DefaultTrust (DT) Network - DT1/2 Members

[Lauda]

IF you @actmyname and @The Pharmacist are fair on giving RED TRUST for "SHIT POSTING" then give "hilariousandco" a GLOBAL moderator for the shitposting.
https://archive.is/pl7JT#selection-739.0-750.1

look at what he wrote!

That's not a shitpost. It's mockery.

[1714040419]

1714040419

[1714040419]

1714040419

[actmyname]

IF you @actmyname and @The Pharmacist are fair on giving RED TRUST for "SHIT POSTING" then give "hilariousandco" a GLOBAL moderator for the shitposting.
https://archive.is/pl7JT#selection-739.0-750.1

look at what he wrote!

I DARE the POWER ABUSER there if you are really in your words.

"DO NOT RATE PEOPLE ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR POST"
salute to THEYMOS!!

That's the wrong link, dumbass. Would you care to at least select the text that hilariousandco wrote?

Here's the deal. People who I tag consistently post garbage. Will I say that the post hilariousandco was an amazing post? Fuck no.

It's bordering on irrelevant. The sarcasm was used to half-answer a question and poke fun at someone. But am I going to give him a negative trust for it? Not really.

The quality of his other posts counteracts that. However, in the case of all the spammers that I have tagged, the quality is the same: a big ol' lump of diarrhea.

[EcuaMobi]

The main question that I have to anyone that is opposed to tagging spammers, what solution to you propose instead?

I would suggest leaving neutral feedback starting with "Spammer" or whatever word we agree on, and ask signature managers to disallow users with that trust.

Helping to keep the SMAS list up to date and asking signature managers to use it can also help.

I would leave negative feedback to spammers only if they have untrustworthy behavior such as constantly copying and pasting content, as that can be seen as trying to defraud the signature campaign. But absolutely not to poor quality posters. Negative trust means "scammer" or "very untrustworthy"

[minifrij]

I would suggest leaving neutral feedback starting with "Spammer" or whatever word we agree on, and ask signature managers to disallow users with that trust.

I could get behind this solution if signature campaign managers could agree on it. Doing this would also semi-invalidate SMAS, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I would leave negative feedback to spammers only if they have untrustworthy behavior such as constantly copying and pasting content

There'd be little point in this; it would be more effective to report the account and get it banned. Should the account not be banned, perhaps this would be a good way to continue.

[|Admiral|]

Blazed! please stop this, why you do this every time?

[EcuaMobi]

I could get behind this solution if signature campaign managers could agree on it

I've PM'd them asking for their opinion on this proposed solution.

There'd be little point in this; it would be more effective to report the account and get it banned. Should the account not be banned, perhaps this would be a good way to continue.

Agreed. This was just an example. I mean I would leave negative trust only to users (spammers or not) who behave untruthfully.

[Lutpin]

I would suggest leaving neutral feedback starting with "Spammer" or whatever word we agree on, and ask signature managers to disallow users with that trust.

At that point, why use the trust system at all.
Neutral feedback makes it hard to spot those users (eg think about a campaign with 100 users, a manager would have to parse 100 trust pages to spot such tags, as they dont show up like negative trust does).
The reason some use negative feedback to tag spammers/shitposters is because it stands out. It's easy to spot.

Helping to keep the SMAS list up to date and asking signature managers to use it can also help.

If we already achieve consensus among campaigns on how to deal with this problem, leave out the trust system.
We dont necessarily have to use SMAS, but an apporach similar to it would be more easy to manage.

A public collective list that is easy to request and check.
If you want signature campaigns to use it, make it so they can do that without creating a huge extra effort.

This could work out, but what it needs is widespread support from all campaigns.
The way SMAS is right now, it's impact is limited. Utilizing the trust system has a way bigger impact as it affects campaigns that don't directly support the fight against spam.


(Note that I, currently, do not leave negative feedback for spamming/shitposting. My apprach to this problem was initializing SMAS, if you want to contribute to that approach, feel free to contact me.)

[stingers]

I will just keep it short and simple
DT2 have a lot of flaws in their sense of judgement.
Lauda has negative trusted me by "assuming" that my service was a fraud while i had every proof of it being a legit service.
I've been a part of this forums since 2014 and Lauda won't even consider once to respect a fellow user's explanations. He simply never replied to my PMs and blocked me.
On top of it all, when i started proving myself legit he gave me another totally unrelated negative trust.
I've been reading Lauda's post since so many years, his sense of judgement is getting more and more possessed by a hunger of power and sense of heroism.

[stingers]

Remind me again how much time OgNasty has invested in fighting the scum of this forum, either by directly tagging them or *recruiting* DT2 members to do so? Oh right, from what I've seen, almost zero.

I've protected far more BTC for users on this forum than you ever will..

Like who, NastyFans? Watch out for the QS kool-aid, it can be damaging.

and see little value in your harassing new users with negative feedback if their posts aren't of high enough quality for your liking.

Which is absolutely not something that I'm doing. It's nice to see that you are actually up-to-date with the stuff when trying to undermine others.
Why did I get a sudden reminder of butter? Wait, that must be spelled differently.

Lauda
Please, get off this forums for a few days and see how a civilized and a world with freedom works.
You are possessed by your false sense of judgement and heroism. I am really not trying to be offensive against you, its just pity i feel for you.

[Joel_Jantsen]

--snipe--

The only problem with that approach is, not many campaign managers follow SMS restrictions.The actual problem is,there are too many campaign managers on bitcointalk who are ready to work for as low as a few satoshis without caring about the participants they select.Many new services avoid taking old good campaign managers because these noobs have started to manage the same for very low rates.

[zazarb]

At that point, why use the trust system at all.

Trust system haven't relation with posting quality, again spamming/shitposting exist simple, available to all "report to moderator" system.

Neutral feedback makes it hard to spot those users (eg think about a campaign with 100 users, a manager would have to parse 100 trust pages to spot such tags, as they dont show up like negative trust does).
The reason some use negative feedback to tag spammers/shitposters is because it stands out. It's easy to spot.

You're talking like  the Forum should adapt trust system to signature campaign and help their manager. Why should this be? They work for a paid job.

(Note that I, currently, do not leave negative feedback for spamming/shitposting. My apprach to this prolem was initializing SMAS, if you want to contribute to that approach, feel free to contact me.)

This is welcome.

[Lutpin]

Neutral feedback makes it hard to spot those users (eg think about a campaign with 100 users, a manager would have to parse 100 trust pages to spot such tags, as they dont show up like negative trust does).
The reason some use negative feedback to tag spammers/shitposters is because it stands out. It's easy to spot.

You're talking like  the Forum should adapt trust system to signature campaign and help their manager. Why should this be? They work for a paid job.

Theymos started a thread about improving post quality. He is looking for changes and adjustments to make in order to achieve that goal.
The motion is there, not from me, but from theymos himself (even though the changes he is ready to make are a bit limited so far, eg "serious discussion").

I think we are at a point where the forum has to "adapt" something in order to achieve progress here. To change something, theymos should get involved and help making that change possible.
On a pure community level, this battle is lost. SMAS has little impact if there are campaigns ignoring the problem and contributing to the spam. Fighting it with less than half the campaigns is a start, but only that.

No, I dont want theymos to change the trust system to ease the work of campaign managers,
but I do believe that if theymos would work together with the majority of campaign managers on a joint effort, we could make some noticable progress in the right direction.

At that point, why use the trust system at all.

Trust system haven't relation with posting quality, again spamming/shitposting exist simple, available to all "report to moderator" system.

I'm the leading user in most correct reports (at least I was last I've had the chance to get an update from theymos), believe me, I know about that and I use it a lot.
There's limit to the reports though (eg I cant contact campaign managers that way, only moderators, I can only report posts that violate the rules, not spam).

[DarkStar_]

I could get behind this solution if signature campaign managers could agree on it

I've PM'd them asking for their opinion on this proposed solution.

I think that this would be mostly useless. The majority of the spam comes out of the altcoin bounty campaigns, and usually those "managers" just decide to pretty much accept everyone (without negative trust), without caring about quality. They could use SMAS, they could actually vet people, but they don't. I think that's the reason some decided to apply negative trust, as those bounties (usually) don't allow negative trusted users.

I don't really have a stance for whether spammers deserve negative trust, as I could argue easily for both, but I think leaving negative trust for managers/services who run campaigns that produce a lot of spam might be a better first step, as it encourages the managers/services to actually try.

--snipe--

The only problem with that approach is, not many campaign managers follow SMS restrictions.

One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign.

[Lutpin]

--snipe--

The only problem with that approach is, not many campaign managers follow SMAS restrictions.

One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign.

You dont have to, but it's an easy way to pre-select applicants and even the laziest campaigns could contribute towards fighting the problem with that.

I think SMAS has two main aspects I would suggest to carry on into any future projects attempting to solve the same/similar things.
It's a joint venture (even though the group is rather small right now), and it's easy to utilize (open SMAS thread, check if user is on collective list, done).

I think that's the reason some decided to apply negative trust, as those bounties (usually) don't allow negative trusted users.

Thats along the lines of what I wanted to say in my first post.
Giving negative feedback for spammers forces even those campaigns that don't care about the spam problem to stop rewarding shitposters as the "no negative feedback" rule is probably the most basic rule for campaigns right now.

That's not ideal, but it's a "solution" right now. If we want to change it, we should work towards building something better.

[Joel_Jantsen]

One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign.

Not every campaign manager who happens on the forum is good at finding spammers or has the ability to hire posters who post spam free.So SMAS is one of the easiest ways they can do it.You can't tell them to not manage a campaign because they're incapable of doing so but encourage them to use SMAS list as it would help recruiting deserving posters and keep the junk away.

[Lauda]

Please, get off this forums for a few days and see how a civilized and a world with freedom works.

Correct. Let the person that got jailed for insulting a gender-switching-degenerate^[2] tell you how this world, created by said leftist bullshit, is very nice. Idiota.

Blazed! please stop this, why you do this every time?

Blazed did nothing wrong. We need more active DT members rather than more dormant-pretend-heroes.

You can't tell them to not manage a campaign because they're incapable of doing so but encourage them to use SMAS list as it would help recruiting deserving posters and keep the junk away.

Using SMAS should be default[1] + your own blacklist (if you're that *advanced* with your campaigns).
[1] If you don't, you're just needlessly wasting man-hours.
[2] For those that are confused by this: I'm not calling stingers that (why would I?). Read the news every once in a while.

[HodorHodl]

gender-switching-degenerate

gender-switching-degenerate

gender-switching-degenerate

I had to read that several times in order to believe my own eyes.

You're a fucking horrific excuse for a human being. Truly disgusting. Scum.

Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.

[Lauda]

Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.

You're a cute leftist. Unfortunately, that doesn't go well with intelligence. Are you trying to turn this thread into a*insertOver100Genders* discussion?

[HodorHodl]

Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.

You're a cute leftist.

Ohhh, we're editing back in more insults, are we? Awesome!!!!

Updated quote:

You're a cute leftist. Unfortunately, that doesn't go well with intelligence. Are you trying to turn this thread into a*insertOver100Genders* discussion?

"That doesn't go well with intelligence". Would you mind explaining, from your lofty perch of arrogance, WHAT the fuck that ridiculous statement means?

You know what? Don't bother - you post enough meaningless drivel that I actually don't care. Your post history proves that. As does your lack of response when you're called out on it.

And nope, I don't want to turn the discussion to gender. That has nothing to do with it. You are well aware of this, but want to deflect from the battering you're taking at the moment in terms of your image. And trust me, it's a battering. You're looking more and more stupid with every word you type. By all means, continue, I'll just make some popcorn.

Y'know, I've met people like you before. People who think they see more deeply than others, people who think that they have some sort of intellectual advantage.

You don't.

And the irony is, you're too stupid to realise how transparent you are. We see it, and you think we don't.

Let's look at the current situation....

You, and other DT2s, are running about tagging people as scammers because they don't write stuff you want to read.

EDIT THE SECOND: Except some of the others are salvaging a little respect, by engaging in intelligent discussion and talking solutions. YOU on the other hand, have come out all guns blazing, with your little book of insults. Not very clever ones, either, but I realise that you can't see that from your perspective.

And yet, YOUR post history is nothing but concentrated hostility, aggression, and abuse. I'd say that's every bit as valid for a scammer tag.

Oh wait, you got one already, for your lovely little extortion attempt...

Yep, you're a card. I'd prefer to be a "cute leftist", than a downright scumsucker like you, Lauda. You're a bottom-feeder, and I think deep down you know it. It's what drives your aggression.

[Lutpin]

Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.

You're a cute leftist.

Ohhh, we're editing back in more insults, are we? Awesome!
~snip~

Can you two lovebirds take this to a dedicated reputation thread?