has been said multiple times, and theymos has said publicly that this won't happen. Therefore, we as a community should try to find a way around. |
|
|
|
So I can just go and give negative trust to everyone here who try to false accuse me?!?
Go wild. The idea behind the trust system is that if you do not trust someone, you can leave them a rating to reflect that. |
|
|
|
I would suggest leaving neutral feedback starting with "Spammer" or whatever word we agree on, and ask signature managers to disallow users with that trust.
I could get behind this solution if signature campaign managers could agree on it. Doing this would also semi-invalidate SMAS, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I would leave negative feedback to spammers only if they have untrustworthy behavior such as constantly copying and pasting content
There'd be little point in this; it would be more effective to report the account and get it banned. Should the account not be banned, perhaps this would be a good way to continue. |
|
|
|
But they can just contact the seller and verify the deal - he is member status, I dont think that member will risk of his account to cheat on Jr.member acc for 30$
Seller contacted them already - i can shoot video from telegram of deal also
Neither of those things are acceptable forms of proof as they can easily be faked. The only real form of proof are things that cannot, such as a Signed message from a Crypto or PGP key. |
|
|
|
|
Tell me friend, why should moderators help you out in doing something that isn't endorsed by the forum (and is discouraged)?
If you can't provide a signed message from an address staked by that account, no amount of easily faked screenshots will help you.
|
|
|
|
I've protected far more BTC for users on this forum than you ever will and see little value in your harassing new users with negative feedback if their posts aren't of high enough quality for your liking.
We're talking about people's contributions to DT, not an escrow service. If we need someone's dick to suck about that, we can hop on yours (providing you can scooch over a bit).
The main question that I have to anyone that is opposed to tagging spammers, what solution to you propose instead? theymos is making decent first steps towards a solution, but it is nowhere near a fix to the issue right now. Also, 'do nothing' isn't an answer. If I wanted to spend my time around illiterate morons I'd frequent the comment section of Minecraft videos on YouTube. I don't. Also, don't give me that 'spam = pagerank' nonsense. Bitcointalk is the premier forum for 'discussion about Bitcoin', like it needs to be boosted up the rankings by artificial bullshit. |
|
|
|
Put me down for 'd' if you please! E: Sent using LTC. |
|
|
|
Also, seeing the disgusting minifrij always replying to these thread made people feel sickening.
Huh? Who are you again? |
|
|
|
|
I recieced my gold penny yesterday, it looks fantastic! Thank you BP!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm very interested in that SW D1G and maybe D2.
|
|
|
|
People care not about principles and thorough solutions. They want stopgap solutions. This thread proves it.
If all of these solutions are 'stopgap' then what would you suggest, oh wise one? Hilariousetc opts for some kind of oligarchic system where the rich get it all and the poor get nothing. Is that Theymos's ideal? Fine. He apparently doesn't like full freedom of speech.
Not being able to have a large flashy signature doesn't impair someone's freedom of speech. Theymos allows multiple accounts but at the same time he allows it that some trust moderators punish users with multiple accounts. That's not coherent policy.
Because the two systems are completely separate and irrelevant to each other. Forum moderaters and DT members are not the same, and therefore one has no need to follow the guidelines of the other. It's shocking that someone questioning principle and free speech cannot grasp this extremely simple concept. By the rules, scamming is allowed on this forum. Do you suggest that we stop tagging scammers, just because the forum rules (which aren't even official) don't explicitly say it's wrong? If that's the case, why bother even having a trust system? Are you starting to understand how silly and misinformed your argument is yet? |
|
|
|
|
Put me down for one, if you may!
E: a16bfe6ba6f388c9b5e2ec7ce0c9f5ae063f1ef2e962b4773984cb0cfac4e677
Will push through ConfirmTX if it doesn't confirm by tomorrow evening.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
