[Suggestion] Removal of signature display for negatively rated users

[ScottishSecurity]

not arguing over nothing.. deal with the issue at hand.. trust ratings...

[suchmoon]

1. I am registered on company house.. you just searched for the wrong thing..

Of course 

Please continue here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1436257.msg14563514#msg14563514

[notlist3d]

No, I don't mean everywhere, I mean in forums that do not show the trust rating of a user alongside their post.

Example:

Hey guys,

What are some methods of gaining bitcoin from scratch?
Preferably not faucets

Join a signature campaign and invest half of your earning into a profitable cloud mining. That is how u make a lot in the long run due to the cumulative nature of this earning+investment strategy.

This scumbag shill for the ponzi 'cloud mining' fraud cloudmining.website has taken to regularly posting in forums where his negative rating is not displayed, hoping instead to offer some 'helpful' advice and flaunt the gigantic banner promoting his scam in his signature space.

He and his ilk are having to resort more and more to this tactic because they are finding it harder to rope in new suckers to their criminally fraudulent scams. Seeing as they are gaming the trust rating system by avoiding those forums where it is displayed, I think it would make good sense to at least prevent their signature from being included in their post if they are rated as untrustworthy.

Thoughts?

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

Your thread got the attention of one of the people accused of running ponzi.  He run's a U2  and calls it cloud mining as it is a buzz word more likely to get a new person to invest in him.  With released numbers he owes over .3 BTC to people who have paid a U2 will not make this amount ... so it is either a Ponzi or a bad investment depending on what way you look at it.  

I really like idea of taking away signatures from negative rated users.  But I think it will be hard to get it passed.  Just like I would love if known ponzi's would be blocked URL's here... but that wont happen either.  It's hard to get a good solution.    I think showing of negative rating in every forum is best possible outcome, and I don't know if we have enough support to get that through.

[redsn0w]

No, I don't mean everywhere, I mean in forums that do not show the trust rating of a user alongside their post.

Example:

Hey guys,

What are some methods of gaining bitcoin from scratch?
Preferably not faucets

Join a signature campaign and invest half of your earning into a profitable cloud mining. That is how u make a lot in the long run due to the cumulative nature of this earning+investment strategy.

This scumbag shill for the ponzi 'cloud mining' fraud cloudmining.website has taken to regularly posting in forums where his negative rating is not displayed, hoping instead to offer some 'helpful' advice and flaunt the gigantic banner promoting his scam in his signature space.

He and his ilk are having to resort more and more to this tactic because they are finding it harder to rope in new suckers to their criminally fraudulent scams. Seeing as they are gaming the trust rating system by avoiding those forums where it is displayed, I think it would make good sense to at least prevent their signature from being included in their post if they are rated as untrustworthy.

Thoughts?

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

Your thread got the attention of one of the people accused of running ponzi.  He run's a U2  and calls it cloud mining as it is a buzz word more likely to get a new person to invest in him.  With released numbers he owes over .3 BTC to people who have paid a U2 will not make this amount ... so it is either a Ponzi or a bad investment depending on what way you look at it.  

I really like idea of taking away signatures from negative rated users.  But I think it will be hard to get it passed.  Just like I would love if known ponzi's would be blocked URL's here... but that wont happen either.  It's hard to get a good solution.    I think showing of negative rating in every forum is best possible outcome, and I don't know if we have enough support to get that through.

This is more 'logic', trustscore viewable in any board/section of the forum

[winspiral]

No, I don't mean everywhere, I mean in forums that do not show the trust rating of a user alongside their post.

Example:

Hey guys,

What are some methods of gaining bitcoin from scratch?
Preferably not faucets

Join a signature campaign and invest half of your earning into a profitable cloud mining. That is how u make a lot in the long run due to the cumulative nature of this earning+investment strategy.

This scumbag shill for the ponzi 'cloud mining' fraud cloudmining.website has taken to regularly posting in forums where his negative rating is not displayed, hoping instead to offer some 'helpful' advice and flaunt the gigantic banner promoting his scam in his signature space.

He and his ilk are having to resort more and more to this tactic because they are finding it harder to rope in new suckers to their criminally fraudulent scams. Seeing as they are gaming the trust rating system by avoiding those forums where it is displayed, I think it would make good sense to at least prevent their signature from being included in their post if they are rated as untrustworthy.

Thoughts?

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

Your thread got the attention of one of the people accused of running ponzi.  He run's a U2  and calls it cloud mining as it is a buzz word more likely to get a new person to invest in him.  With released numbers he owes over .3 BTC to people who have paid a U2 will not make this amount ... so it is either a Ponzi or a bad investment depending on what way you look at it.  

I really like idea of taking away signatures from negative rated users.  But I think it will be hard to get it passed.  Just like I would love if known ponzi's would be blocked URL's here... but that wont happen either.  It's hard to get a good solution.    I think showing of negative rating in every forum is best possible outcome, and I don't know if we have enough support to get that through.

Why do you talk about things you do not know about?
How can you write here that I run an U2...
This shows us that you should better write nothing...it is always better than writting wrong things...

yes at the start I have run an U2...but it was just to know about...and to learn to run it...and to talk about with own experience.
now it is sold...to someone who want like me see it running.
To inform you as well...investment in my U2cloudmining system is about the site and not the profit from mining.
People who have invested have understood the system because i have explained them if they have asked me.
I advice you to ask if you have not understood...it is more clever than writing here wrong things born from your imagination.

[notlist3d]

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

Your thread got the attention of one of the people accused of running ponzi.  He run's a U2  and calls it cloud mining as it is a buzz word more likely to get a new person to invest in him.  With released numbers he owes over .3 BTC to people who have paid a U2 will not make this amount ... so it is either a Ponzi or a bad investment depending on what way you look at it.  

I really like idea of taking away signatures from negative rated users.  But I think it will be hard to get it passed.  Just like I would love if known ponzi's would be blocked URL's here... but that wont happen either.  It's hard to get a good solution.    I think showing of negative rating in every forum is best possible outcome, and I don't know if we have enough support to get that through.

Why do you talk about things you do not know about?
How can you write here that I run an U2...
This shows us that you should better write nothing...it is always better than writting wrong things...

yes at the start I have run an U2...but it was just to know about...and to learn to run it...and to talk about with own experience.
now it is sold...to someone who want like me see it running.
To inform you as well...investment in my U2cloudmining system is about the site and not the profit from mining.
People who have invested have understood the system because i have explained them if they have asked me.
I advice you to ask if you have not understood...it is more clever than writing here wrong things born from your imagination.

Above user is a reason perfect example of why we need trust in beginner board.  One would assume a "U2cloudmining system" would be a U2 mining.... but he claims many things and goes round and round.  Fact is his own numbers hes paid back very little of investors and owes more  then .3 BTC still and has for a good period of time.

Most users I believe are smart enough to see this for them self.  But beginner forum I think needs to show trust rating as that is where some with these ponzi signatures target.

[winspiral]

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

Your thread got the attention of one of the people accused of running ponzi.  He run's a U2  and calls it cloud mining as it is a buzz word more likely to get a new person to invest in him.  With released numbers he owes over .3 BTC to people who have paid a U2 will not make this amount ... so it is either a Ponzi or a bad investment depending on what way you look at it.  

I really like idea of taking away signatures from negative rated users.  But I think it will be hard to get it passed.  Just like I would love if known ponzi's would be blocked URL's here... but that wont happen either.  It's hard to get a good solution.    I think showing of negative rating in every forum is best possible outcome, and I don't know if we have enough support to get that through.

Why do you talk about things you do not know about?
How can you write here that I run an U2...
This shows us that you should better write nothing...it is always better than writting wrong things...

yes at the start I have run an U2...but it was just to know about...and to learn to run it...and to talk about with own experience.
now it is sold...to someone who want like me see it running.
To inform you as well...investment in my U2cloudmining system is about the site and not the profit from mining.
People who have invested have understood the system because i have explained them if they have asked me.
I advice you to ask if you have not understood...it is more clever than writing here wrong things born from your imagination.

Above user is a reason perfect example of why we need trust in beginner board.  One would assume a "U2cloudmining system" would be a U2 mining.... but he claims many things and goes round and round.  Fact is his own numbers hes paid back very little of investors and owes more  then .3 BTC still and has for a good period of time.

Most users I believe are smart enough to see this for them self.  But beginner forum I think needs to show trust rating as that is where some with these ponzi signatures target.

what about the .3BTC?
I'm confuse about because I do not know from where come the .3BTC

[notlist3d]

what about the .3BTC?
I'm confuse about because I do not know from where come the .3BTC

Please stop posting in thread it is about something bigger then just you, and this is not thread to try to prove a "u2 cloud"  It is in hopes trying to make ponzi's easier for people to spot (beginners I think of would be great for).  I realize you don't like that but your talking in circles is turning this into a forum battle which should not be here.

And I got numbers from you...  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=852857.msg13847251#msg13847251

Total accounts:212 accounts.
Total claimed for free:0.00746222 BTC
Total invested:0.36640338 BTC
Total pending investment:0.3315961577 BTC
Total pending payout:0.0115563416 BTC
Total payout:0.04682193 BTC
Number of buying:1292 times
Number of selling:16 times.
Number of re-invest:4 times.
Selling bonus:82%
Claiming bonus:1.01547987616%
Re-invest bonus:100.923076923%

So it is not like I made it up like you make it sound like these are straight from you.

[Quickseller]

This is obviously a bad idea and is obviously against the principals the forum is based on.

LMAO, now why did I know you'd take this stance QS? 'Obviously' a bad idea?

How do you figure that the prevention of, say, the example I have given in the OP, where a known shill for a known fraudulent 'cloud mining' scam is gaming the system and flaunting his promotional signature banner, a bad idea? How is the suggestion to have ratings displayed for all forums or at least signatures restricted, an 'obviously' bad idea?

If you were to assume that the website in GermanGiant's signature is in fact fraudulent, if you were to assume that GermanGiant is in fact a "shill" for the website in his signature, and if you were to assume that there is overwhelming evidence to backup both of the above assumptions then hampering GermanGiant's ability to advertise his website would be one positive to your idea. Granted, after a quick look at cloudmining.website, I can say that it would probably be a bad idea to trust them with any of your money, however what is written on their website (eg their FAQ and about us) makes it hard to believe that anyone would ever invest with them. I have seen a number of claims that GermanGiant is behind the cloudmining.website website, however I really have not seen very much to substantiate this besides the fact that he often posts about them in a positive light, it is however possible that he is a customer/investor of theirs, is happy with his investment and actually believes what he writes (probably not though), so I would not go as far as to say there is overwhelming evidence that GermanGiant is a "shill" for cloudmining.website.

The problem with your idea is that it gives a large amount of power to a select few number of people. To remove the ability to have a signature is the same as restricting said person's ability to exercise their right to speech. The vast majority of people here do not have any positive reputation so a single negative rating would cause most people to have a "warning: trade with extreme caution" tag. This means that a single person would have the ability to hamper someone's right to free speech.

There are several examples of when accounts have negative trust when there was neither a scam (eg money stolen) or a scam attempt (eg an attempt to steal money), or even a reasonable expectation of a future scam/scam attempt. Also as it stands now, the trust system is not moderated, however if your suggestion were to be implemented then the administration would need to engage in much more moderation of the trust system, which leads down bad paths (eg much more centralization).

As it stands now, a negative trust rating does not prevent anyone from doing anything, it only serves as a warning to others who are considering to trade with someone.

I have previously (including in the post you quoted) advocated for the subs in which trust ratings are displayed to be expanded, however trust ratings should not be displayed throughout the entire forum.

[suchmoon]

This is obviously a bad idea and is obviously against the principals the forum is based on.

LMAO, now why did I know you'd take this stance QS? 'Obviously' a bad idea?

How do you figure that the prevention of, say, the example I have given in the OP, where a known shill for a known fraudulent 'cloud mining' scam is gaming the system and flaunting his promotional signature banner, a bad idea? How is the suggestion to have ratings displayed for all forums or at least signatures restricted, an 'obviously' bad idea?

If you were to assume that the website in GermanGiant's signature is in fact fraudulent, if you were to assume that GermanGiant is in fact a "shill" for the website in his signature, and if you were to assume that there is overwhelming evidence to backup both of the above assumptions then hampering GermanGiant's ability to advertise his website would be one positive to your idea. Granted, after a quick look at cloudmining.website, I can say that it would probably be a bad idea to trust them with any of your money, however what is written on their website (eg their FAQ and about us) makes it hard to believe that anyone would ever invest with them. I have seen a number of claims that GermanGiant is behind the cloudmining.website website, however I really have not seen very much to substantiate this besides the fact that he often posts about them in a positive light, it is however possible that he is a customer/investor of theirs, is happy with his investment and actually believes what he writes (probably not though), so I would not go as far as to say there is overwhelming evidence that GermanGiant is a "shill" for cloudmining.website.

The problem with your idea is that it gives a large amount of power to a select few number of people. To remove the ability to have a signature is the same as restricting said person's ability to exercise their right to speech. The vast majority of people here do not have any positive reputation so a single negative rating would cause most people to have a "warning: trade with extreme caution" tag. This means that a single person would have the ability to hamper someone's right to free speech.

There are several examples of when accounts have negative trust when there was neither a scam (eg money stolen) or a scam attempt (eg an attempt to steal money), or even a reasonable expectation of a future scam/scam attempt. Also as it stands now, the trust system is not moderated, however if your suggestion were to be implemented then the administration would need to engage in much more moderation of the trust system, which leads down bad paths (eg much more centralization).

As it stands now, a negative trust rating does not prevent anyone from doing anything, it only serves as a warning to others who are considering to trade with someone.

I have previously (including in the post you quoted) advocated for the subs in which trust ratings are displayed to be expanded, however trust ratings should not be displayed throughout the entire forum.

Would you also argue that theymos is restricting lower rank members' right to free speech by making their signatures smaller/less fancy and by limiting their speech to once every 6 minutes? Not to mention the option to switch signatures off.

If yes then I expect you to suggest to remove theymos from DefaultTrust. If no then perhaps signatures are not essential for exercising free speech rights.

[Quickseller]

This is obviously a bad idea and is obviously against the principals the forum is based on.

LMAO, now why did I know you'd take this stance QS? 'Obviously' a bad idea?

How do you figure that the prevention of, say, the example I have given in the OP, where a known shill for a known fraudulent 'cloud mining' scam is gaming the system and flaunting his promotional signature banner, a bad idea? How is the suggestion to have ratings displayed for all forums or at least signatures restricted, an 'obviously' bad idea?

If you were to assume that the website in GermanGiant's signature is in fact fraudulent, if you were to assume that GermanGiant is in fact a "shill" for the website in his signature, and if you were to assume that there is overwhelming evidence to backup both of the above assumptions then hampering GermanGiant's ability to advertise his website would be one positive to your idea. Granted, after a quick look at cloudmining.website, I can say that it would probably be a bad idea to trust them with any of your money, however what is written on their website (eg their FAQ and about us) makes it hard to believe that anyone would ever invest with them. I have seen a number of claims that GermanGiant is behind the cloudmining.website website, however I really have not seen very much to substantiate this besides the fact that he often posts about them in a positive light, it is however possible that he is a customer/investor of theirs, is happy with his investment and actually believes what he writes (probably not though), so I would not go as far as to say there is overwhelming evidence that GermanGiant is a "shill" for cloudmining.website.

The problem with your idea is that it gives a large amount of power to a select few number of people. To remove the ability to have a signature is the same as restricting said person's ability to exercise their right to speech. The vast majority of people here do not have any positive reputation so a single negative rating would cause most people to have a "warning: trade with extreme caution" tag. This means that a single person would have the ability to hamper someone's right to free speech.

There are several examples of when accounts have negative trust when there was neither a scam (eg money stolen) or a scam attempt (eg an attempt to steal money), or even a reasonable expectation of a future scam/scam attempt. Also as it stands now, the trust system is not moderated, however if your suggestion were to be implemented then the administration would need to engage in much more moderation of the trust system, which leads down bad paths (eg much more centralization).

As it stands now, a negative trust rating does not prevent anyone from doing anything, it only serves as a warning to others who are considering to trade with someone.

I have previously (including in the post you quoted) advocated for the subs in which trust ratings are displayed to be expanded, however trust ratings should not be displayed throughout the entire forum.

Would you also argue that theymos is restricting lower rank members' right to free speech by making their signatures smaller/less fancy and by limiting their speech to once every 6 minutes? Not to mention the option to switch signatures off.

If yes then I expect you to suggest to remove theymos from DefaultTrust. If no then perhaps signatures are not essential for exercising free speech rights.

The OP is proposing that anyone with negative trust cannot have their signature displayed at all. A new user can still display whatever signature they so choose as long as it does not exceed certain size limitations. A new user can still post whatever opinion they have (it does still need to be posed in an appropriate place) regardless of the fact they can only post every so often.

Just because someone is saying something does not mean that I have to listen to them. Someone who chooses to turn off/disable signatures essentially is choosing to not listen to what is being said in signatures. This also is relevant to the first issue as both the signature and posting frequency restrictions are primarily anti-spam measures to prohibit things from being said (posted) that virtually no one wants to hear (read). No freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowed theater when there is not a fire, you cannot say things that is likely to insinuate a fight, you cannot say things that is likely to start a riot, among other things.

Yes theymos does to a small extent limit the free speech of users here, however from what I have seen I believe that he mostly restricts the speech of spam-like messages and refrains from restricting the speech of people attempting to express their viewpoints on issues. I would trust the judgment of theymos to restrict speech in a non-controversial way and to be very conservative as to what speech he prohibits. This is partly because he has proven his ability to do this based on his previous moderation actions and because he has great incentives to not restrict others' free speech to the point that it is abusive.

I would not trust the overwhelming majority of people in the DefaultTrust network with that same amount of power, the DT system is not designed to give people that kind of power. I would certainly not trust the OP with that kind of power as there are a number of instances in which he has given negative trust for no reason other then they disagreed with his viewpoint.

Threads about (and reports outside of the forum) theymos restricting users' free speech are fairly rare, and when they do pop up it is usually fairly clear they are frivolous. On the other hand, threads about someone giving negative trust when such negative trust is unwarranted is almost a daily occurrence.

[winspiral]

what about the .3BTC?
I'm confuse about because I do not know from where come the .3BTC

Please stop posting in thread it is about something bigger then just you, and this is not thread to try to prove a "u2 cloud"  It is in hopes trying to make ponzi's easier for people to spot (beginners I think of would be great for).  I realize you don't like that but your talking in circles is turning this into a forum battle which should not be here.

And I got numbers from you...  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=852857.msg13847251#msg13847251

Total accounts:212 accounts.
Total claimed for free:0.00746222 BTC
Total invested:0.36640338 BTC
Total pending investment:0.3315961577 BTC
Total pending payout:0.0115563416 BTC
Total payout:0.04682193 BTC
Number of buying:1292 times
Number of selling:16 times.
Number of re-invest:4 times.
Selling bonus:82%
Claiming bonus:1.01547987616%
Re-invest bonus:100.923076923%

So it is not like I made it up like you make it sound like these are straight from you.

I see...you have taken from an old topic and put it now out of context.

...I just said here:

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

This as well can help newbies...because it is true.
My true words helps more newbies that all the wrong words i can read on this forum.
Here on this forum are writen so much wrong things that newbies are confuse and at the end they are wrong them selves.

[notlist3d]

I see...you have taken from an old topic and put it now out of context.

...I just said here:

People are paranoïac...if they see investment or cloudmining somewhere they only see huge ponzi shemes.

This as well can help newbies...because it is true.
My true words helps more newbies that all the wrong words i can read on this forum.
Here on this forum are writen so much wrong things that newbies are confuse and at the end they are wrong them selves.

Please stop posting trying to go in a circle and sound legit.  This is meta and this should be about signatures taken away from neg trust users.   As seen that most likely will not happen.   But I think showing trust in all forums specifically beginner is a good idea.

I used you as example due to numbers you released, I did not make them up.  I did not get some out of context, numbers doe not lie.   If you want to prove your not ponzi pay investors and show they made a profit.  But meta is not place to fight about your "cloud" being a ponzi or not.  This thread should be about taking way's for ponzis to promote away not something back and forth on you saying your legit.

[suchmoon]

The OP is proposing that anyone with negative trust cannot have their signature displayed at all. A new user can still display whatever signature they so choose as long as it does not exceed certain size limitations. A new user can still post whatever opinion they have (it does still need to be posed in an appropriate place) regardless of the fact they can only post every so often.

Just because someone is saying something does not mean that I have to listen to them. Someone who chooses to turn off/disable signatures essentially is choosing to not listen to what is being said in signatures. This also is relevant to the first issue as both the signature and posting frequency restrictions are primarily anti-spam measures to prohibit things from being said (posted) that virtually no one wants to hear (read). No freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowed theater when there is not a fire, you cannot say things that is likely to insinuate a fight, you cannot say things that is likely to start a riot, among other things.

Yes theymos does to a small extent limit the free speech of users here, however from what I have seen I believe that he mostly restricts the speech of spam-like messages and refrains from restricting the speech of people attempting to express their viewpoints on issues. I would trust the judgment of theymos to restrict speech in a non-controversial way and to be very conservative as to what speech he prohibits. This is partly because he has proven his ability to do this based on his previous moderation actions and because he has great incentives to not restrict others' free speech to the point that it is abusive.

I would not trust the overwhelming majority of people in the DefaultTrust network with that same amount of power, the DT system is not designed to give people that kind of power. I would certainly not trust the OP with that kind of power as there are a number of instances in which he has given negative trust for no reason other then they disagreed with his viewpoint.

Threads about (and reports outside of the forum) theymos restricting users' free speech are fairly rare, and when they do pop up it is usually fairly clear they are frivolous. On the other hand, threads about someone giving negative trust when such negative trust is unwarranted is almost a daily occurrence.

So we're judging the validity of certain actions by the number of threads created about said actions? Wouldn't butthurt be a major factor skewing such criteria?

By the way the point I was trying to make with theymos is that any red user can create a new account and bypass the hypothetical free speech impediment due to the hypothetical signature removals, if we agree that a restricted signature of a newbie still allows sufficient free speech. The only reason those users are not creating new accounts is because they can post in the areas of the forum where their red trust is not shown AND they can impress with their high rank / fancy signatures. It is not a free speech issue. They can speak. There is no constitutional amendment for "free bbcode enhanced speech without delay".

I would prefer to see the ratings everywhere because now I end up clicking on usernames anyway. It's not secret information and if someone prefers not to pay attention to the ratings - their business. Perhaps an option similar to hiding signatures could be provided as well.

[Quickseller]

The OP is proposing that anyone with negative trust cannot have their signature displayed at all. A new user can still display whatever signature they so choose as long as it does not exceed certain size limitations. A new user can still post whatever opinion they have (it does still need to be posed in an appropriate place) regardless of the fact they can only post every so often.

Just because someone is saying something does not mean that I have to listen to them. Someone who chooses to turn off/disable signatures essentially is choosing to not listen to what is being said in signatures. This also is relevant to the first issue as both the signature and posting frequency restrictions are primarily anti-spam measures to prohibit things from being said (posted) that virtually no one wants to hear (read). No freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowed theater when there is not a fire, you cannot say things that is likely to insinuate a fight, you cannot say things that is likely to start a riot, among other things.

Yes theymos does to a small extent limit the free speech of users here, however from what I have seen I believe that he mostly restricts the speech of spam-like messages and refrains from restricting the speech of people attempting to express their viewpoints on issues. I would trust the judgment of theymos to restrict speech in a non-controversial way and to be very conservative as to what speech he prohibits. This is partly because he has proven his ability to do this based on his previous moderation actions and because he has great incentives to not restrict others' free speech to the point that it is abusive.

I would not trust the overwhelming majority of people in the DefaultTrust network with that same amount of power, the DT system is not designed to give people that kind of power. I would certainly not trust the OP with that kind of power as there are a number of instances in which he has given negative trust for no reason other then they disagreed with his viewpoint.

Threads about (and reports outside of the forum) theymos restricting users' free speech are fairly rare, and when they do pop up it is usually fairly clear they are frivolous. On the other hand, threads about someone giving negative trust when such negative trust is unwarranted is almost a daily occurrence.

So we're judging the validity of certain actions by the number of threads created about said actions? Wouldn't butthurt be a major factor skewing such criteria?

No, by the number of people/instances in which people are complaining about said actions, and the evidence they provide to backup that said actions are unjustified. As I mentioned before, the majority of the time when people are complaining about theymos, the complaints are mostly frivolous, while many of the complaints about negative trust, especially recently are not. 

By the way the point I was trying to make with theymos is that any red user can create a new account and bypass the hypothetical free speech impediment due to the hypothetical signature removals, if we agree that a restricted signature of a newbie still allows sufficient free speech. The only reason those users are not creating new accounts is because they can post in the areas of the forum where their red trust is not shown AND they can impress with their high rank / fancy signatures. It is not a free speech issue. They can speak. There is no constitutional amendment for "free bbcode enhanced speech without delay".

I would say that signatures are primarily used as a way to advertise in one way or another. The OP's proposal is explicitly trying to restrict scammer those that do not agree with him, ability to advertise. Commercial speech (advertising) is a form of protected speech.

This is precisely a free speech issue. The OP has a history of leaving negative trust for no reason other then the person does not agree with him. The OP is now trying to take away the ability of those that do not agree with him ability to advertise.

I think that someone would be pretty naive to trust something that someone says for no reason other then they have a "fancy signature". 

I would prefer to see the ratings everywhere because now I end up clicking on usernames anyway. It's not secret information and if someone prefers not to pay attention to the ratings - their business. Perhaps an option similar to hiding signatures could be provided as well.

There is an option to hide signatures both overall and on a subjective basis. If you wish to hide signatures on a subjective basis then see this thread, and if you so choose you can modify the script so that instead of looking at how annoying a signature is, it will look at how the user views the trust rating of the user.

[erikalui]

I do agree here as sections where the trust ratings aren't visible, there is no point to display their signatures too and this can apply to all users. Especially sections like Meta, Politics & Society and Off Topic sections don't need to view a user's signature/avatar as their ratings also don't count. Also I suggest these sections should not contribute to a user's activity too. I haven't visited these sections for a long time but I can still see people discussing crap in these sections.

[suchmoon]

The OP is proposing that anyone with negative trust cannot have their signature displayed at all. A new user can still display whatever signature they so choose as long as it does not exceed certain size limitations. A new user can still post whatever opinion they have (it does still need to be posed in an appropriate place) regardless of the fact they can only post every so often.

Just because someone is saying something does not mean that I have to listen to them. Someone who chooses to turn off/disable signatures essentially is choosing to not listen to what is being said in signatures. This also is relevant to the first issue as both the signature and posting frequency restrictions are primarily anti-spam measures to prohibit things from being said (posted) that virtually no one wants to hear (read). No freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowed theater when there is not a fire, you cannot say things that is likely to insinuate a fight, you cannot say things that is likely to start a riot, among other things.

Yes theymos does to a small extent limit the free speech of users here, however from what I have seen I believe that he mostly restricts the speech of spam-like messages and refrains from restricting the speech of people attempting to express their viewpoints on issues. I would trust the judgment of theymos to restrict speech in a non-controversial way and to be very conservative as to what speech he prohibits. This is partly because he has proven his ability to do this based on his previous moderation actions and because he has great incentives to not restrict others' free speech to the point that it is abusive.

I would not trust the overwhelming majority of people in the DefaultTrust network with that same amount of power, the DT system is not designed to give people that kind of power. I would certainly not trust the OP with that kind of power as there are a number of instances in which he has given negative trust for no reason other then they disagreed with his viewpoint.

Threads about (and reports outside of the forum) theymos restricting users' free speech are fairly rare, and when they do pop up it is usually fairly clear they are frivolous. On the other hand, threads about someone giving negative trust when such negative trust is unwarranted is almost a daily occurrence.

So we're judging the validity of certain actions by the number of threads created about said actions? Wouldn't butthurt be a major factor skewing such criteria?

No, by the number of people/instances in which people are complaining about said actions, and the evidence they provide to backup that said actions are unjustified. As I mentioned before, the majority of the time when people are complaining about theymos, the complaints are mostly frivolous, while many of the complaints about negative trust, especially recently are not. 

By the way the point I was trying to make with theymos is that any red user can create a new account and bypass the hypothetical free speech impediment due to the hypothetical signature removals, if we agree that a restricted signature of a newbie still allows sufficient free speech. The only reason those users are not creating new accounts is because they can post in the areas of the forum where their red trust is not shown AND they can impress with their high rank / fancy signatures. It is not a free speech issue. They can speak. There is no constitutional amendment for "free bbcode enhanced speech without delay".

I would say that signatures are primarily used as a way to advertise in one way or another. The OP's proposal is explicitly trying to restrict scammer those that do not agree with him, ability to advertise. Commercial speech (advertising) is a form of protected speech.

This is precisely a free speech issue. The OP has a history of leaving negative trust for no reason other then the person does not agree with him. The OP is now trying to take away the ability of those that do not agree with him ability to advertise.

I think that someone would be pretty naive to trust something that someone says for no reason other then they have a "fancy signature". 

I would prefer to see the ratings everywhere because now I end up clicking on usernames anyway. It's not secret information and if someone prefers not to pay attention to the ratings - their business. Perhaps an option similar to hiding signatures could be provided as well.

There is an option to hide signatures both overall and on a subjective basis. If you wish to hide signatures on a subjective basis then see this thread, and if you so choose you can modify the script so that instead of looking at how annoying a signature is, it will look at how the user views the trust rating of the user.

I know how to hide signatures. What in my post made you think that I don't?

I have a feeling that you're not reading anything you're replying to, as evidenced by this last part and your "free speech" argument overall. Good luck in your crusade.

[Hueristic]

Entire N00b section should show trust. Damn without that how do the the n00bs have any clue who to listen too?

Losing sig in no show trust zones sounds like a good idea as well IMO.

[snipie]

I would prefer trust ratings to be shown everywhere.

neg trusted users should have signatures restricted across the whole forum...restrict formatting to the level of a newbie or something like that.

full support suchmoon for theses ideas,
in fact many times i have to check the profile of the members talking about external links to verify whether they have a neg trust or not which is frustrating  

[btvGainer]

Trust ratings should be available to see on every board, not just on the marketplace.

I honestly don't value the opinion of people who are scammers. Neither do most people of this forum.

I agree that ratings be displayed in all forum without any exception.
If ratings are not displayed in some boards like at present,people with neg ratings will target only these threads with their posts