Remove the ability to self-moderate within the marketplace

[bill gator]

Since you have so much time on your hands, I will give you a few tasks: 1) go find the significant amount of users that are using self-mods in those sections, 2) Write a 5 page paper, double spaced, with an explanation on why "need" is unfitting for our purposes(APA or MLA, whichever is preferred)

Where do the majority of scammers operate if not within the marketplace?

I'm not your errand boy. I've already pointed out multiple people using it in the sections you've proposed to ban it in for beneficial purposes you still don't think exist. You are the one making the claim that self-moderation is only used for malicious purposes, that is a truth claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Find the high-ranking members abusing self-moderation to scam or your claim is invalid. I have already shown that members use this for good and reasonable purposes, but you have yet to even show me one example of the opposite.

If I need to explain why "need" is unfitting for our purposes of discussing privileges on an internet forum, then you have a poor grasp of language. "Need" is to require something essential, this is not required and it is not essential, so it does not fit the definition of "need". That didn't take 5-pages, did it? Do you disagree, is this an essential requirement that we have been unable to survive without?

I didn't say the majority of scammers don't operate within the marketplace, so again your poor grasp of language fails you.  In response to:

I proposed removing self-mods in 3 sections of the marketplace.  Maybe a handful of people are using self mods and actually need them.    We could even remove services from that list and still tackle where the 98% of scammers roam.

(The things you bold/emphasize make reading your posts hilarious)

Essentially your claim is that after removing Services from your 3 section self-moderation ban-proposal we would still tackle 98% of scammers, presumably in the other 2 sections remaining in your proposal (Goods and Currency Exchange), I said :

98% of scammers do not come from and operate within Goods & Currency Exchange exclusively so the plan is flawed even after a "compromise".

If you want to have a discussion you have to actually respond to the things I am saying, not the things you wish I was saying. You cannot straw-man an argument and expect anything meaningful to come out of it. You did not say the marketplace is where most scammers roam, you said in the 2-remaining sections of your proposal is where they roam. Language matters, words have definitions, claims must be precise or they're wrong and you are speaking nonsense.

If you haven't noticed, I already believe you are a joke.  I am afraid your epeen will not get any bigger here in this thread.  If only I made this thread self-modded..am I right? ..haha

Yes, exactly. Self-moderation is exactly for something like this. You have made a thread, and even though I am trying to have a reasonable discussion about the flaws of your proposal and how to improve it so it is feasible, you should have the option to exclude me from the conversation. It's nice to have you admit that there is utility to self-moderation, after all. You're free to think I'm a joke, I encourage it, because taking yourself too seriously leads to a horrible sense of humor. Thinking I'm a joke doesn't make your idea any better, though, and it certainly doesn't refute anything I have said.

You made your points/arguments clear already and offered a suggestion.  Both have already beed noted in this thread and acknowledged.

Then stop saying things that are contradictory to what you have already conceded. You were wrong, take it like a man and move on. Instead of trying to have a flame-war and pretend like you were right all along by twisting my words and ignoring every credible argument.

You have a large epeen.  You are superior to all.  Will not be wasting anymore time with you.

This is not a counter-argument and it does not make your suggestion anymore valid. Criticisms, compromises and comments should not be seen as a waste of time unless you are omnipotent. I'm trying to elevate your suggestion, but at this point I doubt anybody will even want to discuss this with you. The same criticisms will exist when you have this conversation with anyone else, but feel free to continue acting as though there is no legitimate concerns about your proposal. Consider your idea, killed by your own emotions, childishness and refusal to think logically, not even the mountain of refutation against it.

[1715435156]

1715435156

[1715435156]

1715435156

[1715435156]

1715435156

[MiLkz]

@bill gator
You are such a self righteous asshole and it kills me to respond to your merry go round bullshit.  

1)
Threads posted in scam accusation and negative trust sometimes go unseen.
In regard to being unseen, I am ONLY referring to:
**new users and any other victim that may have not done enough due diligence**

Why the hell would you think I was talking about experienced/DT users. -.-

I never said I didn't believe: that stickys/guidelines were being overlooked, that users were using an improper format in the scam section, that DT users were taking the appropriate action.  The self-mod removal is separate and something that can be done along side all of that.

Is this negligence on the victims? YES, however, that does not mean we cannot try to make it even more fool proof.

You think trust sticks out more than posting in threads?  Great, I hope so, why not add something else to it.

2)
Your single downside about the removal of self-mod is the spam.  OK!, I AGREE IT IS A DOWNSIDE, NEVER SAID IT WASNT.  I said, I do not personally use self-mod, however, I see that a select few others do.  I also personally believe stopping even one scam outweighs the ability of the self-mod and that this spam is part of a much bigger underlying problem.

We have different opinions about it, yes, it was acknowledged posts ago..lol

Compromises to this were limited sections and specific user groups being exempt.  ALL OF WHICH WERE NOTED IN THE MAIN THREAD AS SOON AS THEY WERE SUGGESTED.

3)
I personally do not like leaving negatives because of the potential repercussions and instead choose to just post on their threads.  This is a god damn personal choice I have made.  If you do not like it, fine, so fucking what.  It does not matter in relation to the removal of self-moderation.  I have never asked others to stop leaving negative trust were it is due.

The example I kept referring to was this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1927424

I found fraudulent GCs being sold and then found multiple accounts were purchased.  The users nachius, RichG, and one other(I forget) ganged up on me in an attempt to ruin my rep after being called out.  At that time they were still being investigated and did not have the red trust they eventually got.  My decision was to remove my trust in exchange for the removal of all of theirs.  It was the smart business move at the time.  I STILL made a thread in scam accusations which lead to further investigation.

I really do not care what you think about it, it has no bearing on this thread and I should not have even brought up my personal feelings about leaving negatives.

4)
Screw what words you feel are appropriate
Screw what you think about how I setup my trust
Screw your logic about nothing relating to the original topic
Screw you getting me so god damn off topic

-----

Post #12 was the last time anything worthwhile was posted.  All of your posts and my posts after that are garbage.

If you have something credible and new that relates to the topic go ahead and post it.  If not, we can hop back on the bullshit merry go round.

[bill gator]

You are such a self righteous asshole and it kills me to respond to your merry go round bullshit.  

1)
Threads posted in scam accusation and negative trust sometimes go unseen.
In regard to being unseen, I am ONLY referring to:
**new users and any other victim that may have not done enough due diligence**

Why the hell would you think I was talking about experienced/DT users. -.-

You never specified, which has been one of my more significant points our entire exchange; you must be precise with your language or nobody is going to know what you are trying to say. Most of your frustration with me seems to be about me trying to more precisely nail down what we're talking about and figuring out what you mean by your words.

You did not originally say "sometimes" and you did not originally say "potential victims", which changes the entire statement as I'm sure you can acknowledge. Obviously I can agree to this, but this isn't what you originally said. I'd also like to move past this semantically driven ad-hominem parade, but if you are truly sick of trying to figure this out I would encourage you to tap the ignore button.

Is this negligence on the victims? YES, however, that does not mean we cannot try to make it even more fool proof.

It certainly means that if the cost is tyranny, unfair regulation and treatment as though we are all criminals of this crime you are trying to solve. You cannot put the price of negligence on the rest of us. It sounds like the answer to this problem would be optional education for uninformed users (already there), not privilege revocation from those abiding by fine principals. If someone signs a bad contract, because they skipped Section 4 Paragraph 6, this is not the fault of the judge for enforcing the contract, nor the townspeople for watching it happen; you are seemingly trying to blame the judge and the townspeople instead of the negligent participant.

I also personally believe stopping even one scam outweighs the ability of the self-mod.

This mentality is assuming that we are all malicious, rather than innocent until proven guilty. You are treating all of us as if we are guilty, punishing us by revoking the right that should only be taken away from the guilty. There is a better way to sort this out than removing self-moderation and punishing all for the crimes of a few. I disagree with this, and do not think you should hope for implementation on an idea that would be so divisive. By your logic, we could remove 98% of scams simply by removing the Goods and Currency Exchange section altogether and this should be worth it, too.

I personally do not like leaving negatives because of the potential repercussions and instead choose to just post on their threads.  This is a god damn personal choice I have made.  If you do not like it, fine, so fucking what.  It does not matter in relation to the removal of self-moderation.  I have never asked others to stop leaving negative trust were it is due.

Right, but you are asking others to stop Self-moderation, because it conflicts with the personal choice you have made. You have made a personal choice to not use the trust system as intended and are trying to replace it with posting in their thread which is nullified by the ability to self-moderate. Your personal choice should not influence the way the form works, your personal choices on the forum should be influenced by how the forum works. In this manner, it certainly does matter in relation to the removal of self-moderation and I'm baffled that you do not see the connection. If you used the trust system as intended then there would be no need for this suggestion. You're free to make personal choices, so long as they don't interfere with the personal choices of others, which you are trying to do right now.

The example I kept referring to was this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1927424
At that time they were still being investigated and did not have the red trust they eventually got.  My decision was to remove my trust in exchange for the removal of all of theirs.  It was the smart business move at the time.  I STILL made a thread in scam accusations which lead to further investigation.

Then you are inconsistent with your logic at the very least; you continually talk about how we should use multiple ways of going after scammers and then choose to ignore the methods already in place that work perfectly well. This was not a smart decision, because now you gave no warning where most people look for red-flags before dealing with the user(s) and actively decided not to warn potential victims. You made this horrid decision in order to "save your reputation", based on your trust-settings that nobody else uses or sees and it was all at the expense of other users. This is selfish and cowardly, there just is no way around it and I already told you to stop bringing up the situation because it does not make you look good in any sense.

Screw what words you feel are appropriate
Screw what you think about how I setup my trust
Screw your logic about nothing relating to the original topic
Screw you getting me so god damn off topic

Words have definitions and it is important to choose the right words. Otherwise you will get frustrated when nobody understands you and you have said something you never intended to. I don't care how you set-up my trust as long as you don't use it as an excuse to take away my privilege of self-moderation. Everything I have said is either related to the topic, brought up by you or specifically for clarification on something related to the topic. It is not my fault you are an emotional wreck when somebody disagrees with you.

If you have something credible and new that relates to the topic go ahead and post it.

I got something, maybe it might be helpful if we add the option to make a thread already in progress a self-moderated thread. For example, clicking the edit, additional options and then toggling self-moderation on or off for a thread already created. Also, the idea of DT members being able to negatively rate a user and remove their self-moderation abilities, is this something that might work as a compromise as well?

[MiLkz]

You never specified, which has been one of my more significant points our entire exchange; you must be precise with your language or nobody is going to know what you are trying to say. Most of your frustration with me seems to be about me trying to more precisely nail down what we're talking about and figuring out what you mean by your words.

You did not originally say "sometimes" and you did not originally say "potential victims", which changes the entire statement as I'm sure you can acknowledge. Obviously I can agree to this, but this isn't what you originally said. I'd also like to move past this semantically driven ad-hominem parade, but if you are truly sick of trying to figure this out I would encourage you to tap the ignore button.

My opening topic always had "new users" on #4.  I apologize that #3 did not include it initially.  I figured you were at least intelligent enough to know we were not talking about the experienced users that know how to use the systems that are already in place.  

Again you are just an asshole.  Hanging your arguments on words like "sometimes".  Did you think I meant no one on the entire forum ever looks at scam accusations/trust?

Why don't you just leave the thread? ..or will the ignore stop you from viewing it? What we are doing now is the spam you hate so much.

It certainly means that if the cost is tyranny, unfair regulation and treatment as though we are all criminals of this crime you are trying to solve. You cannot put the price of negligence on the rest of us. It sounds like the answer to this problem would be optional education for uninformed users (already there), not privilege revocation from those abiding by fine principals. If someone signs a bad contract, because they skipped Section 4 Paragraph 6, this is not the fault of the judge for enforcing the contract, nor the townspeople for watching it happen; you are seemingly trying to blame the judge and the townspeople instead of the negligent participant.

Tyranny, funny..

Seeing as we already have solutions stated to keep self-mods for certain user groups, I am not sure who this "us" is.  Right now we have something that is comparable to the current PM system limits, etc.  Benefits the higher your rank is..

How many times are you going to say the same thing? Holy piss man..

This mentality is assuming that we are all malicious, rather than innocent until proven guilty. You are treating all of us as if we are guilty, punishing us by revoking the right that should only be taken away from the guilty. There is a better way to sort this out than removing self-moderation and punishing all for the crimes of a few. I disagree with this, and do not think you should hope for implementation on an idea that would be so divisive. By your logic, we could remove 98% of scams simply by removing the Goods and Currency Exchange section altogether and this should be worth it, too.

How many different ways and times are you going to say the same thing while ignoring solutions you yourself suggested to keep self mods for probably the only people that use them correctly.

I believe the entire world knows you are against this idea.

Right, but you are asking others to stop Self-moderation, because it conflicts with the personal choice you have made. You have made a personal choice to not use the trust system as intended and are trying to replace it with posting in their thread which is nullified by the ability to self-moderate. Your personal choice should not influence the way the form works, your personal choices on the forum should be influenced by how the forum works. In this manner, it certainly does matter in relation to the removal of self-moderation and I'm baffled that you do not see the connection. If you used the trust system as intended then there would be no need for this suggestion. You're free to make personal choices, so long as they don't interfere with the personal choices of others, which you are trying to do right now.

I FUCKING SAID: " I should not have even brought up my personal feelings about leaving negatives."  IT HAD NO GOD DAMN BEARING ANYWAY.  I MADE THIS BECAUSE I WAS TRIED OF MY POSTS BEING DELETED ON SCAMMERS THREADS, NOT BECAUSE I WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE TRUST SYSTEM.

PEOPLE OVER LOOK THE TRUST SYSTEM, DID NOT SAY DONT FUCKING USE IT, SAID THAT IT IN THE FIRST FUCKING POST.  TRUST AND SELF-MOD REGULATIONS WILL BE USED SIDE BY SIDE.  

YOU CANNOT LET ANYTHING GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM BAFFLED BY YOU, GO AWAY!

Then you are inconsistent with your logic at the very least; you continually talk about how we should use multiple ways of going after scammers and then choose to ignore the methods already in place that work perfectly well. This was not a smart decision, because now you gave no warning where most people look for red-flags before dealing with the user(s) and actively decided not to warn potential victims. You made this horrid decision in order to "save your reputation", based on your trust-settings that nobody else uses or sees and it was all at the expense of other users. This is selfish and cowardly, there just is no way around it and I already told you to stop bringing up the situation because it does not make you look good in any sense.

I MADE A POST!  IT WAS THEN HANDLED BY MULTIPLE USERS!  UNLESS I AM PROTECTED FROM FAKE TRUST, I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO LEAVE NEGATIVES.  I AM NOT A FUCKING MOD.

THIS THREAD WAS MADE TO HELP PEOPLE, I GET ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM IT.  SUCK IT.

Words have definitions and it is important to choose the right words. Otherwise you will get frustrated when nobody understands you and you have said something you never intended to. I don't care how you set-up my trust as long as you don't use it as an excuse to take away my privilege of self-moderation. Everything I have said is either related to the topic, brought up by you or specifically for clarification on something related to the topic. It is not my fault you are an emotional wreck when somebody disagrees with you.

Someone who repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over, pisses me off, yes.  Emotional wreck..lol

I got something, maybe it might be helpful if we add the option to make a thread already in progress a self-moderated thread. For example, clicking the edit, additional options and then toggling self-moderation on or off for a thread already created. Also, the idea of DT members being able to negatively rate a user and remove their self-moderation abilities, is this something that might work as a compromise as well?

Sure make a change to edit the self-mod status, I don't give a shit, as long as the self-mod ability is a benefit of certain user groups.  That is more of an upgrade, nothing to do with scam prevention.

Sure, ralle14 already suggested this, having negative trust removes your right to self-mod threads, sounds good for almost everything, but again self-mod needs to be a benefit for certain user groups starting out.

[philipma1957]

Here is the problem with removing self modded threads.  Honest sellers get fucked.

Now obviously I self mod  and I sell a lot of gear and I do right by  my buyers.

But I self mod most all my threads as people tend to shit on them.

I also quote the shit and leave it be on all my self mods except for my sale threads.

As  when I self a gpu for 20 usd above list and a moron shits on the offer I give which is 200 lower then any one any where I am deleting that shit head.

but if you look at my major information threads I quote the delete and say why I did it.



below is a sales thread I had to delete someone.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2816327.0

[MiLkz]

@philipma1957
You are another example of someone using it right.  If this would ever happen you would not be affected.

Senior, Hero, & Legendary would keep self-moderation in the decided upon marketplace sections. All other sections would remain the same.  We may want to extend this to Full Members as well because of the merit system.

If possible we could then have this benefit disabled if someone's trust is negative, regardless of the user group.

-------------

I will close this and open a new thread in Meta, as suggested, using everyone's concerns and suggestions to make a better proposal.