Forum with continuous voting

[Ultramarine]

The Internet, digital technologies and decentralization finally make it possible to realize the idea of self-government. It is logical to discuss whether it can be done on the forum dedicated to bitcoin.
In short, the idea is that users should continuously vote for posts so that their rating doesn't drop.
1. When registering, each new user is given, for example, 12 points.
2. Only users with a certain rating (for example, 10 points) can write comments.
3. Only users with a certain rating (for example, 20 points) can open topics)
4. Rating is added:
- in case of a positive assessment of the comment by another user (for example, 3 points)
- in case of positive or negative vote for another user's comment (for example, 1 point).
5. Rating is reduced:
- in case of a negative assessment by another user (for example, 2 points)
- every day automatically (e.g. 1 point).
6. There should be no "leaderboard" so that no one would be conceited and push their authority on other users.
Thus, users will be stimulated:
- to continuous voting to maintain a certain rating level, giving the right to write comments and create topics
- to writing constructive comments and creating interesting topics.
The use of such self-regulatory system, "self-moderation", will help rid forum from flooding.
The moderators will of course continue to resolve problems.
Possible problem: collusion of users with multiple accounts who will try to artificially increase their rating.
Your opinion about idea?

[S_Therapist]

Are you talking about kind of upvote and downvote?
If so, here  is a scenerio attached below. People will easily abuse the system by alt.

Well, I want to share a story with you.
I had joined a forum named icoforums.net which was paying 1 ETH for 100 posts. It was really lucrative. Of course, I had joined with the intention to earn. But, I tried to contribute to the forum. I had posted some decent posts. Apart from that, I started to report the abusers and copy/paste so that the forum gets cleaned. I was able to remove the spams through reporting but in return what I got from users who were spamming?
There was an option called upvote/downvote. To be honest, I was one of the best users of that forum but you know what, my reputation was -17, because there were some users who had fake accounts and they were only downvoted all of my posts.
That's what will be happened here too. Trust, merits are not moderated. If there is something like -1, you can easily destroy one's reputation. And that's why there is DT member for trust feedback. Otherwise, I may create 100 of accounts and paint anyone I wish which would be visible to everyone.

I don't think any kind of addition is needed in current system. It's working fine now.

[Highpitched10]

The merit system efficiently covers any vote system,its been working and has continued to work

As for ratings
We've got positive trust for reputable members, and those who's honesty and repute on the forum has been tested and trusted

Negative trust for those with unscrupulous behaviors,scammers and spammers alike etc..

Do you still think we need what you've proposed??

[mu_enrico]

This bottom-up system wouldn't work because it's very susceptible to the Sybil attack. Bitcointalk currently uses a top-down system to prevent alts abuse. Furthermore, newbies (as the name implies) cannot judge whether a post is valuable or not. Imagine these shitposters vote for stupid/scam/shit posts, and the established members cannot do anything about it.

[jademaxsuy]

Are you talking about kind of upvote and downvote?
If so, here  is a scenerio attached below. People will easily abuse the system by alt.
I don't think any kind of addition is needed in current system. It's working fine now.

This is clear OP that point system you were emphasizing will not going to work. It is being explained already in the qoute and I just may add a thought about this on the contrary of getting negative post will.be positive points or the upvote. Shitpost could upvote especially if you have lots of farm accounts to use to upvote your thread being moderated.

I get your point on getting rid of the spam post by self moderating the post. But, you can self moderate post without using point system. Just delete off topic and spammy post in your thread. This way you could help a lot with the MODZ.

[Ultramarine]

1. The proposed system does not imply any monetary reward for the reputation of the forum. No "votecoin" etc.
2. Indeed, collusion of intruders is possible if there are few users on the forum. And if there are several thousand of them, then some small group will not be able to influence.
3. It is proposed something like self-government in anarchism. When societies are built not on the principle of domination of people over each other, but on the basis of interaction, rational agreement and harmonious arrangement of relations with each other and with the surrounding world.
No decision that affects the interests of a group of people can and should not be taken against the will of those people and without their participation in decision-making. This is the principle of self-government. Previously, such self-government could not do, because there was a bad connection between people. They were divided into small groups in which really "shitposters" could take over.
4. High rating does not bring any privileges. In addition to the ability to write comments and create topics. It is proposed that the rating in General was hidden from all but the moderators.
Just do not take it for the propaganda of any political ideas, etc.   Write, that was understandable, what I mean by self-government, and why it may be necessary for the forum.

[Marcel555]

2. Indeed, collusion of intruders is possible if there are few users on the forum. And if there are several thousand of them, then some small group will not be able to influence.

If you go through the trust feedback of some of the mods and DTs you would see so much negative feedback left by members, most of them retaliatory due to the mod tagging or banning those members.
And they can leave hundreds of negative feedback with alt accounts and sometimes bots.

But it counts for nothing as those members are not in the mods trust group or default trust group.

Now imagine giving everyone rights to tag, upvote, downvote, rate, or score other users in whatever way.
it would definitely be abused.
And this topic has been discussed numerously, and so far there is no immediate need to add any other parameter to the merit system.

[stompix]

You need to realize that this a centralized and private forum, and I doubt Theymos has any plans in changing this.

1. The proposed system does not imply any monetary reward for the reputation of the forum. No "votecoin" etc.

Online and on this forum especially, everything can be bought, posts, bumps, merits, even sometimes trust. So the votes will follow the same pattern and there will be buyers and sellers.

2. Indeed, collusion of intruders is possible if there are few users on the forum. And if there are several thousand of them, then some small group will not be able to influence.

You're underestimating the number of account farmers here, LoyceV has tens of posts with hundred if not thousands of accounts bumping topics.

3. It is proposed something like self-government in anarchism. When societies are built not on the principle of domination of people over each other, but on the basis of interaction, rational agreement and harmonious arrangement of relations with each other and with the surrounding world.

That's called a Utopia and it's not going to work  

[LoyceV]

2. Indeed, collusion of intruders is possible if there are few users on the forum. And if there are several thousand of them, then some small group will not be able to influence.

You're underestimating the number of account farmers here, LoyceV has tens of posts with hundred if not thousands of accounts bumping topics.

I think the large majority of all accounts is owned by spammers. Check here to see 6000 spam accounts being created.

[kingpin4321]

The forum has adopted it's own strategies and so far it going according to plans. This is forum that doesn't support the restrictions of any member of the forum but it wouldn't hesitate to bring down the hammer if anyone goes against the rules. So your idea will only upset the equilibrium balance of the community.

[Ultramarine]

I'm not suggesting we remake Bitcointalk. Just an idea.
Anarchism as a form of organization of society is really utopia. But in the framework of the Internet forum may self-government will work.
What is the purpose of spammers? Money? Cheat ratings for resale accounts or use in the bounty? And if there is no monetary interest in increasing the rating?

[Kopyleft]

Possible problem: collusion of users with multiple accounts who will try to artificially increase their rating.
Your opinion about idea?

Your already identified what the flaw in your proposed system. And not only would multiple account holders increase their ratings they can also drop retalliatory feedback on certain accounts. And considering the ease of owning a an account there's effectively no limit to accounts which can be created.
The solution to this would be to limit brand new and newbies (and possibly jr members) from participating. This would now create another problem of supposed attack on lower ranked members.

The system has been operative for a long time now, tipping it would shake the foundations of Bitcointalk.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

We're humans and humans always find a way to cheat a system. No matter what's been introduced to the system, those who want to cheat/abuse the system will still do so, that shouldn't stop us from introducing new ideas with the aim of making the system better. What surprises me is how a technology which claims to be decentralized can highly be manipulated, its no1 forum is a centralized one and best known exchanges are all centralized. I don't get it or I'm missing something?.

[Ultramarine]

We're humans and humans always find a way to cheat a system.

It is necessary to remove the motives for which people want to cheat the system.
In the case of the forum, these are the ratings on which the income in the bounty depends.
Again, my reasoning is only theoretical. I am not encroaching on the existing system of organization of the forum. Just a discussion.

[hilariousetc]

Theymos isn't going to implement anything that restricts users from posting which he is dead against. It would just scare off genuine users whilst the ones who are here to abuse the forum for financial gain will just grin and bear it jumping through any hoops you throw in front of them. Some people will come here who will have a genuine query and need an answer, but without any points they won't be able to open the relevant thread. As others have also said, people who are against you will just down-vote you. It's hard enough to get merit here as it is so I don't think we need to implement another points system that restricts people.