TRUST ABUSE BY NEW DT MEMBERS.. Theymos should review the trust system.

[GamesAr]

I do not have posts in English, the pharmacist clean his negative assessment, this is racism.

[1714861018]

1714861018

[1714861018]

1714861018

[1714861018]

1714861018

[Maum]

No need for Theymos to review the trust system.
Some members should just pay attention to the guidlines carefully.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

Good find! But, although his post is older than my account, I think it's safe to say spam wasn't such a big problem 4 years ago.

I didn't find it. A member in reputation thread pointed it out. At least DT members should know the guidelines. If there is a need to change the rules they should discuss with theymos on the right thread, before the whole stuff will get out of control.

[hilariousetc]

No need for Theymos to review the trust system.
Some members should just pay attention to the guidlines carefully.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

Good find! But, although his post is older than my account, I think it's safe to say spam wasn't such a big problem 4 years ago.

I didn't find it. A member in reputation thread pointed it out. At least DT members should know the guidelines. If there is a need to change the rules they should discuss with theymos on the right thread, before the whole stuff will get out of control.

They're merely guidelines not strict rules. The feedback system shouldn't really be used against signature spammers but I'm not exactly against it right now because how bad things have gotten. Signature spam is already out of control and it's because theymos won't act on doing something about it that people are using the trust system to fight against it because it's the only thing they can do. I actually hope people do keep leaving negative for the worst posters and I people also keep complaining about it because it might force theymos to actually think about what he can do to curb spam because it got out of control a long time ago and it isn't going to magically get any better.

[Maum]

These days given red trusts may be generally accurate, but on my short research I found at least one,  who is also flagged as "third world shit poster" without spamming, who accidentally went into crossfire on bitcoin discussion. I didn't research many of the red tagged, but alone the kind of accusations and the fact, that participants of campaigns get paid for bashing posts against members (legit or not) makes me a bit confused.
There must be found a better solution.

[Lauda]

These days given red trusts may be generally accurate, but on my short research I found at least one,  who is also flagged as "third world shit poster" without spamming, who accidentally went into crossfire on bitcoin discussion.

False positives will occur in just about any system. As long as their percentage is low enough, it is fine.

There must be found a better solution.

This is the best that we can do until theymos wakes up or gives control of the forum to someone else.

[2girls]

Is it really necessary to put an immediate decision upon putting some negative trust on one's account?

Yes.

Remember its hard to rank here

And idiots are ranking up as fast as possible by making bitcointalk a joke of a forum.  Pick any new topic and 75% of it are padded shitposts made for financial gain.

I think neutral trust will be the best way

Um, no.  Neutral trust does nothing, and these people are too manipulative and way outnumber the good guys.  The only way to stamp them out is to 1) Ban them, 2) Nix sig campaigns altogether, or 3) Prevent them from joining campaigns. 
Negative trust might help a little with the #3 solution.

Shit posting can be change

Not with people who can't speak English, sorry to say.

Bidding on account sales can be corrected

Yes, if the bidders fear negative trust from DT members.  Change isn't always comfortable.

You are giving Red trust even on the basis that the User belong to Philippines..lol ...

Just see yourself how you will die on my post here..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2644741.msg28685648#msg28685648

 

[Bachelorrd]

These days given red trusts may be generally accurate, but on my short research I found at least one,  who is also flagged as "third world shit poster" without spamming, who accidentally went into crossfire on bitcoin discussion.

False positives will occur in just about any system. As long as their percentage is low enough, it is fine.

If my perception is right, then red-tagging is not 100% accurate? And some of the tagged members might not be involved in shitposting or any event that had led to tagging?

[xxxgoodgirls]

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

How is this not to be considered an abuse of the trust system?
I have been given a negative trust cause my latest posts were only one-like questions and following ann threads posts, but I have a bit more quality overall post history. What's wrong with it?
This was my very first signature campaign, and I do not intend to join another one, I was just supporting the project.

[Maum]

These days given red trusts may be generally accurate, but on my short research I found at least one,  who is also flagged as "third world shit poster" without spamming, who accidentally went into crossfire on bitcoin discussion.

False positives will occur in just about any system. As long as their percentage is low enough, it is fine.

There must be found a better solution.

This is the best that we can do until theymos wakes up or gives control of the forum to someone else.

You know better, how DT flags count.
You have no better solution right now, because activities of some DT members (not yours) are against the rules/guidelines. If you don't like the rules/guidelines, then discuss them with Theymos. And hopefully he won't give out the forum to members, who are earning money with bashing posts.

[Flying Hellfish]

I love the red paint getting splashed everywhere!  It's about time TBH.  It is refreshing to see the slew of butt hurt shitposters crying!

Signature spam is already out of control and it's because theymos won't act on doing something about it that people are using the trust system to fight against it because it's the only thing they can do. I actually hope people do keep leaving negative for the worst posters and I people also keep complaining about it because it might force theymos to actually think about what he can do to curb spam because it got out of control a long time ago and it isn't going to magically get any better.

A lot of viable easy methods exist to virtually eliminate the current shitposting plague but they stop once they hit the top of the ladder, why is that exactly?  Why is banning account sales or paying member fee for signatures off the table?  I get that they are off the table but why?

I am left to surmise (quite possibly wrong) that implementing these options would significantly reduce traffic, thus the traffic generated by the plague is highly valued?  For example, on the vast majority of the forum the plague is running wild.  The staggering amount of users here only for a paycheck is sickening. A test solution is to set up a little tiny quarantine corner for those actually here for learning and sharing about BTC...  

So if we look at the traffic as "highly valued" then we need to retain the traffic and improve quality of the posters.  As we can see from the current state of things this does not seem to be an achievable goal?  Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Perhaps their is another reason for taking some of the more effective methods off the table.  If we knew this information it might make it easier to provide useful suggestions for fixing things?

The risk I see in letting this go unchecked is that eventually the plague takes over completely.  When the only people left are the plague the value of their traffic will dwindle.

Anyway that's my rant!  Keep up the red paint Dt'ers hit em where it hurts!

[2girls]

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

How is this not to be considered an abuse of the trust system?
I have been given a negative trust cause my latest posts were only one-like questions and following ann threads posts, but I have a bit more quality overall post history. What's wrong with it?
This was my very first signature campaign, and I do not intend to join another one, I was just supporting the project.

Feel sorry for you but "The  Pharmist" mind does not work.  He has written  Garbage one-line shitposter.


Well A person "The  Pharmist" who is Garbage himself, born and breed in Garbage everything seems to be garbage to him 

[Maum]

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

How is this not to be considered an abuse of the trust system?
I have been given a negative trust cause my latest posts were only one-like questions and following ann threads posts, but I have a bit more quality overall post history. What's wrong with it?
This was my very first signature campaign, and I do not intend to join another one, I was just supporting the project.

Feel sorry for you but "The  Pharmist" mind does not work.   He has written  Garbage one-line shitposter.


Well A person "The  Pharmist" who is Garbage himself, born and breed in Garbage everything seems to be garbage to him  

I don't support this kind of bashing neither the content of your last post nore vocabulary of some DT members like "third world shit poster"

[philipma1957]

These days given red trusts may be generally accurate, but on my short research I found at least one,  who is also flagged as "third world shit poster" without spamming, who accidentally went into crossfire on bitcoin discussion.

False positives will occur in just about any system. As long as their percentage is low enough, it is fine.

If my perception is right, then red-tagging is not 100% accurate? And some of the tagged members might not be involved in shitposting or any event that had led to tagging?

I have seen a few wrongly given negatives.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I love the red paint getting splashed everywhere!  It's about time TBH.  It is refreshing to see the slew of butt hurt shitposters crying!

Signature spam is already out of control and it's because theymos won't act on doing something about it that people are using the trust system to fight against it because it's the only thing they can do. I actually hope people do keep leaving negative for the worst posters and I people also keep complaining about it because it might force theymos to actually think about what he can do to curb spam because it got out of control a long time ago and it isn't going to magically get any better.

A lot of viable easy methods exist to virtually eliminate the current shitposting plague but they stop once they hit the top of the ladder, why is that exactly?  Why is banning account sales or paying member fee for signatures off the table?  I get that they are off the table but why?

I am left to surmise (quite possibly wrong) that implementing these options would significantly reduce traffic, thus the traffic generated by the plague is highly valued?  For example, on the vast majority of the forum the plague is running wild.  The staggering amount of users here only for a paycheck is sickening. A test solution is to set up a little tiny quarantine corner for those actually here for learning and sharing about BTC...  

So if we look at the traffic as "highly valued" then we need to retain the traffic and improve quality of the posters.  As we can see from the current state of things this does not seem to be an achievable goal?  Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Perhaps their is another reason for taking some of the more effective methods off the table.  If we knew this information it might make it easier to provide useful suggestions for fixing things?

The risk I see in letting this go unchecked is that eventually the plague takes over completely.  When the only people left are the plague the value of their traffic will dwindle.

Anyway that's my rant!  Keep up the red paint Dt'ers hit em where it hurts!

I guess it is because the forum operated at a loss in previous years but in 2017 it had a profit due to, mainly, campaigns. Also, I agree that another reason (linked to the previous one) might be that it will reduce traffic, so he’s been trying to come up with a not so drastic solution like the new non-signature boards.

I understand him up to a point. When things are going well from a financial perspective and you are the number one bitcoin forum you fear that taking radical changes might mess all up.

[Lauda]

If my perception is right, then red-tagging is not 100% accurate? And some of the tagged members might not be involved in shitposting or any event that had led to tagging?

The rate of false convictions in the US is over 1%. What makes you think that forum members, especially with such different backgrounds, can reach an accuracy of 100%? You lack common sense.

You have no better solution right now, because activities of some DT members (not yours) are against the rules/guidelines.

There are no DT rules and you can't break guidelines. Either you follow them or you do not. It's a choice.

And hopefully he won't give out the forum to members, who are earning money with bashing posts.

I'd take legitimate "bashing" posts over 3rd world shitposting any day.

[JanEmilDK]

Is it really necessary to put an immediate decision upon putting some negative trust on one's account? Remember its hard to rank here and those newly one abuse this system. And although i understand what they want to impose their but I think neutral trust will be the best way to put before putting some neg trust among those user who got red trust.

Shit posting can be change so this offense deserves some warning.
Bidding on account sales can be corrected also so deserves neutral trust unless the user continuously doing the same action.

Scamming this one deserves real red trust since it involves illegal activities.

So don't be one sided and bubble headed guys you don't own a place to put some immediate judgement.

Theymos should address this, since this furom has been by jackals for their self-interest.

I vote for that. Had to restart a profil because of an idiot giving red for no reason.

[Maum]

You have no better solution right now, because activities of some DT members (not yours) are against the rules/guidelines.

There are no DT rules and you can't break guidelines. Either you follow them or you do not. It's a choice.

And hopefully he won't give out the forum to members, who are earning money with bashing posts.

I'd take legitimate "bashing" posts over 3rd world shitposting any day.

If we stay at quibbling you needn't break rules/guidelines but you nevertheless can act against them.
Yes, I feared, that you'd "take legitimate "bashing" posts over 3rd world shitposting any day".
To return constructive: I suggest to keep  censorships about post quality away from feedback system as it was considered by theymos.

[Joel_Jantsen]

I vote for that. Had to restart a profil because of an idiot giving red for no reason.

And you think admitting it here is going to make the situation any better ? I have given you a negative feedback for being the person who makes multiples accounts after getting tagged.Shorty I expect the DT members to do the same.
Changing profiles doesn't change the person behind the screen.So is it time to say goodbye to this account until you make a new one and I tag you again ? See ya!

[donbraz]

If my perception is right, then red-tagging is not 100% accurate? And some of the tagged members might not be involved in shitposting or any event that had led to tagging?

The rate of false convictions in the US is over 1%.

By massively red-tagging users without a proper analysis for each case, i believe that rate is by far higher in this forum.

[xxxgoodgirls]

Do you have any suggestions on how to restore my status? I can't believe my 2013 account got redflagged for no reasons whatsoever.