DT list - Should we use all information available to ensure peoples safety here?

[cryptohunter]

After looking again the new algo and DT design may work better long term.

However, on the way to developing a decentralised self regulating system of trust long term should we black list people that are proven to have promoted or protected scams?

Should we blacklist people where there are observable events that cast reasonable doubt over their honesty or being a scammer?

I mean surely there are plenty of people that have a clean sheet here. We must use all available information from people history to make sure that DT is not infiltrated with those that are acting in a manner that DT is set up to stop right?


I mean let us not initially discuss individuals. This is discussion of the system itself and how to speed up to an optimal state of DT.


After you vote. Then comment as to how you voted and why.

These comments/opinions should be backed with a sensible case.

Don't be afraid - I see 3 votes but no comments??? Come now surely it is not hard to say I don't think proven or highly probable scammers should be on DT?

Speak up people ...

[1714934624]

1714934624

[1714934624]

1714934624

[Coyster]

definitely a DT position is a very sensitive one and should be handled with relative care,considering the fact that it's their duty to warn others about a users personality in here,if they indeed should be trusted or otherwise 
That way,you definitely cannot also be on the wrong side of the forum(a scammer) and be given the power or mantle to supposedly judge others,it would not make any sense to me
In my opinion a DT member must have an untainted reputation on the forum,and everyone should be able to trust their judgement,other than that they should be blacklisted

[cryptohunter]

definitely a DT position is a very sensitive one and should be handled with relative care,considering the fact that it's their duty to warn others about a users personality in here,if they indeed should be trusted or otherwise  
That way,you definitely cannot also be on the wrong side of the forum(a scammer) and be given the power or mantle to supposedly judge others,it would not make any sense to me
In my opinion a DT member must have an untainted reputation on the forum,and everyone should be able to trust their judgement,other than that they should be blacklisted

Thanks for a very sensible answer and it shocks me about meta the state of this sub board 100 visits and only a handful can clearly see that proven scammers and even those where there is factual evidence to cast reasonable doubt over them being shady will vote for them NOT to be blacklisted.

I mean so most can not even decide and 3 people think they should not be blacklisted?

LOL what a crazy bunch of moral degenerates we have in this sub board.

AND ONLY ONE DARES EVEN SAY HOW HE VOTED AND WHY...

Theymos should reveal who is voting to put scammers on the DT list - and those who vote not to blacklist those that based on factual evidence can reasonably be judged to be shady or part of shady and untrustworthy dealings.

People like this need to be known it is a danger to the community they can hide.

This meta board is a collection of snakes with few exceptions.

I mean this is a clear question on if we should use all factual and observable events and information to blacklist proven untrustworthy from being in a position of trust and you get almost silence  Haha nobody even dares to reply it seems ... you have to wonder why

[qwk]

it shocks me about meta the state of this sub board 100 visits and only a handful can clearly see that proven scammers and even those where there is factual evidence to cast reasonable doubt over them being shady will vote for them NOT to be blacklisted.

If it shocks you, you probably don't understand the recent adjustments to the trust system.
If there were factual evidence against some user on DT, how long do you think it would take for other DT users to "~" that user?

Problem solved, nothing to see here

[cryptohunter]

it shocks me about meta the state of this sub board 100 visits and only a handful can clearly see that proven scammers and even those where there is factual evidence to cast reasonable doubt over them being shady will vote for them NOT to be blacklisted.

If it shocks you, you probably don't understand the recent adjustments to the trust system.
If there were factual evidence against some user on DT, how long do you think it would take for other DT users to "~" that user?

Problem solved, nothing to see here

Are you saying all I have to do is prove that lauda was a scam pumper and protector and boom some action?

Are you saying that if there is factual evidence that corroborates the notion lauda used escrow funds that were not his own to gain bch for himself  some action would be taken?

Are you saying that if he was implicated in an extortion scheme with owlcatz and tman there would be some action.

Are you further saying that if someone gives red trust based on false accusation (provable) they made to shut someone up relating facts regarding their scam promoting and protecting past they should remove and also be take off DT?

Can you answer all 4 in turn. Thanks for reply

[qwk]

it shocks me about meta the state of this sub board 100 visits and only a handful can clearly see that proven scammers and even those where there is factual evidence to cast reasonable doubt over them being shady will vote for them NOT to be blacklisted.

If it shocks you, you probably don't understand the recent adjustments to the trust system.
If there were factual evidence against some user on DT, how long do you think it would take for other DT users to "~" that user?

Are you saying all I have to do is prove that lauda was a scam pumper and protector and boom some action?

You've asked for two prerequisites in your op, now you ask for action based on only one of them?
Highlighted number two for you

[cryptohunter]

it shocks me about meta the state of this sub board 100 visits and only a handful can clearly see that proven scammers and even those where there is factual evidence to cast reasonable doubt over them being shady will vote for them NOT to be blacklisted.

If it shocks you, you probably don't understand the recent adjustments to the trust system.
If there were factual evidence against some user on DT, how long do you think it would take for other DT users to "~" that user?

Are you saying all I have to do is prove that lauda was a scam pumper and protector and boom some action?

You've asked for two prerequisites in your op, now you ask for action based on only one of them?
Highlighted number two for you

Well this is a separate discussion to gauge your personal opinions of what is appropriate for a member on DT1 - I am simply giving you more freedom to express you view. Add all the information you like to make it as clear as you feel it should be.

I mean if you are saying even a single one is not enough for action let me know which one and why.