Alright, but the issue with neutral ratings is in the name. They have no effect, and are practically invisible unless you specifically go looking for them. I understand (and agree, to an extent) with your point about users doing due diligence before trading, but you're assuming every user that would see the problematic post will:

1. Be logged in, so able to see the trust system. My example included that the potential scammer was not trading on the forum, but instead linking off the forum for their sales. Potential victims have no reason to even have an account here, as they could just as easily stumble upon the thread through other means.

2. Know what the trust system is, and know what to look for. As much as you may dislike the 'red and green flashy bits', it's one of the only sure-fire ways to get people to actually notice something. If the potential victim doesn't know what the trust system is, let alone what a neutral rating is, your plan to deal with these scenarios is useless for them. You could argue that someone shouldn't be trading if they don't understand the trust system, but given the massive variety in users here (in age, proficiency of language etc) that is somewhat unfair.

Whether you agree with the way the current trust system is used or not, an invisible-until-looked-for rating on a potential scammer is going to do diddly squat to help a good portion of potential victims.

The only staff intervention (as in use of staff powers) that happens within the trust system currently is deletion of spam. I can't imagine that would change.
I understand that you want accountability, but what exactly would that change? You say yourself that they may just continue to 'gang up', but now everyone can see what they're doing. Without intervention or forced removal of ratings by staff, which wouldn't work anyway, how exactly would this system be any different to the one we have currently? If there is always a big spooky mafia that neg rates everyone that disagrees with them, what difference would accountability make?

I never said the end user needs to know how the calculations are made, however this system is already too complicated and opaque to the point that hardly anyone understands it as it is. Adding more parts to a system creates more opportunities for the system to be broken. Furthermore every time one of these little patches are added it just gets worse and worse. We should be simplifying this cluster fuck, not just duct taping over it.

You are correct in pointing out that my proposal would not solve the issue of people including people in their clique regardless of how extreme their behavior is as well as selectively excluding their opponents. Regardless of this though, they would under my proposal still be required to substantiate using evidence any actual negative ratings and that tool of abuse would largely be removed from them as the barrier of entry of manufacturing false evidence is much higher. Furthermore this again returns accountability back upon an accuser that negative rates without substantiation. This mass shitting of negative ratings all over the user base with zero accountability is the primary tool of retribution and abuse used. As a result they can exclude and include away all day, but the ones leaving the negative rating will be required to substantiate their claims, unlike now where they can just say "I believe XYZ and I don't need to explain myself" regardless if they actually have any evidence or actually believe it.

This will build a clear trail of patterns of behavior people can reference that will be created each and every time they attempt to leave an abusive rating, as opposed to now where they just put on their little clown show and hide in the confusion because they have no obligation (accountability) to take any of it seriously. The difference is my metric is inherently objective in subject matter, whereas currently the metric is totally subjective leaving a 4 lane highway of a loophole for abuse. I want to use the objective metric to turn that highway into a narrow dirt road that leaves mud caked all over them when they take the abusive route. They will continue to abuse, yes, but now they will have to lie to the whole forum over and over and over again about objective facts, which is far more difficult.

There may be situations where people may want to label some one is a scammer when it does not fit firmly within the rubric of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, yes. However nothing is preventing people from simply creating a thread in the appropriate subforum and leaving a neutral rating with the thread referenced. If a user is doing due diligence, this is something they will see. If a user is not doing due diligence, no one is going to save them from themselves as a fool and his money will always be parted. We should be training new users to do due diligence and carefully review ratings, not just look at flashy red and green bits next to the avatar. Additionally the lack of due diligence combined with a squad of pretender police gives a false sense of security that scams are moderated, making users more open to cons when they should instead be doing their own due diligence.

I'm not convinced "demonetization" is a problem.

The vacuum that's created when Youtube cuts off peoples' income stream creates a huge business opportunity for other startups.

The censorship will likely backfire.

This is going to head to a Supreme Court decision on what these companies are and what they can do. Are they private companies, that can do anything they want?

I don't think it's going to turn out that way, any more than a black man can be kicked out of a store because it's a "private business."

OK. So you are abandoning your principles in favor of relying on theymos' words. That's fine, and as he's the admin and been here longer than almost everybody, I too value his opinions. However, you should probably take into account that he also said this:


You don't have to be big on "forgiveness" if you don't want -- that's entirely up to you. But it would be ridiculous for you to continue espousing the idea that the system should behave under your principles of "objective standards" if you yourself are unwilling to use them.

Vod is the better man. He's not perfect (no one is), but he's a lot better than you.

He also never moped about the trust system not having "objective standards" for months (years) and then gave you a negative trust for being "mentally ill" (though by all accounts it would be just as perfectly warranted). So do you have the authorized paperwork that declares Vod mentally ill or what "objective standard" are you basing that off of?

I see, so suddenly you want protection under my metric! Thanks for demonstrating its usefulness. Unfortunately we are not operating under my objective metric of a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, we are operating under a subjective free for all, one you take full advantage of on a regular basis. Under the current standard we are operating under, even Theymos himself said leaving you a negative rating was completely valid, and after seeing you feign remorse and then move right back into unrepentant abuse just as you always do I decided to leave that rating for you because you more than earned it. As far as your mental illness, that is evident from your own continued unyielding escalation of unrepentant abusive behavior, but that is not why I left you the rating, I left it because you doxed and reported a user to the IRS as a form of retribution for their criticism of you. It is more than evident you have trouble controlling yourself.

I did my best to steer clear of you, you started this shit, as you always do over and over and over again. Please, spare us the victim sob story. You have no one to blame but yourself. Funny, you seemed to think you could negative rate me from a position of DT1 simply for having opinions critical of your behavior which is how all of this began. I guess only special people like you get to have opinions. Funny how you "aren't arguing with" me, but you are still going on and on about me. You can't help yourself, that is the defining trait of your obsessive compulsive behavior.

Hey look what I dug up!





So which is it Vod? You are contradicting yourself in your own words. Oh right, you are pretending to be the better man so you don't have to respond to being caught being abusive and then blatantly lying about it to save yourself from digging your pit of bullshit even deeper trying to explain it.

That's "feminist" hypocrisy for you. Half of that kid's DNA is from the father but he don't get any say about it.

And yes, we are noticing. They just substituted the government for the "patriarchy". Their fathers, husbands, sons having legal guardianship over them has been replaced by the government doing stuff for them.

Not surprising since they are the "economic engine". All you need to do is go to the mall with them for half an hour - women would buy any crap as long as you rub them the right way. The government have every incentive to keep dropping cash on women's laps so they can keep spending.

Who would want this? I am from a third world country and if this will happen, it will be troublesome not only for a lot of people but also for the government since people will obviously start a rally about this. It should not always about how rich people are but how people should be treated based on their diseases or sickness. Everyone should have an equal share of being cured and being taken care of.

I knew some of the guys who started Youtube.  Former co-workers of mine and decent folks.  They were legitimately proud of their accomplishments in creating the platform, and of the technical feats given that CPU and bandwidth dynamics were much different back then than they are today.

Even some time after they were gobbled up by Google they maintained a fair degree of autonomy I think, and some pride and vision for the platform they created.

I have to guess that the originals are probably mostly gone.  That seems pretty common for startup personnel who are sucked in, and it tends to be the person's choice to move on.  If I had been one of the original Youtube people I'd now be spitting on the ground every time I heard the word given what Google has finally managed to do to the platform.  The only consultation is that it took them many many years to degenerate Youtube to it's current level.  The other consolation, of course, would be the big pay-day the people got, and probably the fond memories of the hectic period as a startup.

I bet the people who started Youtube never dreamed that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith would be editing their content in order to protect the ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine.  But there it is.

I see, this does make some sense. Though I still do think that they're going to be profitable for sometime. It seems like they're still able to get cable companies to pay more and more for their channels, which is even listed in the pew article you listed. I think that this could come under attack if viewership continues to falter (as licensing fee increases, may not always be able to cover advertising declines) and if people continue to move away from cable at a faster and faster rate then licensing fees are going to shrink.

This isn't just a problem with one news company though, this is something for EVERY channel.

The main idiot is still arguing, just with different people.  If I lock this thread he will REEEcreate another.  :/

What do you suggest be done to end this finally, that we haven't tried over the last four years?  

People have voiced their opinions, now everything is being repeated ad infinitum.  

Please don't blame me for the actions of others.  I am no longer arguing with him, hence the thread title.

Tecshare, Badbear removed me from his trust list.  I do not have a protected position on default trust.  Stop lying about me.

I'll go add the reference to the trust now and put this to rest.  

Here ya go!
The above PM was sent to Vod

Are you not able to read post which is in this thread?

---

I'll just drop this and now this http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-25_Sat_07.01h/754727.html  
Seems TESCHARE support violent persons and wants them in DT.

@TESCHARE, I figured it is best for me to put you on ignore for some time, so this is what I will do. Thank you for your replies on subject...

Not true though, a good amount of media companies in the age of Trump -- which caused a LARGE spike in ratings and people watching, were able to turn some pretty large profits. Look at a company like CNN, who racked in $600m in operating profits for the year (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/awful-ratings-record-profits-whats-cnns-secret/258477/)

Other companies are also pulling in some pretty hefty profits as well - NY Times https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-times-posts-higher-profit-adds-223-000-digital-subscribers-11557335720 and so on and so forth.

These companies aren't subsidized, they're making money.

Don't think I've ever seen so many words written by somebody so brutally censored before. I think theymos summed it all up best 4+ years ago.

Furthermore even beyond my individual case, this policy of moderating trust by using default trust removal as leverage against users is VERY DESTRUCTIVE to this community and simply allows trolls to use the staff to tear apart this community with the staff's own hands.

Name:   nutildah
Posts:   2152
Activity:   560
Position:   Hero Member
Date Registered:   April 19, 2014, 11:50:27 AM
Trust:   0: -0 / +0

My posts were frequently contentious and sometimes downright argumentative, but that's because I'm a real person who was genuinely interested in bitcoin and this forum, and I wasn't just trying to build up an account to sell it or do sig campaigns.

Its a completely anonymous account, never been linked to my real identity. I stopped posting for the most part about 6 months ago.

I would like 0.3 BTC for it.

You can get back to me here or via PM. Thanks!

You're not saying I'm wrong either. I just pointed out why Zepher thought that you were an asshole (one of many reasons). There is no need into bringing up your 2+ year old topic nobody cares about anymore.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

It was interesting to see the reaction in the UK when the US ambassador said they wanted to get their claws into the NHS as part of a trade deal.

Everyone from every end of the spectrum apart from a couple of certifiable psycho assholes went absolutely fucking ballistic at the idea.

All you have to do is look at American government spending per capita. It's the highest in the world by a very, very significant margin yet you can still die from neglect or wind up bankrupted by it. Ergo American opinions are less than worthless on this subject.

American citizens have been conned into paying vastly more tax than anywhere else and having to pay out of their own pocket too. How did the medical industry manage that trick? If nothing else America serves as a superb example to rest of the planet on how not to end up.