Who is policing this guy please? The Pharmacist. "Default trust".....joke?

[Lauda]

He is Breaking the very rule theymos laid down regarding the Marketplace trust   " Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts." 

That is not a rule.

He needs to go.

How about you go away instead?

[1713950647]

1713950647

[1713950647]

1713950647

[1713950647]

1713950647

[otrkid70]

He is Breaking the very rule theymos laid down regarding the Marketplace trust   " Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts." 

That is not a rule.

He needs to go.

How about you go away instead?

Hi Sir/M'aam    Crazy Cat Lady I'll stick around to keep tabs on you       When theymos states  DO NOT rate people based on the Quality of a post isn't that saying DON'T do it?   

I beg to differ on this Cat lady. 

[Lauda]

Crazy Cat Lady I'll stick around to keep tabs on you

Enjoy wasting your time. Wake me up when you actually contribute somehow.

When theymos states  DO NOT rate people based on the Quality of a post isn't that saying DON'T do it?  

It's a guideline, something that does not need to be followed shall one choose not to. Like many of his policies, these are backwards too given the state of the forum.
P.S. Nice multiple posting gaps and nice change of the quality of your posts. Could you make it more less obvious?

[actmyname]

Hi Sir/M'aam    Crazy Cat Lady I'll stick around to keep tabs on you      When theymos states  DO NOT rate people based on the Quality of a post isn't that saying DON'T do it?  

I beg to differ on this Cat lady.  

Guidelines = Recommendations ≠ Rules.

I can recommend you not to trade accounts, but you are allowed. (Though there will be a pretty noticeable brand if you do!)

[HodorHodl]

He is Breaking the very rule theymos laid down regarding the Marketplace trust   " Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts." 

That is not a rule.

So you are under the impression that it was a suggestion? Perhaps it was....but you lot are riding roughshod over it. Way to show respect.

Wait....are the DT2s (lofty and all as you may be, praise, worship etc) interpreting this now?

Did you lot miss the point???

Eliminating scammers - yes! This is a good thing. Trust rating are great for this.

Eliminating shitposts - yes! This is a good thing too. Trust rating SUCK for this. This is the job of the mods, and they should be banning left right and centre. Not enough mods? Get more.

Promoting crypto, and securing this forum's place as the premier place to be - this is the point.

And you, and your crowd, are making it the unfriendliest place a newbie could ever go.

I think that a new phrase needs to be coined for you and your cronies. How about "Crypto-Millionaire Arrogance" - "CMA"? Has a ring to it.

I could have gone for "Crytpo Undid Nice Tendancies" on that one, and it'd have been deserved.

[actmyname]

Did you lot miss the point???

Eliminating shitposts - yes! This is a good thing too. Trust rating SUCK for this. This is the job of the mods, and they should be banning left right and centre. Not enough mods? Get more.

So let's sit around and let the forum spam a little more before we get more mods, right? Perhaps this is a strawman but you have to find some way of combatting spam. How long is it going to take for theymos to appoint new moderators? And how effective will they be?

There are vast oceans of spam and certainly, that's a testament to how uninfluential moderation has been. This is certainly not the best of dealing with the situation but it's exacerbated to this level: you have to provide some deterrent to spamming. I mean, look at what happened in the past with account farming (i.e. rizzlarolla's thread). Where was the administrative concern?

P.S. Nice multiple posting gaps and nice change of the quality of your posts. Could you make it more less obvious?

I actually disagree: from what I saw, the style of typing has been the same throughout the years. Some good posts, some bad posts.

[otrkid70]

P.S. Nice multiple posting gaps and nice change of the quality of your posts. Could you make it more less obvious?

No idea what this means but ...OK

I guess when theymos says Don't do it then he really means do it.....Is that what your Suggesting?  So if that's the case No Rules Apply on this forum anymore?

I mean anyone could interpret the Rules as a "Suggestion" according to you.

[HodorHodl]

P.S. Nice multiple posting gaps and nice change of the quality of your posts. Could you make it more less obvious?

The Pharmacist - could you please tag this one as a shitposter?

Clearly non-english speaking shitposter.

/s

Lauda, what in the wide wide world of sport is that ridiculous comment supposed to mean?

You think you are seeing some amazing layer that only you are smart enough to see, and the rest of us are too unintelligent to get?

I beg to fucking differ. This is shitposting at it's best. Let's discover:

"Multiple posting gaps"....pfft, what kind of invented phrase is that tripe?. What the hell is a "posting gap". How are these "nice"? What, in short, the fuck are you talking about?

"Nice change of the quality" - are you high? Read back, no inconsistencies there. I've looked and can see nothing but input....can you please show me the metric by which you judge the quality of this input, and the objective standard which validates it? No? I didn't think so.

"Could you make it less obvious?"....what is obvious? WHAT is obvious? What's obvious to most of us at this point is that you and your fellow fools are in a desperate situation, and are rallying to recover what tiny amount of dignity is left. Keep it up. You're entertaining.

As an old boss of mine used to say....Nonsense.

Arrogant comments like this are what make you and your little circle of bullies pathetic.

By all means trade words with me. I'm a native english speaker, and I'm not afraid of you.

[otrkid70]

Did you lot miss the point???

Eliminating shitposts - yes! This is a good thing too. Trust rating SUCK for this. This is the job of the mods, and they should be banning left right and centre. Not enough mods? Get more.

So let's sit around and let the forum spam a little more before we get more mods, right? Perhaps this is a strawman but you have to find some way of combatting spam. How long is it going to take for theymos to appoint new moderators? And how effective will they be?

There are vast oceans of spam and certainly, that's a testament to how uninfluential moderation has been. This is certainly not the best of dealing with the situation but it's exacerbated to this level: you have to provide some deterrent to spamming. I mean, look at what happened in the past with account farming (i.e. rizzlarolla's thread). Where was the administrative concern?

P.S. Nice multiple posting gaps and nice change of the quality of your posts. Could you make it more less obvious?

I actually disagree: from what I saw, the style of typing has been the same throughout the years. Some good posts, some bad posts.

I see what your saying about combating spam. But the OP is opposed to the way The Pharmacist is going about. He is Raging Not Combating.

The Vast oceans of Spam could be Tackled by other means.  Instead of Painting them Red with Negative trust along with Scammers how about a Different Color of Feedback?  The Bright Red Screams Thief! Untrustworthy to me upon first glance.  Not fair to group poor English speaking users with scammers/scumbags.

My posting has always been the same. I'm human. I have good and bad days but i'm still the same person if that's my understanding of Laudas comment.

[HodorHodl]

Did you lot miss the point???

Eliminating shitposts - yes! This is a good thing too. Trust rating SUCK for this. This is the job of the mods, and they should be banning left right and centre. Not enough mods? Get more.

So let's sit around and let the forum spam a little more before we get more mods, right? Perhaps this is a strawman but you have to find some way of combatting spam. How long is it going to take for theymos to appoint new moderators? And how effective will they be?

There are vast oceans of spam and certainly, that's a testament to how uninfluential moderation has been. This is certainly not the best of dealing with the situation but it's exacerbated to this level: you have to provide some deterrent to spamming. I mean, look at what happened in the past with account farming (i.e. rizzlarolla's thread). Where was the administrative concern?

P.S. Nice multiple posting gaps and nice change of the quality of your posts. Could you make it more less obvious?

I actually disagree: from what I saw, the style of typing has been the same throughout the years. Some good posts, some bad posts.

Wait a minute, that's a fairly weak argument. What you're basically saying is "Well, the whole thing is broken anyhow, so us poor DTs are only trying to limp along with the best we have"?

Are you not strong enough to push for change?

[actmyname]

Wait a minute, that's a fairly weak argument. What you're basically saying is "Well, the whole thing is broken anyhow, so us poor DTs are only trying to limp along with the best we have"?

Are you not strong enough to push for change?

I brought up the account farming thread: "Account farming. Allowed?". theymos has not done anything regarding that. The only change he's done recently that's been somewhat beneficial is the change where emails can change passwords within two weeks. This actually makes it easier for account farmers but is a security benefit and can be a deterrent to people who are prospective account buyers.The thread was big enough and rizzlarolla did enough work (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1670807.0) to probably be mod-worthy, if theymos decided upon it. Unfortunately, no change came from it.

[HodorHodl]

Wait a minute, that's a fairly weak argument. What you're basically saying is "Well, the whole thing is broken anyhow, so us poor DTs are only trying to limp along with the best we have"?

Are you not strong enough to push for change?

I brought up the account farming thread: "Account farming. Allowed?". theymos has not done anything regarding that. The only change he's done recently that's been somewhat beneficial is the change where emails can change passwords within two weeks. This actually makes it easier for account farmers but is a security benefit and can be a deterrent to people who are prospective account buyers.The thread was big enough and rizzlarolla did enough work (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1670807.0) to probably be mod-worthy, if theymos decided upon it. Unfortunately, no change came from it.

I'll agree with you that Theymos has not done enough. I'll also agree that there's no easy solution.

But to have people running about exploiting the hell out of the trust system, most especially when nobody can call them out for racist, opinionated rubbish, is counter-productive.

Do you want people here or not?

[actmyname]

I'll agree with you that Theymos has not done enough. I'll also agree that there's no easy solution.

But to have people running about exploiting the hell out of the trust system, most especially when nobody can call them out for racist, opinionated rubbish, is counter-productive.

Do you want people here or not?

I don't want people posting trash one-liners and filling up the forum with 200-page threads with useless remarks and the most general-ass statements imaginable.

You can only handle so many "bitcoin is good?" threads.If you could, just try to stomach some of the spam megathreads in the Economics (and its child board, Speculation) and Bitcoin Discussion sections and you'll truly see what I mean. I'm talking threads with 15+ pages. Usually, they're devolved enough.

[HodorHodl]

I'll agree with you that Theymos has not done enough. I'll also agree that there's no easy solution.

But to have people running about exploiting the hell out of the trust system, most especially when nobody can call them out for racist, opinionated rubbish, is counter-productive.

Do you want people here or not?

I don't want people posting trash one-liners and filling up the forum with 200-page threads with useless remarks and the most general-ass statements imaginable.

You can only handle so many "bitcoin is good?" threads.If you could, just try to stomach some of the spam megathreads in the Economics (and its child board, Speculation) and Bitcoin Discussion sections and you'll truly see what I mean. I'm talking threads with 15+ pages. Usually, they're devolved enough.

I 100% get this, and I completely agree.

They should be warned, directed towards the community guidelines, and then they should be banned if they persist.

This is not what the trust system is for though. And it is just simply being abused.

Get more mods. Who says they have to be Hero or Legendary? They just need to be engaged, and obviously monitored - use the DT network for that? You'll have a hundred volunteers, and the abusers will be fairly obvious, fairly quickly.

What is happening at the moment is that people with poor English are being tagged as untrustworthy. There is a word for this, but I won't be the one to invoke Godwin's Law.

[otrkid70]

I'll agree with you that Theymos has not done enough. I'll also agree that there's no easy solution.

But to have people running about exploiting the hell out of the trust system, most especially when nobody can call them out for racist, opinionated rubbish, is counter-productive.

Do you want people here or not?

I don't want people posting trash one-liners and filling up the forum with 200-page threads with useless remarks and the most general-ass statements imaginable.

You can only handle so many "bitcoin is good?" threads.If you could, just try to stomach some of the spam megathreads in the Economics (and its child board, Speculation) and Bitcoin Discussion sections and you'll truly see what I mean. I'm talking threads with 15+ pages. Usually, they're devolved enough.

Right now as it stands we have 3 colors to choose from when leaving Feedback.    Red:Meant For Scammers   Black Bold: Meant for a positive transaction/Sale/Service  Black: Neutral Feedback Meant for an OK transaction or a Watch out not what was agreed upon.

We should have

Red: Scammers/thieves   Red gives you a sense of Danger stay away. It's to be Expected of Scammers and thieves.

Orange: Based on suspicion. Could be used for Acct. Farmers/Sales Acts that may show Scamming activity.

Brown: A shitty Color. Could be used for Spammers or Shitposters.

Black Bold: A Good transaction sale/buy.  The way it was meant to be.

Black: Neutral an ok transaction or could have been better. Just a heads up for the next person.

Green:  For DT Members only. Based upon their Work on the forum and outing scammers/shit posters/Acct farmers.

Green DT should be reviewed and appointed or demoted By the Admins Only.

What do you think?  Just an Idea.

[HodorHodl]

I'll agree with you that Theymos has not done enough. I'll also agree that there's no easy solution.

But to have people running about exploiting the hell out of the trust system, most especially when nobody can call them out for racist, opinionated rubbish, is counter-productive.

Do you want people here or not?

I don't want people posting trash one-liners and filling up the forum with 200-page threads with useless remarks and the most general-ass statements imaginable.

You can only handle so many "bitcoin is good?" threads.If you could, just try to stomach some of the spam megathreads in the Economics (and its child board, Speculation) and Bitcoin Discussion sections and you'll truly see what I mean. I'm talking threads with 15+ pages. Usually, they're devolved enough.

Right now as it stands we have 3 colors to choose from when leaving Feedback.    Red:Meant For Scammers   Black Bold: Meant for a positive transaction/Sale/Service  Black: Neutral Feedback Meant for an OK transaction or a Watch out not what was agreed upon.

We should have

Red: Scammers/thieves   Red gives you a sense of Danger stay away. It's to be Expected of Scammers and thieves.

Orange: Based on suspicion. Could be used for Acct. Farmers/Sales Acts that may show Scamming activity.

Brown: A shitty Color. Could be used for Spammers or Shitposters.

Black Bold: A Good transaction sale/buy.  The way it was meant to be.

Black: Neutral an ok transaction or could have been better. Just a heads up for the next person.

Green:  For DT Members only. Based upon their Work on the forum and outing scammers/shit posters/Acct farmers.

Green DT should be reviewed and appointed or demoted By the Admins Only.

What do you think?  Just an Idea.

To be honest with you, I'd pull the whole trust idea completely. But I realise this might not be practical.

The issue arises when the word "suspicion" gets into the mix. It's not objective, and it's opinion-based.

There are a few ways the current situation could be improved, but ultimately, it needs moderators, and not a militia.

[otrkid70]

I'll agree with you that Theymos has not done enough. I'll also agree that there's no easy solution.

But to have people running about exploiting the hell out of the trust system, most especially when nobody can call them out for racist, opinionated rubbish, is counter-productive.

Do you want people here or not?

I don't want people posting trash one-liners and filling up the forum with 200-page threads with useless remarks and the most general-ass statements imaginable.

You can only handle so many "bitcoin is good?" threads.If you could, just try to stomach some of the spam megathreads in the Economics (and its child board, Speculation) and Bitcoin Discussion sections and you'll truly see what I mean. I'm talking threads with 15+ pages. Usually, they're devolved enough.

Right now as it stands we have 3 colors to choose from when leaving Feedback.    Red:Meant For Scammers   Black Bold: Meant for a positive transaction/Sale/Service  Black: Neutral Feedback Meant for an OK transaction or a Watch out not what was agreed upon.

We should have

Red: Scammers/thieves   Red gives you a sense of Danger stay away. It's to be Expected of Scammers and thieves.

Orange: Based on suspicion. Could be used for Acct. Farmers/Sales Acts that may show Scamming activity.

Brown: A shitty Color. Could be used for Spammers or Shitposters.

Black Bold: A Good transaction sale/buy.  The way it was meant to be.

Black: Neutral an ok transaction or could have been better. Just a heads up for the next person.

Green:  For DT Members only. Based upon their Work on the forum and outing scammers/shit posters/Acct farmers.

Green DT should be reviewed and appointed or demoted By the Admins Only.

What do you think?  Just an Idea.

To be honest with you, I'd pull the whole trust idea completely. But I realise this might not be practical.

The issue arises when the word "suspicion" gets into the mix. It's not objective, and it's opinion-based.

There are a few ways the current situation could be improved, but ultimately, it needs moderators, and not a militia.

I have many many transactions on here and would not be quick to pull the trust system. I have had transactions with Mods such as Saltyspitoon,HIGH DT users such as Blazed and Users that have absolutely no feedback history at all. But i always look at a users trust rating to see where i stand with the transaction. I Depend on the DT system when doing Transactions.

It's a bit broken right now with the Abuse but the system theymos put in place originally was a fantastic idea.

[HodorHodl]

That's a fair observation.

How about implementing a trust system where only people involved in a transaction are given a (one time per transaction) ability to tag the trade?

That way there would be a reference for every rating, it's easy to moderate, and there's no room for subjective opinions like the quality of someone's english.

EDITED: Correctly shown to be naive. My bad, guess I just picture a perfect world

Just another idea

[Vod]

That's a fair observation.

How about implementing a trust system where only people involved in a transaction are given a (one time per transaction) ability to tag the trade?

That way there would be a reference for every rating, it's easy to moderate, and there's no room for subjective opinions like the quality of someone's english.

Just another idea

So give free reign to scammers UNTIL they scam?

Allows ponzis and other HYIPs until they stop paying out, and THEN tag them?

[otrkid70]

That's a fair observation.

How about implementing a trust system where only people involved in a transaction are given a (one time per transaction) ability to tag the trade?

That way there would be a reference for every rating, it's easy to moderate, and there's no room for subjective opinions like the quality of someone's english.

Just another idea

So give free reign to scammers UNTIL they scam?

Allows ponzis and other HYIPs until they stop paying out, and THEN tag them?

Hell No!  Vod you keep doing what you do best....Busting scumbags.  No one better at it.