Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

[Findingnemo]

I have seen some DTs have red tagged few people for trolling but it should not be tagged in my opinion.Those kind of trolls needs to be banned because it is against the forum rules but tagging them be like using their power on someone who don't like.

I don't think it's in the rules that trolls shoukd be banned from the forum,if it is I stand to be corrected,the problem is there are different kind of trolls and one or two minor trolls which almost everyone does is definitely no issue and should not attract any ban.

But when one consistently trolls and argues a case incessantly against the community it then becomes hard for us to ascertain their sanity and hence we need to warn others of them,cos you may never know in real life they could be mentally unstable.

Its in the rules,

3. No trolling.

So why they can't be just banned instead of tagging them and warning other to be safe with these trolls.ANd also I don't think anyone banned in this forum for trolling but its against the rule for too long time.

[1713930086]

1713930086

[1713930086]

1713930086

[1713930086]

1713930086

[1713930086]

1713930086

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Don't forget:
2. Leaving fake negative ratings <- I'm pushing the bar with this as many people are self-censoring themselves and not acting on it.

I highlighted this on my topic posted few minutes before this post was done you can find it here ([Guide]: How not to use the negative feedback aka red tag.)

I believe the forum should have an official guidelines on leaving feedbacks and can be updated regularly as new offends comes out.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

As if a person tries to complaint against any DT or its action it would be considered as an harassment which looks totally wrong.

Yeah, and in general "harassment" is jut too broad and could lead to DTs abusing the trust system.  I think anyone on DT ought to have a thick enough skin to take a little harassment/trolling/complaints without resorting to leaving a neg on someone who hasn't gotten one already.

If a member is harassing another member via PM, you can block those.  If it's with posts, there's the ignore button.  I'd argue that cryptohunter is doing a lot of harassing lately, but I wouldn't give him a neg just for that--and that's my opinion as to where the line should be drawn.  Other DT members obviously think he's already crossed it and have tagged him.  I don't trust the guy based on his insane ramblings, so I have excluded him from my trust list.

Getting everyone here to agree about what's ethical or not is going to be one hell of a task.  It'd be nice if lesser-known members would chime in here with their opinions.  This is a global forum with many different cultures, values, and thoughts represented, and some may see things much differently than xtraelv, me, or any of the other Meta regulars.

I agree with pretty much everything on the list so far, except for the harassment thing.

Its in the rules,

3. No trolling.

So why they can't be just banned instead of tagging them and warning other to be safe with these trolls.ANd also I don't think anyone banned in this forum for trolling but its against the rule for too long time.

Yeah that would be nice, but I don't remember the last person who got banned for trolling.  Trolling is even more of a gray area than harassment, and I'm pretty sure Theymos leans on the side of letting people say what they want rather than making a judgement as to what actually constitutes trolling and then banning someone.

[Pmalek]

OP you mentioned Offering escrow without a track record.
Do you mean no previous escrow track record or no previous deals/trades at all on Bitcointalk?
Theoretically, if a user wanted to become an escrow here, what would he need to do if he doesn't have a track record?

[bones261]

OP you mentioned Offering escrow without a track record.
Do you mean no previous escrow track record or no previous deals/trades at all on Bitcointalk?
Theoretically, if a user wanted to become an escrow here, what would he need to do if he doesn't have a track record?

You'd have to do other activities that would make you deemed trustworthy by someone. Then that person would approach you to act as an escrow for them. Then if you did a good job for them, they would recommend you to other people. After a while, you would have a good track record and have many to vouch for you. At that point, you can offer it yourself. That's my guess, at least. It kinda has to drop in your lap, at first.

[LoyceV]

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

What I consider not taggable:

Posting an unpopular opinion.

I wanted to post an example, but it got too long so I made another topic. It seems to me this user got 3 red tags for his "unpopular opinion": Red trust on Bestmixer: is this justified?.

At the other end of the scale, another mixer (who I didn't trust from the start) had to scam 16 Bitcoin first because DT (including myself) doesn't tag it without evidence.

Summary: if we keep going at this rate, I think we're damaging the forum and it's users!

[madnessteat]

You can add to the "list should not be tagged":

- religious statements

[LoyceV]

You can add to the "list should not be tagged":

- religious statements

That falls right under "unpopular opinion".

[TalkStar]

All these tag related information are so much productive that it will be easier for forum new DT members to tag someone with valid reason Thanks OP for sharing the clear direction of tag someone. Its simple that if any member of this forum make scam or fraudulent activities should be immediately tag by our respectful DT members.But need enough reason to tag someone.Thats why from this topic newbies can learn which things are prohibited in bitcointalk and which are not. Bad guys always should be punished but not a single good guy.

[TECSHARE]

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

What I consider not taggable:

Posting an unpopular opinion.

I wanted to post an example, but it got too long so I made another topic. It seems to me this user got 3 red tags for his "unpopular opinion": Red trust on Bestmixer: is this justified?.

At the other end of the scale, another mixer (who I didn't trust from the start) had to scam 16 Bitcoin first because DT (including myself) doesn't tag it without evidence.

Summary: if we keep going at this rate, I think we're damaging the forum and it's users!

I have been trying to tell this forum for a REALLY long time that we need a very clear set of rules we all agree to abide by. Inherently any time you do this there will be imperfections of course, but not having a base set of standards for users here is FAR MORE damaging. It is more important that some ANY frame of reference exists for us all to refer to than it be perfect in every way. Without this BASE standard, there will never be respect for any authority or rules here, unwritten or not, because all rules will be a result of arbitrary and selective enforcement.

While I empathize for Theymos here in some ways (I wouldn't want it to be my problem), I also think that this latest default trust system change was like throwing gasoline on a dumpster fire. Honestly though, in some ways I find it hard to blame him. What better way to kill a tumor than to burn it out using its own energy? The problem is the forum might go with it.

Dumpster fire aside, I think this is also a genuine opportunity for the users here. Theymos is essentially indicating he wants the user base to fix their own problems regarding trust. Nothing is stopping users talking to those within their own networks of trust and forming a constitution of sorts, or rules for being part of the trust network. What I suggest is that these individuals and groups write their own rules for engagement with others on the forum, and those within those networks can form their own rules for inclusion.

I am sure a lot of you just puked in your mouths right now thinking about such a future, but the fact is this is the system we already operate under regarding these factions, Theymos just removed the veneer from it. It is time for the productive, constructive, and creative part of the user base here to use this as an opportunity to create counter forces to these abusive trust network cartels that already operate here (for whatever the reason).

Lets create a set, or multiple sets of rules that are universal, clear, able to be uniformly enforced, and create a system of redress of grievances. Con artists and power hungry sociopaths have trouble with rules when they aren't the ones dictating them. This forum is amazing when it comes together and upholds the standards that make it great. Lets make some basic, clear, enforceable, and just rules that don't end up causing more trouble than they are preventing. Then we can finally tell the resident forum Barney Fife's to go pound sand when they try to accuse and harass others to increase their own influence.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip>

Question for the more senior members here, and I don't think it's too off-topic, but TECSHARE was on DT once.  Why did he get removed?  TECSHARE can answer this question himself, but I'd rather hear a disinterested but knowledgeable 3rd party's explanation since I know TECSHARE has had a grudge against DT since his removal and don't expect his take on it to be unbiased.

[xtraelv]

Lets create a set, or multiple sets of rules that are universal, clear, able to be uniformly enforced, and create a system of redress of grievances. Con artists and power hungry sociopaths have trouble with rules when they aren't the ones dictating them. This forum is amazing when it comes together and upholds the standards that make it great. Lets make some basic, clear, enforceable, and just rules that don't end up causing more trouble than they are preventing. Then we can finally tell the resident forum Barney Fife's to go pound sand when they try to accuse and harass others to increase their own influence.

A lot of it will still be subjective - like anything there are always grey areas.

The idea of a charter of community values can bring the different fractions together. There will be some things that everyone can agree upon and the more controversial issues can be discussed and will also result in more clarity.

The aim is to make it harder for scammers and spammers.

Community division between the honest users of bitcointalk will make it more difficult to take on spammers and scammers than if everyone supports a set of values and tries to resolve their differences in an amicable and transparent way.

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?
[//quote]

I agree and will add this to the list of things to discusss.

[TECSHARE]

<snip>

Question for the more senior members here, and I don't think it's too off-topic, but TECSHARE was on DT once.  Why did he get removed?  TECSHARE can answer this question himself, but I'd rather hear a disinterested but knowledgeable 3rd party's explanation since I know TECSHARE has had a grudge against DT since his removal and don't expect his take on it to be unbiased.

You "know" I have a grudge against default trust, yet you don't even know what happened. Interesting.

A lot of it will still be subjective - like anything there are always grey areas.

That is the primary reason why I suggest a set of standards one agrees to abide by as a prerequisite of inclusion is to reduce these grey areas that not only con artists operate in, but also the kind of con artists that burns the clueless or confused user base to make themselves look good.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You know I have a grudge, yet you don't even know what happened. Interesting.

One only need to look at your personal message to know you've got a grudge, plus I've had you go so far as to leave neutral feedback on me because I didn't want to continue arguing with you either in posts or via PMs.  I don't know the whole story of why you got removed from DT, though.  It might be instructive for anyone reading this to know the reason, since we're talking about what is and isn't acceptable from DT members--and what could potentially get a DT member booted off. 

I was here when QS got removed (and a couple of others if I'm not mistaken), so I know that whole story but I'm pretty sure you got removed after I registered.  Feel free to give your side of the story if you want.  If not, I'm asking that someone who's been here for longer than me to explain.

[TECSHARE]

You know I have a grudge, yet you don't even know what happened. Interesting.

One only need to look at your personal message to know you've got a grudge, plus I've had you go so far as to leave neutral feedback on me because I didn't want to continue arguing with you either in posts or via PMs.  I don't know the whole story of why you got removed from DT, though.  It might be instructive for anyone reading this to know the reason, since we're talking about what is and isn't acceptable from DT members--and what could potentially get a DT member booted off.  

I was here when QS got removed (and a couple of others if I'm not mistaken), so I know that whole story but I'm pretty sure you got removed after I registered.  Feel free to give your side of the story if you want.  If not, I'm asking that someone who's been here for longer than me to explain.

Or maybe just an opportunity for you to pursue your own grudge... as if you can't simply read the post history. This is very transparent.

[xtraelv]

Hopefully even some of the longterm grudges and feuds can be settled somewhat.

Sometimes more can be learned from those that disagree with our opinion than from those that agree.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Or maybe just an opportunity for you to pursue your own grudge...

I assume you mean grudge against you?  While it's true I think you're an arrogant prick with some serious anger issues, I happen to trust you as far as your business goes and would have no thoughts that you were going to scam me.  You also made a recent point that I thought had some validity, which I think was the idea that "transaction trust" is different than "accurate feedback trust", though I don't think Theymos is going to modify the trust system to separate those two things.

I don't think it was scamming that got you removed from DT, so I'm just asking what the reason was.  This isn't a question designed to ensnare you, and I could probably find the answer with enough searching but I figure there's a Legendary member reading this who might know off the top of his head.  If it gets ignored and no one answers it, no prob.  

For the new DT members I do think it would be useful to educate them as to how former members of the old DT system got removed.  Master-P got booted because he pulled a huge scam.  Escrow.ms was removed because he'd spent time in jail on some credit card scam, QS because of the 'self-escrow' thing.  There are more, but I can't think of them--and those ones I mentioned happened since 2015 when I first registered on bitcointalk.  You got booted before that if I'm remembering correctly, though it could have been in my early days and I may not have noticed it.

Edit:

Speaking of Master-P, who was it that got him to return about half of the stolen funds using words alone? I forgot...

No clue, I only vaguely remember that whole drama except that I'd donated some bitcoin to yahoo62278 for a sort of relief fund, which he eventually returned.  I wasn't aware any of those funds had been returned.

I'll check your post history to see if I can figure out why you got booted off DT.  I'm not looking to start drama here, as it's not the thread for that.  I'll leave the question for someone else to answer since you won't.  I thought I'd a thread about the reason, but I can't remember the details.

Edit again:  After some searching, I did find the thread where TECSHARE got removed, but aside from that it makes for very interesting reading, given how old the thread is and how we're still asking the same questions today:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0

[TECSHARE]

Or maybe just an opportunity for you to pursue your own grudge...

I assume you mean grudge against you?  While it's true I think you're an arrogant prick with some serious anger issues, I happen to trust you as far as your business goes and would have no thoughts that you were going to scam me.  You also made a recent point that I thought had some validity, which I think was the idea that "transaction trust" is different than "accurate feedback trust", though I don't think Theymos is going to modify the trust system to separate those two things.

I don't think it was scamming that got you removed from DT, so I'm just asking what the reason was.  This isn't a question designed to ensnare you, and I could probably find the answer with enough searching but I figure there's a Legendary member reading this who might know off the top of his head.  If it gets ignored and no one answers it, no prob.  

For the new DT members I do think it would be useful to educate them as to how former members of the old DT system got removed.  Master-P got booted because he pulled a huge scam.  Escrow.ms was removed because he'd spent time in jail on some credit card scam, QS because of the 'self-escrow' thing.  There are more, but I can't think of them--and those ones I mentioned happened since 2015 when I first registered on bitcointalk.  You got booted before that if I'm remembering correctly, though it could have been in my early days and I may not have noticed it.

This is something people often define as "concern trolling", and as I said it is very transparent as one of the direct beneficiaries of the Barney Fife system of raising your influence around here, you are simply using this as a convenient method of attempting to discredit my opinions and derail the discussion by injecting old bullshit in a very lame attempt at pretending you don't know what happened. You aren't fooling anyone.

Speaking of Master-P, who was it that got him to return about half of the stolen funds using words alone? I forgot...

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZGcjrN7X7Rc

YES Gary... yes...

[xtraelv]

OP you mentioned Offering escrow without a track record.
Do you mean no previous escrow track record or no previous deals/trades at all on Bitcointalk?
Theoretically, if a user wanted to become an escrow here, what would he need to do if he doesn't have a track record?

They could have a previous reliable trading record. Sales that have generated a reliable record of happy buyers.

Es-crowing is really utilizing an established and trusted person with a history of handling funds.

The amount of $ involved would also be relevant.

[TECSHARE]

OP you mentioned Offering escrow without a track record.
Do you mean no previous escrow track record or no previous deals/trades at all on Bitcointalk?
Theoretically, if a user wanted to become an escrow here, what would he need to do if he doesn't have a track record?

They could have a previous reliable trading record. Sales that have generated a reliable record of happy buyers.

Es-crowing is really utilizing an established and trusted person with a history of handling funds.

The amount of $ involved would also be relevant.

This is a perfect example of busybody 3rd parties inserting themselves into transactions where they need not be. If a user wants to start an escrow service they should be able to without a rectal inspection by a dozen 2 bit wanna be forum cops. At the end of the day lazy or careless people are going to lose their money no matter what you do. More importantly it is not up to 3rd parties to dictate to the rest of the forum what their acceptable level of risk is. This forum shouldn't be a "nanny state".