Reporting percentages are a ceil function.

ceil(good / [good + bad])

Building up a reputation of being late is quite ill-advised.

If business agreements are not fulfilled and are regularly ignored, why would you bother dealing with such an individual? Your expectations are dissolved: there is no point of making any further contractual obligations (including but not exclusively apropos to time) because everything is determined by a single party. May as well be tied up and bent over in an inviting position.

This seems unlikely. You must have a lot of praise for nutildah, considering all the scams that have happened all these years. Are they some mastermind? How many trades have they done on the forum to truly capitalize on the scam, because obviously a lot of money has to be at stake for such a devious scheme to have been crafted.

It's not something as asinine as being related to signatures or something vague, right? You wouldn't possibly toss out blanket statements like an idiot without having a strong idea of the mechanics of this scam.

I would say that a single reply is simply dwarfed by the impact of front-page placement and by the (assumed) diminishing relevance of subsequent posts by prospective readers.

In the case of users that read in chronological or reverse order, padded replies can create enough noise to dissuade further reading.
Besides, is it really a case of "so bad we quarantine the scams" a la Investor-based games?

I wouldn't mind some help reporting posts across the Altcoin Discussion forum, if you're up for that.

But... something tells me that isn't the type of 'following' you want. Sure would be a nice way to transform the forum in your image...

What are you, nutildah's clingy girlfriend? Following their actions like a goon. You need to get your own sense of identity!

It is of these moments of clandestine purity that which the mind forgoes all sense, producing the divinations of conquest from whence their ancestral bodies have produced a miasma of dualism, bathed in ambrosia and mist. Despite the delirium it is attested that the source of the insurmountable ignorance of indistinguishable cantor prophecies that beseech a consensus of disposition and perception beyond the vacuous contents of text they have strewn, beholden to not enlightenment but impossibility of continuity and cogency. Alack, it is the poor recipients that cannot be convinced of their collective stupor. Sardonic would be he to suggest the alternative.

What would your proposed solution be? Try to answer this question with a succinct response.

For example, KYC or identification-based structures defeat the purpose of the platform. Should it simply not exist, at all?

It was not my fault, I say.

There is someone above me you can blame.

Because of this, I am freed from all infractions.

cao ni ma i am now xi jinping QED

---

Have you ever considered the rationale for the attack against account sales?

I wonder: can you even come up with a justification for instigating such a campaign against Royse, given how grave this crime of account selling is?

I wonder if it has anything to do with the concept of impersonating another user, their reputation, and falsely representing themselves.
I wonder if that is relevant after 4 years of continued behavior under the same cryptographic identity, and whether any historical history of Royse777 influences perception of their current self.

  And I wonder if you know
  What it means^*

---

If the forum is as fucked as you think it is, what in the world do you hope to accomplish with a thread?
If you have read through the rules, you would know that scams are unpunished, are common, and will never be removed.
Don't be so scatterbrained that you're manifesting some random logic of restitution underneath more delusions of corruption.

Just do what everyone does after they get negative feedback: leave after a couple months of losing their marbles in text form, or say "fuck it all" and start scamming on the forum.

Preferably the former, though it's not like anyone's going to stop you in the latter!

Shouldn't be this difficult.

Serial # is required; so people know it's not a duplicate picture/kialara.
Name, current date or recent block + (last 8 characters of) hash; so people know that this is in your possession.

Recall that the arbitrary thresholds for 'report quantity' on any given comment gives way to Sybil attacks. That, applied to a large-enough ecosystem that is not within the capabilities of human management, results in a high number of false positives. Better those than false negatives: there will always be more, and anything even slightly damaging cannot be allowed to propagate.^_*

---

Hard to see how to contain a certain level of decorum in comments. Scalability, decentralization, security...

^_Re^_all^_y s^_hou^{_{ld ge}}t ^_on ^_ma^_kin^_g t^_hat ^_an ^_ea^_sie^_r p^_roc^_ess^_.
On^_e c^{_{an on}}l^_y h^_ope<sup><sub>.

T</sub></sup>h^_in^{_{k a}}b^_ou^{_{t a}}l^{_{l t}}h^{_{e e}}s^_ot^_er^_ic b^_ul^_ls^_hi^{_{t y}}o^{_{u h}}a^{_{d t}}o l^_ea^_rn a^_nd n^_ow i^_ma^_gi^_ne i^{_{f y}}o^{_{u f}}i^_rs^{_{t j}}o^_in^_ed t^_he f^_or^_um a^_nd h^_ad n^{_{o i}}d^_ea w^_ha^{_{t t}}o d^_o.

^_Do^_es^_n'^{_{t m}}a^_tt^_er i^{_{f i}}t^_'s t^_ru^{_{e i}}n t^_hi^{_{s s}}i^_tu^_at^_io^{_{n o}}r n^_ot^{_{: i}}t^_'s a s^_im^_pl^{_{e s}}o^_lu^_ti^_on t^{_{o a}}n e^_ve^{_{n s}}i^_mp^_le^{_{r p}}r^_ob^_le^_m. U^_se^_rs s^_im^_pl^{_{y n}}e^_ed a f^_ew w^_or^_ds^{_{, o}}r e^_ve^{_{n b}}a^_si^{_{c k}}n^_ow^_le^_dg^{_{e o}}f t^_he e^_xi^_st^_en^_ce a^_nd l^_oc^_at^_io^{_{n o}}f r^_ul^_es^_.
Th^_en m^_ay^_be t^_he w^_ho^_le '^_ig^_no^_ra^_nc^{_{e o}}f t^_he r^_ul^_es^{_{' a}}r^_gu^_me^_nt w^_il^{_{l h}}a^_ve s^_om^{_{e m}}o^_re v^_al^_id^_it^_y.

^_Yo^_u c^{_{an ex}}p^_ect ^_th^{_{at th}}i^_s f^_eat^_ure ^_is ^_pr^_oba^_bly ^_to^_o i^_nsi^_gni^_fic^_ant ^_fo^_r t^{_{he an}}n^_oya^_nce ^_of ^_mo^_dif^_yin^_g b^_ase^_-SM^{_{F. th}}e^_ymo^_s o^_fte^_n s^_imp^{_{ly sh}}r^_ugs ^_of^_f f^_eat^_ure ^_cr^_eep^_: t^_his ^_id^_ea, ^_mu^{_{ch li}}k^_e m^_any ^_ot^_her^{_{s, is mo}}s^_t l^_ike^{_{ly du}}e ^_fo^_r M^_eta^_ban^_don^_men^{_{t. (u}}n^_til ^_mo^_nth^_s l^_ate^_r w^_hen ^_th^_e s^_ame ^_to^_pic ^_ap^_pea^{_{rs ov}}e^_r m^_ult^_ipl^_e t^_hre^_ads^₎

This same structure has been repeated an exhausting number of times; only the players' names change.

Both negative and positive feedback have reduced value, by way of the linear calculation (as opposed to the old exponential) and by dilution from the increased number of DT{1,2} users.
In the past, it would have been apt to exclude and retag redundantly. However, flags are supposed to be the primary system of consequence. Given loose negative/positive feedback behavior, the best one can ask is for JollyGood to remove any excessive tags (as should be standard given any user with DT power), and for users to exclude JollyGood if they believe he is acting beyond a reasonable measure of excess.

Ideally, I would ask that the users who exclude DT feedback to ensure that legitimate and pragmatic negatives are left on users. However, since flags are supposed to be b_^et_^te_^r, we can simply let people shift towards use of this system: redundant support is a fundamental aspect of flags, and thereby allows individual exclusion from the DT network without suffering any significant consequences.


In some ways, this is better. Ensuring that visual/direct indicators of scam/negative behavior are locked behind multiple users prevents any single party from exercising a nuclear option. (Note past drama in the closed-circle DT system)

In other ways, the execution could be improved. Apropos to those specifics, that will probably take another year or so for the next major BCT update.

Some modern forums have an auto-merge feature, where your newer replies are merged into the prior if it is a consecutive post.

As for excessive bumps, that's more of a threshold issue: unless you have a rigorous idea of the borders, it would probably be better left to a case-by-case solution. I'm not certain about the volume of bot bumping activity, but since we haven't expanded the bump limit/feature to more boards, it seems like it's contained for now. Also consider the additional friction of updating your values/restrictions after the fact: one could imagine workarounds like alt accounts (to bypass account-based throttles), dynamic word length, and other 'borderline bumping' workarounds.

Something similar here. Priority numbers from [P1] (highest) to [P4] (lowest), ranging from malware to consecutive bumps apropos to matter of intensity, with fixed comments from a set.

Fully-automated reporting seldom works except in the case of malware/spam/advert links, though I have found success with modifying the script with a few loops and additions. Staff will know that I commonly submit pages at a time: it's just far more efficient this way, though if the throttle limit were shorter than 4 seconds, that would make things far easier.

I could have handled a couple thousand hand-reports for the Altcoin sections, but before long I would need an assisting tool or I'd go insane from the absolute incoherence.

These two comments probably outline 98%+ of my reports:

• Generic, vague, repetitive, padded, and/or irrelevant post. Brings no new information. Zero value. User does not contribute: check post history.
• Useless one/two-liners. User does not contribute: check post history.

If you start meriting users for their contributions by report numbers, then you invite a corrupting incentive. Some call it a 'cobra effect'.

Imagine a user trying to stay ahead of the metric, "most good reports" by creating spam to easily report, thereby making reporting worse off entirely. Considering the financial association with rank, signatures, and merit, you're tempting the devil indeed.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

If you are completely incompetent, you might say nothing at all;
   if you are bullshitting, you could continuously spew away.

A well-crafted post will shave away the bullshit, leaving a simple message,
   and that is much more effective than a long post, even if it's high-quality.

---

Perhaps beyond post quality is quality density: if substantial knowledge can be condensed across a brief reply (or series of replies).

Alternative, non psychoanalytical hypothesis: it's easier.