I was always intending to choose a random subset of 100 once more than 100 became eligible. This creates more people who have a credible threat of retaliation: if you give someone negative trust for some stupid reason, you have reason to worry about them or a close friend of theirs negative-trusting you for a similarly stupid reason, if not in this month, then in a future month. I think that it pushes people (without forcing people) toward acting in-line with consensus, so that any retaliation against your sent negative trust always gets the sender excluded definitively.
Or it enables semi-random accounts to permanently keep you tagged because they ran an "election" in some local section. I think you've underestimated how evil your forum members are, given the right opportunity.
A good case:
1) I've excluded a big bulk of people from a "turkish election" (this is not decentralized in any way and if I did something similar, you'd have 10x the gang threads you have right now) here:
thread.
2) I have been retaliatory tagged by a
verified scammer a long time ago:
profile.
3) The user seems to find themselves now in DT2 due to his buddies. Quite a trustworthy list indeed.
4) A few users have been PM'd about this, some of which are in the exclusion list[1].
[1] I took the opposite path of getting adequate number of exclusions and went straight to the root of the problem. You can follow this in order to see how pawns will not behave according to your theory.
The reader should be aware that LAUDA is a
VERIFIED SCAMMER himself. He is also a VERIFIED TRUST ABUSER who uses red trust to silence whistle blowers that present observable instances of his own lying and scamming. If the reader wants evidence then just ask.
This is highly relevant here because of course THEYMOS's suggestion of actually trying to introduce some REAL variance and decentralized governance in DT (not just some pseudo decentralization with numerous colluding accounts all working together as one single gang) is being met with displeasure. You notice fox poop the person who merited vod for doxxing OG is again meriting this bogus and far less important EXCUSE for lauda not wishing for people to give him retaliatory feedback for his trust abuse.
Some REAL decentralization will perhaps improve things in the short term but will always collapse into factions of people that will still abuse everyone else except other factions that have the power to retaliate. Only a central power can ensure the FAIREST and most optimal environment here.
Forget this decentralized self governing nonsense Theymos. Such a notion is never going to work. On an anonymous forum a centralized power YOU is always going to be required to enforce RULES for ALL members EQUALLY. I understand your reluctance to be responsible for ALL rights and wrongs here. That opens you up to all kinds of criticisms and perhaps even legal responsibilities. Appoint us to do it. If at ANY point you consider ANYTHING we have done to be UNFAIR then remove us and give someone else a chance.
Or if not us just give ONE person who is ACCOUNTABLE the DT blacklisting power who will use it.
Give us/them 1 admin power - a black list button for DT 1. Proven scammer = red trust
2. Strong case is a scammer or intending to scam = red trust
3. If you are shown proof or strong case of scamming or intending to scam you MUST red trust ANY PERSON (no pals rules)
Stick to that and do not give red trust outside of those 3 rules OR ELSE you get black listed.
Why are we still messing around with this nonsense. You want rid of scammers, you want rid of trust abusers? let's do it.
Free speech is the most important thing on this board, far more important than people gaming all of this for the best sig spots, campaign manger spots, escrowing positions. These systems of control are crushing free speech. Merit is the carrot to encourage group think, red trust is the stick to create an echo chamber and silence legitimate criticism.
Both are garbage simply dangerous in their current form.
Let's remove the jack boot of red trust from the throat of legitimate and verifiable criticism. Then work on making merit mean something other than you agree and support those giving the merits out.
Next I would introduce a standard that encourages the REQUIREMENT to present observable instances for ANY accusation directly related to behavior on this forum. If you can not present observable instances to substantiate your claims then you must NOT repeat them because that is lying and deliberately proliferating FALSE information. The last thing you want is a forum full of bullshit and propaganda. If you make a claim regarding some persons actions directly related to this board then you MUST be able to present the observable instances you are referring to.
Let's turn bitcointalk in to a real meritocracy. Where each member is treated equally and measured against a transparent set of fair rules for their recognition.
So therefore forget about tweaking the mechanisms of DT selection. Worry more about how they act when they are elected than the process of electing them. People change when they get some power, people change more when they believe they are entrenched in positions of power. Therefore any ELECTION process is far less important than the REMOVAL and BLACKLISTING they KNOW they will face for abusing their position. This MAD notion where mutually assured destruction will pull the entire thing inline will only work for those in DT everyone else with no RED to fire back will just get abused still. It may help but it is not a fix and is weak sauce compared to the 3 strict rules that all DT must abide by.
Give a 2 month amnesty to get all their Red trust in order then enough is enough.
100 selected people from "seemingly" different factions will soon enough collapse into a few factions all abusing everyone else but the other factions capable of retaliation.
Better to just rip the band aid off now.
