Default Ignore List: A Humble Proposal

[redsn0w]

...

@redsn0w: What is the purpose of the Default Trust system? The Default Ignore system will, at least, make the forum readable again, by eliminating all the spam posted by account farmers & signature ad post bumpers, which currently constitute more than 90% of the content here.

But you will 'leave' the work to mods... if there will be a default ignore list what will be the work for the staff? If no one will read & report those posts? I do not think it constitute the 90% , but more than 95% of the whole content here in the forum. This is why the mods exist, to delete and ban the users (and this function is useless).

My Default Ignore list will reduce the staff's workload? You feel that's a bad thing?

The purpose the defaultTrust system /list is to help the newbie users (I have copied this concept written by someone else).

As is the purpose of my Default Ignore list.

PS: now I think it is the time to reveal what is your main account.

I think it's not. I've seen the Default Trust in action. One would be crazy to post controversial ideas from his main account.

^does that help?

Yes, thanks. It is not bad for me but for the mods.... it will decentralized more the forum. If the majority of the users use a default ignore list, then it is not more necessary delete or ban an user (simple because you do not notice him).

[1714651151]

1714651151

[ytktrytktr]

I totally understand your proposal and disagree. I replied with what I would consider reasonable. I wouldn't want a default ignore list forced on me in any way, I wouldn't want a ignore list forced on anyone that creates an account here. IMO ignore lists should be personalised and kept private unless someone want to share his.

But you do want the Default Trust to be forced on new users, correct?

[redsn0w]

... When Theymos says it, its automatically gold. When some random guy says it, its shit. Oh BCT.

I think he created the trust system so he can include or remove any users from that 'list' without any sort of explanation. So yes, basically he is the admin of this forum and I know someone will say "you can always leave"

[TECSHARE]

... When Theymos says it, its automatically gold. When some random guy says it, its shit. Oh BCT.

I think he created the trust system so he can include or remove any users from that 'list' without any sort of explanation. So yes, basically he is the admin of this forum and I know someone will say "you can always leave"

That would be fine, except for the fact that he pretends like it is a decentralized distributed system and that he does not moderate trust. Not to mention the very idea of him sitting at the top of a centralized position of authority and dictating to everyone what they can and can't do without even publishing rules ffs, is completely antithetical to the idea of Bitcoin itself. Why is it that he should have this extreme amount of authority and not even have to justify his actions?

[redsn0w]

... When Theymos says it, its automatically gold. When some random guy says it, its shit. Oh BCT.

I think he created the trust system so he can include or remove any users from that 'list' without any sort of explanation. So yes, basically he is the admin of this forum and I know someone will say "you can always leave"

That would be fine, except for the fact that he pretends like it is a decentralized distributed system and that he does not moderate trust. Not to mention the very idea of him sitting at the top of a centralized position of authority and dictating to everyone what they can and can't do is completely antithetical to the idea of Bitcoin itself. Why is it that he should have this extreme amount of authority and not even have to justify his actions?

I do not know what he is pretending, but you are confusing the bitcoin concept with bitcointalk forum. It is impossible to apply all the bitcoin ideologies to this forum and it is near impossible to create and maintain a decentralized trust system. If someone has "an extreme amount of authority" why should he justify his actions? That doesn't make sense at all.

If someone doesn't agree with the rules here I think he can leaves, or am I wrong? Try to argue is really hard (also if someone is saying the truth).

[redsn0w]

And another account banned
Wat do?
Wonder what the thinking behind banning brand new Anons is? "I'll ban Anon again, so Anon'll know how wrong Anon is, and go away. Ain't no way Anon 'll make another free Anon account, a little angrier and less constructive this time, and come right back.
What could possibly go wrong?"

If someone doesn't agree with the rules here I think he can leaves, or am I wrong? Try to argue is really hard (also if someone is saying the truth).

You're wrong.
When normal people don't like the rules, they don't scurry away with their tails between their legs. They work to change the rules.
Not only are you wrong, you're also a vapid suckup, whose only reason for posting is to agree with the powers that be while scratching out a living from your shitty sig ads.

Grow some balls and get a real job, so you won't cringe each time you look at yourself in the mirror

Than try to argue and 'fight' from your main account, or is it banned? However what makes you thing that I do not have a job and I am living from my sig ads, I am simple posting because I have something to say... like you and all the other users that have wrote in this thread (if you don't like my thought, use the ignore function or wait the default ignore list ).

No one from the "powerful" is paying me to say these things, simple I am here for a long time and I have learned it is really hard to change the things here (a simple coherence).

Have you been really banned or are you only joking? Can you post a screenshot, please or will you attack me again ?

[TECSHARE]

I do not know what he is pretending, but you are confusing the bitcoin concept with bitcointalk forum. It is impossible to apply all the bitcoin ideologies to this forum and it is near impossible to create and maintain a decentralized trust system. If someone has "an extreme amount of authority" why should he justify his actions? That doesn't make sense at all.

If someone doesn't agree with the rules here I think he can leaves, or am I wrong? Try to argue is really hard (also if someone is saying the truth).

I am confusing nothing. Impossible? Please. Everything is impossible... until its not.

If someone has an extreme amount of authority and doesn't bother trying to justify their actions, that is usually known as a dictatorship. You seem to believe that authority = right. Authority can be squandered and stolen. If I point a gun to your head I have authority over you, that does not mean I have a right to do so.

Leaving would be great, except I have already invested over 3 years worth of work into building my reputation on this forum. Theymos is not the only one that makes this forum happen, WE ALL DO. You and all his other toadies seem to forget that.

[nachoig]

If the OP issue is about the advertise in signatures, this topic has the solution: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0

But the proposal is ridiculous. Ignore list is a personal thing. Default Trust isn't. I suggest to the OP to use a private mailing list.

[tspacepilot]

If the OP issue is about the advertise in signatures, this topic has the solution: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0

But the proposal is ridiculous. Ignore list is a personal thing. Default Trust isn't. I suggest to the OP to use a private mailing list.

See my post on page (1), this is clearly a satire of default trust.  You say that an ignore list is a personal thing, but it clearly doesn't have to be.  Trust is, in theory, a personal thing, but we have an opt-out default trust system which is used as a weapon against some accounts/users.  In practice, you are correct that for the moment, trust is a shared thing and ignore lists aren't, but in principle there's nothing that says that things have to be that way.

[Vod]

Default Trust is a good idea - when a users scams one person, everyone is pretty much in agreement they are a scammer.

Default Ignore is not a good idea - when a user posts things someone does not like, other people may still like it.

[redsn0w]

Default Trust is a good idea - when a users scams one person, everyone is pretty much in agreement they are a scammer.

Default Ignore is not a good idea - when a user posts things someone does not like, other people may still like it.

Exactly, this is why I have said the ignore is a subjective thing and it should never be created a rhings named "Default Ignore list".

The 'problem' of the default trust is another one, it is not moderated (or at least I have read someone said this thing).

[tspacepilot]

Default Trust is a good idea - when a users scams one person, everyone is pretty much in agreement they are a scammer.

This is true if there's some objective proof that a user has scammed one person.  However, as you know, not everyone considers your marking of sellers of microsoft projects to be perpetuating any scams.   In my own case, I've been marked as a "scammer" simply because someone on default trust took a personal hate of me for constantly calling them out for their hot temper.  Point being, if people marked as "scammers" by default trust were objectively scammers by some universally agreed upon criteria, then your point would hold.  But the state of affairs is that people on default trust can do whatever they feel like they should be doing, and there's a lot of disagreement from person-to-person about who is doing right and who is doing wrong.  It's not at all agreed upon that someone marked by someone on default trust has done anything at all.

Default Ignore is not a good idea - when a user posts things someone does not like, other people may still like it.

I still believe default ignore was intended as a satire of default trust, not an idea to be considered on its merits, but an idea to be compared to default trust, as a way to reconsider the merits (and flaws) of the default trust system from a fresh perspective.

[Vod]

Default Ignore is not a good idea - when a user posts things someone does not like, other people may still like it.

I still believe default ignore was intended as a satire of default trust, not an idea to be considered on its merits, but an idea to be compared to default trust, as a way to reconsider the merits (and flaws) of the default trust system from a fresh perspective.

   I hope so.