BitcoinTalk++ script - v0.2.96

[jackjack]

If you want me to give spammer/untrustworthy/beware tags to someone, send me (PM or here) username/reference/why

Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button

[1714102490]

1714102490

[1714102490]

1714102490

[1714102490]

1714102490

[1714102490]

1714102490

[1714102490]

1714102490

[Kouye]

If you want me to give spammer/untrustworthy/beware tags to someone, send me (PM or here) username/reference/why

Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button

I'm sorry, but I really dislike the fact you would be the final judge on those submissions.
As much as I respect you, absolutely trust you, and am thankful for your work, please stay away from spreading durable personal opinion here.

Either remove the "/why" and accept all contributions, or accept none. Posting this to protect you more than anything else.

Again, cheers for all the great work

[jackjack]

Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button

Another interesting fact:  Matthew N. Wright has +4/4 as well and he has been a fairly outspoken and controversial member in the past.

MNW == Matthew N. Wright

If you want me to give spammer/untrustworthy/beware tags to someone, send me (PM or here) username/reference/why

Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button

I'm sorry, but I really dislike the fact you would be the final judge on those submissions.
As much as I respect you, absolutely trust you, and am thankful for your work, please stay away from spreading durable personal opinion here.

Either remove the "/why" and accept all contributions, or accept none. Posting this to protect you more than anything else.

Again, cheers for all the great work

I'm not sure what bothers you and maybe I wasn't clear enough. (though if I misunderstood you please PM me, it would be clearer using the most beautiful language in the world )
For instance the tag wouldn't be durable nor personal. I would ask people's opinion on this thread beforehand and it would be subject to change.
As for the "why", it was just a synonym to "reference" and rather meaningless. I don't think I'll accept all contributions though. For example I'm thinking about BFL: I won't tag them scammers but a "don't expect their product before next year" tag would be fine IMO.
Also, if discussing with users isn't enough to make everybody confortable with the tags I made the tags hidable (in the settings page, as always).
Finally, the list will soon (in two weeks) be published.

For now 3 people are (negatively) tagged:

• MNW (as "untrustworthy", only humor though)
• narayan (as "Attempted code injection on bitcointalk": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274749.0)
• anyroll (as "SCAMMER, Phishing", he launched a fake giveaway then sent a phishing PM ("you won, please login to your account through this link to receive it") to everybody who posted in the thread. The original thread was deleted but I was there and received the phishing PM. This is a thread about the giveaway: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109468.0)

Anyway, thanks for your post, the script is made to please people so I need this kind of inputs to keep me on the right track


PS: Why did you censor the unicorn?!?

PS2: BTW, HTTPS done

[Kouye]

I'm not sure what bothers you and maybe I wasn't clear enough. (though if I misunderstood you please PM me, it would be clearer using the most beautiful language in the world )

Yeah, let's go for that!

For example I'm thinking about BFL: I won't tag them scammers but a "don't expect their product before next year" tag would be fine IMO.

Voilà, c'est exactement ce qui me dérange. Tu es le seul juge, là. Et comme tu penses que ces pourritures méritent ce tag (à mon avis, ils méritent bien pire, mais ce n'est pas le sujet ), tu l'accepteras si quelqu'un le soumets, alors que si à l'époque de ce post :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=271284.0
Si je t'avais demandé de tager guoweang, tu aurais probablement pris des distances, à juste titre (et à tort, finalement )

J'aime bien l'idée que chacun puisse donner son avis, que chacun puisse piocher dans les avis des personnes qu'il estime.
En fait, la seule chose que je n'aime pas dans le système actuel est le fait qu'on nous impose une liste de gens de confiance par défaut, au lieu de nous pousser à la construire nous-même.

J'apprécie cependant qu'on puisse retirer qui on veut de cette liste. L'administrateur principal n'est pas dans ma liste, par exemple, même s'il a de grandes qualités, je pense juste qu'il manque de temps et donc de discernement.

Pour finir, je n'aime pas trop l'idée d'une entité centrale qui propagerait ses sentiments à propos d'un utilisateur. Ce misérable imbécile de Josh doit toujours 1000 BTC à Runeks, par exemple, à moins que j'aie raté un truc. Et il n'a toujours pas été banni par la police locale.

Juste... Décentralisation.

Et je le répète, j'ai une parfaite confiance en toi, et c'est quand tu veux pour une bière ou deux... Mais juste, je suis réticent sur le fait que tu sois le seul à avoir accès à la base des +1/-1, et d'autant plus maintenant, si tu t’octroies le pouvoir de décider qui mérite un tag, et quel tag.

Avec tout mon respect!

PS: Why did you censor the unicorn?!?

People complained to theymos, for NSFW (bullshit) reasons, and he removed my avatar.
So I just threw a coin on it to make it more "on topic", submited back, and was granted approval.

[Kouye]

yeah, yeah... Just google translate.

[jackjack]

Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button

Another interesting fact:  Matthew N. Wright has +4/4 as well and he has been a fairly outspoken and controversial member in the past.

MNW == Matthew N. Wright

LOL, wow that was a brain freeze on my part.  I didn't put two and two together, think I'll go make an extra strong coffee

I'm sure it's because you're working too much

Jackjack can't you add a voting on your site? Maybe just put a page that allows one person using their password to vote on if someone deserves a scamming tag or whatever tag.

Would something like this fit?

[Kouye]

so you can make an executive decision.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to convince him not to get into. Having "executive decision" power sucks.
He should just be allowed to give his opinion, as anyone.

[gweedo]

so you can make an executive decision.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to convince him not to get into. Having "executive decision" power sucks.
He should just be allowed to give his opinion, as anyone.

But this is his program, and since he has no affiliation with the forum wouldn't be a problem. It would be better if he was hands off, but there's no way to prove he doesn't go into the database and change sometimes. So at the end of the day he will have an executive decision.

[jackjack]

Ok I get it, let's get back to English so that everybody can participate

To sum up you want a system like the theymos' one but without a default trust list and easier to use so that people are encouraged to build their trust list.
I'm 100% ok to code that but the problem is that it won't be possible with the current hosting and actually I even doubt any free hosting would be enough.
As I'm still a student for a bit (not long hopefully) I prefer keeping my fiat for paying my flat+cost of living and my BTC just in case.[/baaaaw]
The bottom line is that I can't afford a "real" hosting for now, which makes such a system impossible.

So meanwhile it's either me giving tags with consent of a majority of users or nothing. I understand how this is a problem that I am the final judge but I think it's the better temporary solution. Would giving people veto power to users make the situation better? In any case, trust me, I'd prefer code than discussing who disserve a tag.

Ce misérable imbécile de Josh doit toujours 1000 BTC à Runeks, par exemple, à moins que j'aie raté un truc.

I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO!

je suis réticent sur le fait que tu sois le seul à avoir accès à la base des +1/-1

Not for long! The poll seems stuck on the "hidden" option, so the hashed lists are coming soon: everybody will be able to check that his list is genuine

d'autant plus maintenant, si tu t’octroies le pouvoir de décider qui mérite un tag, et quel tag.

Well, I'll discuss tags here and explain why I take each decision so people can chose to hide the tags if they don't agree to my views
As I said earlier I do see the problem though

PS: Why did you censor the unicorn?!?

People complained to theymos, for NSFW (bullshit) reasons, and he removed my avatar.
So I just threw a coin on it to make it more "on topic", submited back, and was granted approval.

Nice workaround!
Name them so that I give them a Censor tag!

Jackjack can't you add a voting on your site? Maybe just put a page that allows one person using their password to vote on if someone deserves a scamming tag or whatever tag.

Would something like this fit?

yes but have a threshold so when like X people mark as scammer then it labels him a scammer, or it brings it to your attention so you can make an executive decision.

I plan to publish the number of scammer votes someone has, so anyone would be able to bring our attention on him

so you can make an executive decision.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to convince him not to get into. Having "executive decision" power sucks.
He should just be allowed to give his opinion, as anyone.

But this is his program, and since he has no affiliation with the forum wouldn't be a problem. It would be better if he was hands off, but there's no way to prove he doesn't go into the database and change sometimes. So at the end of the day he will have an executive decision.

Actually I can(will) publish the hash of voters along with their list of votes so if everyone checks his list then it's proved that I didn't modify votes
The only thing I could do is making sockpuppets

[tysat]

so you can make an executive decision.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to convince him not to get into. Having "executive decision" power sucks.
He should just be allowed to give his opinion, as anyone.

But this is his program, and since he has no affiliation with the forum wouldn't be a problem. It would be better if he was hands off, but there's no way to prove he doesn't go into the database and change sometimes. So at the end of the day he will have an executive decision.

Very solid point there, I'm definitely on the side of it's his program so it's his decision... better to have someone make a final decision than people try to game the system.

[Kouye]

Very solid point there, I'm definitely on the side of it's his program so it's his decision... better to have someone make a final decision than people try to game the system.

I'm actually very surprised to see you vouch for a "single man" decision system.
As you seem to understand how *funny* it can be, with all the recent examples.

[Kouye]

But this is his program, and since he has no affiliation with the forum wouldn't be a problem. It would be better if he was hands off, but there's no way to prove he doesn't go into the database and change sometimes. So at the end of the day he will have an executive decision.

Of course, he being the one holding the db was the first concern I raised (in pm, beleive it or not), besides from the use of monkey scripts.
Even though I highly trust him.

I voted for a full disclosure on +1/-1 attributions, even though I understand mods fear a war through it.
But if you check trust ratings of users like John or Tomato, you'll understand the war is actually already going.

People don't use the trust system enough, in my opinion.

The best way I can think of would be to

- Allow people to easily, "one click" tiny-trust rating (0.01)
- Allow people to add a ref link to send a "major-trust" rating (0.1)
- On such "ref link", major trust ratings, allow anyone to up or down vote it, making it become either (0.001) or (10), or anything in between (or below, or above, I don't know).

Just add the possibility to report a "ref link", so the mods can check for abuse and take action.
If anyone abuses the report feature, mods can take action too. And we're good!

Pretty much as transactions are safe thanks to the longest block chain, I think this place would be safe if everyone could single click a trust confirmation, cheaters would have no way to "double-trust".

Or maybe I'm just completely underestimating cheaters.

[Kouye]

To sum up you want a system like the theymos' one but without a default trust list and easier to use so that people are encouraged to build their trust list.

Exactly. Easy to use, not confined to people who care.

So meanwhile it's either me giving tags with consent of a majority of users or nothing. I understand how this is a problem that I am the final judge but I think it's the better temporary solution. Would giving people veto power to users make the situation better? In any case, trust me, I'd prefer code than discussing who disserve a tag.

Too tired to think about this tag attribution for now, going to bed just after that (I'm on vacations, but you know what time it is, too... )

I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO!

No, I'm talking about another bet with someone else, on that forum, a bet that he lost. But strange as it seems, Runeks didn't claim his due BTC, so I might be missing some pieces.
Don't tag Josh, yet, please. Or just with a "Swearing & stealing child" one.

Et... Dodo. 

[jackjack]

he being the one holding the db was the first concern I raised (in pm, beleive it or not)

I confirm!

I voted for a full disclosure on +1/-1 attributions, even though I understand mods fear a war through it.
But if you check trust ratings of users like John or Tomato, you'll understand the war is actually already going.

People don't use the trust system enough, in my opinion.

The best way I can think of would be to

- Allow people to easily, "one click" tiny-trust rating (0.01)
- Allow people to add a ref link to send a "major-trust" rating (0.1)
- On such "ref link", major trust ratings, allow anyone to up or down vote it, making it become either (0.001) or (10), or anything in between (or below, or above, I don't know).

Just add the possibility to report a "ref link", so the mods can check for abuse and take action.
If anyone abuses the report feature, mods can take action too. And we're good!

Pretty much as transactions are safe thanks to the longest block chain, I think this place would be safe if everyone could single click a trust confirmation, cheaters would have no way to "double-trust".

Or maybe I'm just completely underestimating cheaters.

"the mods"? You mean me? The point is I'm not sure I want to take time to moderate this.
Also, as far as I understand what you propose, it seems everybody would trust everybody. I don't think that's a good thing because yes I fear we underestimate cheaters.

So meanwhile it's either me giving tags with consent of a majority of users or nothing. I understand how this is a problem that I am the final judge but I think it's the better temporary solution. Would giving people veto power to users make the situation better? In any case, trust me, I'd prefer code than discussing who disserve a tag.

Too tired to think about this tag attribution for now, going to bed just after that (I'm on vacations, but you know what time it is, too... )

Yeah I shouldn't be coding at that time... Nor replying to anything.

I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO!

No, I'm talking about another bet with someone else, on that forum, a bet that he lost. But strange as it seems, Runeks didn't claim his due BTC, so I might be missing some pieces.
Don't tag Josh, yet, please. Or just with a "Swearing & stealing child" one.

Et... Dodo. 

I'll look at this bet then.
No, I won't tag him yet don't worry.



AND... The lists!
Please confirm that you found your list and that it is ok (and that it change when you change your votes!)
http://jackjack.alwaysdata.net/btoplusone/voteslist.php
(the order is random)

[Raize]

I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO!

BFL did a 1k BTC charity donation. Josh had a 1k side bet with runeks. I can confirm it was taken care of. In fact, I promised I would donate to the BFL charity if it was proven he had settled with runeks, and runeks has confirmed this with me and I subsequently donated.

I'm not a fan of many of the things Inaba says, but he has been honorable regarding that 1k BTC bet and I don't think it's right for him to take flak from it. There are any number of things to be upset with Josh or BFL about, but this is not one of those things.

[Kluge]

This could be a very interesting experiment in decentralized/plural forum management.

Someone's (sorry, can't remember name) working on a script which'd utterly eliminate all traces of an ignored person on this forum for the user.

Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.

[theymos]

Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.

I'd eventually like to eliminate most moderation and replace it with web of trust rating/ignore systems so you can choose whether you want to see trolling, profanity, etc. by modifying your trust lists. This is the sort of thing that pretty much requires a forum rewrite, though: it's totally against SMF's nature.

Global ratings like Bitcointalk++ aren't usefully scalable. It's too difficult to prevent (and even define) abuse as the number of users increases. Some sort of WoT is needed.

[Kluge]

Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.

I'd eventually like to eliminate most moderation and replace it with web of trust rating/ignore systems so you can choose whether you want to see trolling, profanity, etc. by modifying your trust lists. This is the sort of thing that pretty much requires a forum rewrite, though: it's totally against SMF's nature.

Global ratings like Bitcointalk++ aren't usefully scalable. It's too difficult to prevent (and even define) abuse as the number of users increases. Some sort of WoT is needed.

By incorporating a "plural moderation" script (this isn't being developed, afaik, but seems like an obvious extension from the ignore+ script and the OP script), this could allow multiple lists narrowly defining "abuse," or anything else someone may not want to read. Lists would be maintained by one or a few people who go through posts and mark certain posters with tags. With the ignore script, this could remove threads and posts from users with certain tags, based on what the user individually chooses to filter out. Posts may be able to be tagged individually, too, if someone feels up to it. For example, "dubious investments" could be a tag, and the moderators of that list could remove those threads from the forum without "the forum" needing to do any moderation on its part.

So, for example, let's say someone wanted to remove-from-view people who use referral links. Let's call the list "referral link spam." There would be 1-5 moderators of the list with mod credentials who could click a button next to a person's post (or through adding them manually), including brief reasoning for the inclusion in the list. This would tag them with "referral link spam" and remove their posts and threads from users' view who decide to exclude posts from people tagged with "referral link spam."

From a user perspective, you could choose whichever lists you want, based on both the criteria and moderators maintaining the list (there could be competing moderators for multiple lists removing posts meeting the same criteria if someone distrusts a particular group's judgment). So let's say the lists are:
*Spambots
*BFL shills
*anti-BFL shills
*libertaritards
*dubious investments
*Jews

A user could go into the extension or script settings and simply check off whichever groups of people they don't want - maybe BFL shills, Jews, and libertaritards. Anyone (or any post) with any of those tags would be removed from that user's view. The most important benefit from this, I'd think, is that it gets around the dichotomy of abuser or non-abuser, and allows people to really choose what kind of experience they get out of BTCTalk. The service may or may not benefit from incorporating a charge system for access to a particular list, the fees of which might go toward paying the moderators of the list.

Re-reading this, it doesn't seem particularly clear. I can draw some mockups if it's too confusing (I'd prefer not to, though).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

This is best done through a rework towards the forum for performance reasons.

[whiskers75]

Yay, tags!

You don't know what you've done. I implemented tags on whiskchat and now EVERYBODY WANTS THEM!