Do you think we need a guideline for DT members from theymos?

[TalkStar]

Hello Everyone,

Its a matter of concern that recently in bitcointalk we are experiencing a common arguments about Tagging.Its already been a common matter that when someone get tagged by one of our DT members most of the time convicted members are making arguments continuously.

There's been a reason behind those arguments about tagging. I think it will be hard to find anyone who will say that DT tagged me for valid reason. Everytime tagged person put all the blame on our DT members.These guys always want to prove that DT tagged him/her wrongly. I think its not fair to put all blame on DT or tagging a member without valid reason.

In bitcointalk there's been a lot of DT members who got enough experience to handle any kind of situation and take immidiate actions.But its a matter of sorrow that there is no guideline here for DT by forum authority. I think theymos should publish a guideline for DT members.

In recent times many of our experienced members post several thread including advices and guidelines of a DT. Such as when a DT need to Tag someone, where to give someone warning, where its not fair to Tag someone. I think theymos can choose some guidelines from those thread which are really helpful. Maybe Theymos can discuss with our experienced DT members and take their thoughts and advices to develop a complete guideline.

After recent DT selection voting system we are glad to see many new Faces on our DT1 & DT2 list. Its true that new active DT member will put all their effort to keep the forum safe for the whole community but on the other side they are completely new on this service. For the lack of experience they can make mistakes on tagging. On this situation if they get a complete guideline from theymos it will be much easier for them to work fluently.

A complete guideline for DT members will not only solving the issue of rising arguments in tagging but also our newbies can be benifited. From the guidelines they will be able to learn which thing are legal to do and which are not.

I beleive a complete guidelne for DT members will drastically decrease prohibited activities in bitcointalk. We will be able to get salvation from those tagging related arguments.Thanks everyone.

I wish theymos will discuss the matter with our experienced DT members to develop a effective guideline.

[1715597497]

1715597497

[1715597497]

1715597497

[1715597497]

1715597497

[1715597497]

1715597497

[Lauda]

Not unless you want to centralize the system again. There are a few old guidelines which are mostly sufficient.

[TalkStar]

Not unless you want to centralize the system again. There are a few old guidelines which are mostly sufficient.

Honestly i am not suggesting to make the system centralize again. I have already mention that there could be a possible way to discuss about this with all our DT members and taking suggestion from them. There could be the system where guidelines can be updated in every month if most of the DT hold their opinion.

[TECSHARE]

Having a basic set of rules for using the trust system is not the same thing as completely centralizing it. All it will do is create a base standard to operate within. All the other aspects regarding the majority of enforcement will be community based. There need to be rules for this or else this forum is going to end up a complete cesspool of cons, infighting, and continually pissed off and ripped off users. I suggest something simple like a base standard of some kind of documentation of a theft/fraud for a negative rating to be valid. Also some kind of system of escalation of dispute resolution would be useful, for example starting with a public post with relevant information, community review, DT member review, and ultimately staff if need be as last resort.

[Jet Cash]

Posting should be self-moderated. If you treat the forum as a good place for social interaction and information exchange, then the trust system shouldn't be relevant for you. If you are a low ability signature campaign spammers, or a scammer, then of course it will affect you. The best thing to do is to look into yourself, and try to work out how to strengthen your weaknesses. The forum can be a great resource for self-improvement.

[LoyceV]

I think some clear guidelines would be good, but I don't think theymos will make them.
From what I've seen, theymos offers the framework, and it's it up to the users to decide how they use it.

Slightly taken out of context:

~ But for now I am very much inclined to just let it roll for a while and see exactly where the cracks appear.

For a while now, theymos has been excluding users from his trust list. I kinda like that approach: he doesn't go full Admin on them, but uses his vote like any other user would do.

Theymos' trust list (last Saturday):

theymos->HostFat
theymos->dooglus
theymos->Raize
theymos->Meni Rosenfeld
theymos->Maged
theymos->Raoul Duke
theymos->gmaxwell
theymos->OgNasty
theymos-/>CanaryInTheMine
theymos->zvs
theymos->-ck
theymos->malevolent
theymos-/>Matthew N. Wright
theymos->John (John K.)
theymos->Tomatocage
theymos->SaltySpitoon
theymos->ineededausername
theymos->DeaDTerra
theymos->BadBear
theymos-/>El Cabron
theymos->Blazr
theymos->vgo
theymos->BCB
theymos->Dabs
theymos-/>Xian01
theymos-/>lophie
theymos-/>johnny5
theymos->Benson Samuel
theymos-/>TradeFortress 🏕
theymos->shiftybugger
theymos-/>uhnonamiss
theymos->Cyrus
theymos-/>nubbins
theymos-/>FullLife
theymos->ibminer
theymos->Wardrick
theymos-/>Boelens
theymos-/>Rub3n
theymos-/>TMAN
theymos-/>TomUnderSea
theymos->dwdoc
theymos-/>blackarrow
theymos->Adriano
theymos->Taras
theymos-/>MarkAz
theymos-/>nachius
theymos->EFS
theymos-/>marcotheminer
theymos->dbshck
theymos-/>TheNewAnon135246
theymos->hilariousandco
theymos->MadZ
theymos->shorena
theymos-/>artw1982
theymos->mitzie
theymos->franckuestein
theymos-/>Jaaawsh
theymos-/>LYCAN
theymos->sapta
theymos-/>Spodermen
theymos->OmegaStarScream
theymos->xandry
theymos-/>actmyname
theymos->rickbig41
theymos->Barcode_
theymos->Anon11073
theymos->Halab
theymos->Xal0lex
theymos->chimk

[itomarketing]

All the posts are one sided.
You say its not fair to blame  DT members who always gets blamed.
You know when members are getting accused with no real reason as being a scammer where do you got any function to secure that innocent people won't get false tagged ?
There is none and what is even worse even Mods openly posted that they KNOW thats some members have been falsely tagged.
What did he do to reverse it ?
The answer is NOTHING !!!! He just accepted that inocent people have been tagged as scammers.As long as its not effecting him or his friends its ok for him.


Thats the big scandal on this forum which is causing a cancer.DT members have double standards on this forum.If you accuse them they demand full evidence to the smallest point to tagg a DT mate.If they accuse someone its enough for them to simply have an assumption.

The best example is Lauda's gang which is always demanding the highest possible proof against their members but when tagging people they claim its enough to have a feeling in their gut and that the trust feedback is not counting as a scam feedback.
The question is how is the majority taking the trust system and thats clearly as scam feedback.

[xtraelv]

There is a discussion about guidelines already here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

There are quite a few situations where the outcome is clear but some of the subjective situations require some discussion.

I think it could work well as a charter - where DTs agree to the values that they believe in.

A bit like with the UN where a country agrees to be a signatory to articles but may not be a signatory to all of them.

I think there are plenty of situations where everyone agrees on the outcome. The subjective situations are also able to be discussed so there is understanding.

[itomarketing]

Lauda and the group will never participate in it.
You wanna know why ?
Because they would lose their random bs explantion to tagg people when wanting to defame somebody.
It would limit their power on this forum.

You can ask yourself why people who blame these DT members of abuse always only get tagged by this group and by no other DT member ?

[Jet Cash]

I think that a private chat room for DT1s and merit sources would be a great idea. We could then work out policies, and resolve difficulties in private. I created one, but it wasn't really used, so I have deleted it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a private board here in Bitcoin Talk. Then we could get away fro the bitching and criticism, and work on some positive solutions.

[itomarketing]

I think that a private chat room for DT1s and merit sources would be a great idea. We could then work out policies, and resolve difficulties in private. I created one, but it wasn't really used, so I have deleted it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a private board here in Bitcoin Talk. Then we could get away fro the bitching and criticism, and work on some positive solutions.

Oh so the commuity is not welcome to voice their opinion ?Sound very centralised for me

[Jet Cash]

Oh so the community is not welcome to voice their opinion ?Sound very centralised for me

It won't be centralised if enough members participate. At the moment, my trust list is highly centralised. ie. Only I decided who should be on it.

We can see from the noise and off topic rubbish in the current threads, that the community as a whole can't be trusted to take part in these discussions. I agree that this is unfortunate, but where you have considerable disruptive behaviour, you need to have a bouncer on the door.

[itomarketing]

The community can't be trusted.Sounds like the community is your enemy.

Are you sure you are not on a battlefield ?
Seems like you have some real life issues.

Bouncer on the door......keep posting the opinions are very interresting for a decentralised community.

[Jet Cash]

The community can't be trusted.Sounds like the community is your enemy.

No - I love the community, but I hate those who try to destroy it because of their limitations or greed.

[cryptohunter]

Not unless you want to centralize the system again. There are a few old guidelines which are mostly sufficient.

It is more centralised that ever now. How would this even centralise it all at.

Yes we should have criteria and it should be strict and enforceable if you want the trust system to mean anything. Anyone abusing it should be immediately removed and blacklisted.

This way all rules will be applied to everyone fairly.

Also any DT refusing to review evidence of wrong doing and untrustworthy behaviour should be removed and blacklisted.

I would not pay heed to jetcash at all. He has proven himself untrustworthy by refusing to review facts I presented him on his thread that some DT were proven liars.  

DT need to be kept to a strict set of criteria for red trusting so the red tag has some kind of meaning and you dont have to search through pages of petty bickering and other nonsense.

Jetcash are you saying that you hate people that are racist trolls under puppet accounts clearly to just grab more btc dust from sig spamming. Is that what  you are saying or not?  Just to be clear.

This is another time I wish we had a transparent poll here. All abusers of this system will be without doubt hitting the no criteria for red trust because the subjectivity given to them is where their abuse and power to push their own agenda resides.

[TalkStar]

There is a discussion about guidelines already here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

There are quite a few situations where the outcome is clear but some of the subjective situations require some discussion.

I think it could work well as a charter - where DTs agree to the values that they believe in.

A bit like with the UN where a country agrees to be a signatory to articles but may not be a signatory to all of them.

I think there are plenty of situations where everyone agrees on the outcome. The subjective situations are also able to be discussed so there is understanding.

Yeah got the point.I already mentioned here on the thread that theymos can discuss with our respectful DT members what can be included or not. I think thats the way how we can pick the best solution. Its really a matter of shame when a newbie user see some post including bad languages which is nothing but to blame on DTs.

As a newbie i also faced same and feel so bad when i respect someone  for his work of excellency. It doesn't matter he is on the DT list or not but it matters when someone use ugly words and blame on someone who achieved a lot of merits and fame not just in one night. Anyone can trace how much time we wasted just for those Tagged argumental issues. Tons of comments to handle those guys thread where most of the thread got nothing but personal emotions.  I think its meaningless.

On the other hand if any DT tag some one without any valid reason that is nothing but a disaster for that convicted person. Every single member of the forum bear same weight and respects.

Just a guideline from theymos can solve it nicely. 

[cryptohunter]

There is a discussion about guidelines already here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

There are quite a few situations where the outcome is clear but some of the subjective situations require some discussion.

I think it could work well as a charter - where DTs agree to the values that they believe in.

A bit like with the UN where a country agrees to be a signatory to articles but may not be a signatory to all of them.

I think there are plenty of situations where everyone agrees on the outcome. The subjective situations are also able to be discussed so there is understanding.

Yeah got the point.I already mentioned here on the thread that theymos can discuss with our respectful DT members what can be included or not. I think thats the way how we can pick the best solution. Its really a matter of shame when a newbie user see some post including bad languages which is nothing but to blame on DTs.

As a newbie i also faced same and feel so bad when i respect someone  for his work of excellency. It doesn't matter he is on the DT list or not but it matters when someone use ugly words and blame on someone who achieved a lot of merits and fame not just in one night. Anyone can trace how much time we wasted just for those Tagged argumental issues. Tons of comments to handle those guys thread where most of the thread got nothing but personal emotions.  I think its meaningless.

On the other hand if any DT tag some one without any valid reason that is nothing but a disaster for that convicted person. Every single member of the forum bear same weight and respects.

Just a guideline from theymos can solve it nicely.  

This is why facts and observable events are the only things that should be considered.

Also misplace admiration is quite revolting try not to fawn over people who if are the targets of some emotion accompanied by facts and observable events demonstrating their wrongdoing  are not worthy of such adoration.

Facts and observable events demonstrating wrong doing are not to be ignored regardless of the persons anger at being the victim of such abuse.

Is there a part of that you do not understand?

Please tell me clearly who are these respected members you admire so much. Perhaps a newbie like yourself needs to first do some homework. Let me help you.

There needs to be clear criteria so that everyone can be treated fairly and the same.

[TalkStar]

Please tell me clearly who are these respected members you admire so much. Perhaps a newbie like yourself needs to first do some homework. Let me help you.

There needs to be clear criteria so that everyone can be treated fairly and the same.

I think you haven't got my point. Respecting one DT member means respecting every single person who are in the DT list.

When your teacher teach you to show respect to your elder person is that  mean to just show respects to your elder brother only lol. I think in this forum i got no relatives who can have my personal special respect.I respect them
who got the ability to have it. Maybe you can be on my respect list too.

[Findingnemo]

Please tell me clearly who are these respected members you admire so much. Perhaps a newbie like yourself needs to first do some homework. Let me help you.

There needs to be clear criteria so that everyone can be treated fairly and the same.

I think you haven't got my point. Respecting one DT member means respecting every single person who are in the DT list.

When your teacher teach you to show respect to your elder person is that  mean to just show respects to your elder brother only lol. I think in this forum i got no relatives who can have my personal special respect.I respect them got the ability to have it. Maybe you can be on my respect list too

This is the online forum,so there is no need to respect others because of they are in the DT list,they are not your superior officers,they also one like you as community member.

You also can be one of DT members so just improve yourself and don't look for other to help you.

[TECSHARE]

Posting should be self-moderated. If you treat the forum as a good place for social interaction and information exchange, then the trust system shouldn't be relevant for you. If you are a low ability signature campaign spammers, or a scammer, then of course it will affect you. The best thing to do is to look into yourself, and try to work out how to strengthen your weaknesses. The forum can be a great resource for self-improvement.

The problem is there are a lot of other cases where trust effects users other than just shit posting sig campaigners. Bitcoin is after all is (or is supposed to be) a method of exchange. This community will ALWAYS have a core of traders by its nature. What some users here call "pajeet" traders (an annoying and kinda racist stereotype IMO) are really just people trying to build a trust network from the bottom up with smaller trades. The problem is a lot of these forum cops are in nice cushy industrialized nations judging people who survive on 20% of the income they do, for doing smaller trades.

From a forum cop perspective it is just a hassle and an inconvenience to deal with, and I agree. Perhaps instead of beheading nickle and dime traders all day, and then screaming from the mountain tops about the bear they killed with their bare hands, maybe find something better to do with the time.

Unless the trust system has rules set around it restricting negatives to trade, where a loss of some kind can be documented, that is in violation of the agreement between the users, or is in violation of the law it will become meaningless. Everything else should not be anyone's business really, and certainly should not be grounds for a negative rating. Ratings do matter, because this is a forum centered around a method of exchange. The question is will the trust system be a gauge of who jerks each other off around here or who is able to be trusted in trade?

[itomarketing]

The community can't be trusted.Sounds like the community is your enemy.

No - I love the community, but I hate those who try to destroy it because of their limitations or greed.

Thats why you look away of known scammers and allow false tagging.Seems plausible



I agree the DT members over exceeded their actions acting like babysitters making taking members will to decide themself all in the name of protection.
I even saw 2 people being red tagged for making a deal both agreed on just because it was a paypal exchange deal.
I mean why are you punks to decide for me if i'm allowed to make with somebody an exchange or not ?Its none of your business what kind of risk i take.

You are acting worse than any plan business.

[actmyname]

I even saw 2 people being red tagged for making a deal both agreed on just because it was a paypal exchange deal.
I mean why are you punks to decide for me if i'm allowed to make with somebody an exchange or not ?Its none of your business what kind of risk i take.

You are acting worse than any plan business.

Who are these users? If it's based purely on the method of transaction, then that doesn't seem like it deserves a tag to me.

[cryptohunter]

The community can't be trusted.Sounds like the community is your enemy.

No - I love the community, but I hate those who try to destroy it because of their limitations or greed.

Thats why you look away of known scammers and allow false tagging.Seems plausible



I agree the DT members over exceeded their actions acting like babysitters making taking members will to decide themself all in the name of protection.
I even saw 2 people being red tagged for making a deal both agreed on just because it was a paypal exchange deal.
I mean why are you punks to decide for me if i'm allowed to make with somebody an exchange or not ?Its none of your business what kind of risk i take.

You are acting worse than any plan business.

Jetcash is a proven liar here or at best pure double standards that are disgraceful.  Why?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17808231#msg17808231

If he really hates shit posting greedy sig spammers then why on DT does he support a PROVEN sock puppet racist trolling sig spammer the pharmacist aka huge black woman - I mean read the greed of that individual. He got busted complaining he  wanted more money from his sig on his second account that is just a trolling racist sig spammer for extra btc dust.

So why is he supporting him on DT?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

This is proven FACT - observable by any person here.

His obvious double standards are there to clearly observe for all.

These DT members are clearly and observably acting in untrustworthy ways. Double standards where it suits them are the thin end of this wedge.

This is justs presentation of FACTS and observable events. They blast out red trust for anything that suits them including daring to speak out about their PROVEN lying and trust abuse.  

The entire thing is a joke. Let's face it though most are quite obviously low functioning. Try to have a debate with any of them bar perhaps 1 or 2 and you soon realise these are either complete imbeciles or worse.

I suggest this poll is made transparent by starting again and people have to post which way they vote and why.

You will soon see it is the system controllers themselves voting for maintaining their position of being able to red trust for their own personal reason and not for the good of the board at all.

Merit is the main issue here it needs to have criteria just like the trust system and earned merit should be reset to zero or some filter that cuts out the cycled merit to a sensible % - decoupled from rank after snr

A transparent poll is required here. No point asking people in power if they should have rules as how to wield it. The very notion is ludicrous.

[The Cryptovator]

Not bad idea but I don't think theymos will do it. There are few post from old DT and some others about guidelines. But it's not officially approved. If any guidelines by theymos means its official guidelines. It would be better for new DT. But problem is peopels even don't bother to follow forum rules so we can't expect that peopels will follow the guidelines. And argument will never end even there is guidelines. People's never bother about DT system before get tag. After getting tag they start war with DT system. If any DT make mistake it should bring front before tag you. If I have made mistake then make sound now but after get tag making sound which is equal to war with DT. I don't think it will never end ....

[itomarketing]

HA HA funny how the poll went from 9:1 we need a guideline after the whole night now so quickly to 9:10 .
Would love to see the names who voted so quickly at the same time.


To the honest DT members now you see the gang at its work trying to protect the sick status quo

[cryptohunter]

Not bad idea but I don't think theymos will do it. There are few post from old DT and some others about guidelines. But it's not officially approved. If any guidelines by theymos means its official guidelines. It would be better for new DT. But problem is peopels even don't bother to follow forum rules so we can't expect that peopels will follow the guidelines. And argument will never end even there is guidelines. People's never bother about DT system before get tag. After getting tag they start war with DT system. If any DT make mistake it should bring front before tag you. If I have made mistake then make sound now but after get tag making sound which is equal to war with DT. I don't think it will never end ....

They will follow them or they will get blacklisted from dt and merit source

We need people in positions of trust that are squeaky clean and no prior evidence of scams, lying, greed, double standards.... they should be blacklisted by default.

Imagine known convicted felons applying for police positions and getting it. Then telling others they don't want any rules as to how they act.

LOL

[actmyname]

HA HA funny how the poll went from 9:1 we need a guideline after the whole night now so quickly to 9:10 .
Would love to see the names who voted so quickly at the same time.


To the honest DT members now you see the gang at its work trying to protect the sick status quo

I'm still waiting for your reply to my question:

I even saw 2 people being red tagged for making a deal both agreed on just because it was a paypal exchange deal.
I mean why are you punks to decide for me if i'm allowed to make with somebody an exchange or not ?Its none of your business what kind of risk i take.

You are acting worse than any plan business.

Who are these users? If it's based purely on the method of transaction, then that doesn't seem like it deserves a tag to me.

If you identify these users then I would be glad to counter the rating. I just hope that you're not making false statements.

[cryptohunter]

HA HA funny how the poll went from 9:1 we need a guideline after the whole night now so quickly to 9:10 .
Would love to see the names who voted so quickly at the same time.


To the honest DT members now you see the gang at its work trying to protect the sick status quo

hence why transparent polls are required. You know it is the corrupt scum on DT that are voting they should have no limits imposed on their free reign to red trust for any reason they like.

[actmyname]

hence why transparent polls are required. You know it is the corrupt scum on DT that are voting they should have no limits imposed on their free reign to red trust for any reason they like.

The kicker is the "from theymos" part. Not the "guideline" bit. I'll leave you to think about why that is.

[TalkStar]

Not bad idea but I don't think theymos will do it. There are few post from old DT and some others about guidelines. But it's not officially approved. If any guidelines by theymos means its official guidelines. It would be better for new DT. But problem is peopels even don't bother to follow forum rules so we can't expect that peopels will follow the guidelines. And argument will never end even there is guidelines. People's never bother about DT system before get tag. After getting tag they start war with DT system. If any DT make mistake it should bring front before tag you. If I have made mistake then make sound now but after get tag making sound which is equal to war with DT. I don't think it will never end ....

Why do you think people of this forum will not follow rules & regulations? If we get an exact guideline from of theymos than we may deserve much rules followers here. I think theymos should discuss about this too urgently.

If anyone just investigate the Meta section only he/she will find multiple thread which are nothing but tag related argumental gossip. If this situation continue, i wish in future it will be difficult to find productive posts. Just look at those threads conversations.

I wish very soon our DTs have to take sleep killer medicine to make tons of reply to those taging related threads whole night. There can be the chances of Insomnia too

[JusticeForYou]

Why do you think people of this forum will not follow rules & regulations?

Some, DT think its because last time theymos applied a forum update about the merit system there were large number of appels by demoted accounts and same will happen again if forum applies some set of rules but I personally think merit requirements is totally different from trust as if a person does not gets merits he can still handle his account in normal way but when it comes to trust on the account the view totally changes and people start abusing the DT.

But if a proper set of rules are applied it would just put down the number of trust abuse threads or atleast someone could just point them to the official rules and why they were red-tagged. So there is not further argument left and the thread is locked.
On the other hand now both the parties have different definition to the abuse and the discussion just continues to an infinite extent.

 

There can be the chances of Insomnia too

Not just insomnia it could cause too many more mental health problems.

[OgNasty]

For a while now, theymos has been excluding users from his trust list. I kinda like that approach: he doesn't go full Admin on them, but uses his vote like any other user would do.

Theymos' trust list (last Saturday):

...

I also like this approach.  Having it public allows users to see his trust settings so those looking to him for guidance still have a place to find it.  I formatted your post for trust settings and moved those who he has distrusted to the bottom, so users can easily assess and assimilate users they want to add into their own lists.

theymos' trust list (last Saturday):

HostFat
dooglus
Raize
Meni Rosenfeld
Maged
Raoul Duke
gmaxwell
OgNasty
zvs
-ck
malevolent
John (John K.)
Tomatocage
SaltySpitoon
ineededausername
DeaDTerra
BadBear
Blazr
vgo
BCB
Dabs
Benson Samuel
shiftybugger
Cyrus
ibminer
Wardrick
dwdoc
Adriano
Taras
EFS
dbshck
hilariousandco
MadZ
shorena
mitzie
franckuestein
sapta
OmegaStarScream
xandry
rickbig41
Barcode_
Anon11073
Halab
Xal0lex
chimk
~actmyname
~CanaryInTheMine
~Spodermen
~LYCAN
~Jaaawsh
~artw1982
~Boelens
~Rub3n
~TMAN
~TomUnderSea
~TheNewAnon135246
~blackarrow
~MarkAz
~nachius
~marcotheminer
~nubbins
~FullLife
~Matthew N. Wright
~TradeFortress 🏕
~uhnonamiss
~El Cabron
~Xian01
~lophie
~johnny5

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Having an official guidelines from theymos will be great but until then that doesn't mean we shouldn't make use of the trust system. We already have general accepted offends that are worth leaving negative feedback and positive feedbacks by DT and others. How about we stick to what we already have (which is working fine)  and when theymos finial decide to create those guidelines we adjust to them and change some of our feedbacks to neutral or maybe delete those that aren't a offends by his guidelines.

I did a infograph on possible reasons to leave or not leave a negative /postive feedback. Go check it out and leave your feedbacks via reply

Reason for this thread

Additionally, it may be interesting to see all four combinations for trust feedback:
-   Use positive feed back for.
-   Don’t use positive feed back for.
-   Use negative feed back for.
-   Don’t use negative feed back for (OP).

[OgNasty]

Having an official guidelines from theymos will be great but until then that doesn't mean we shouldn't make use of the trust system. We already have general accepted offends that are worth leaving negative feedback and positive feedbacks by DT and others. How about we stick to what we already have (which is working fine)  and when theymos finial decide to create those guidelines we adjust to them and change some of our feedbacks to neutral or maybe delete those that aren't a offends by his guidelines.

I did a infograph on possible reasons to leave or not leave a negative /postive feedback. Go check it out and leave your feedbacks via reply

I think theymos purposely doesn't give official guidelines because he wants it to be a more community oriented decision.  If he was willing to give official guidelines, the old DT system would have worked fine.  I don't believe everyone working off the same list of rules is the goal.

[TECSHARE]

Having an official guidelines from theymos will be great but until then that doesn't mean we shouldn't make use of the trust system. We already have general accepted offends that are worth leaving negative feedback and positive feedbacks by DT and others. How about we stick to what we already have (which is working fine)  and when theymos finial decide to create those guidelines we adjust to them and change some of our feedbacks to neutral or maybe delete those that aren't a offends by his guidelines.

I did a infograph on possible reasons to leave or not leave a negative /postive feedback. Go check it out and leave your feedbacks via reply

I think theymos purposely doesn't give official guidelines because he wants it to be a more community oriented decision.  If he was willing to give official guidelines, the old DT system would have worked fine.  I don't believe everyone working off the same list of rules is the goal.

It isn't, but it should be. He was warned about all this when the trust system began but he ignored it in favor of more additions to the system further obfuscating the symptoms but not addressing the cause. I know he views himself as some kind of Anarcho-capitalist... but this is childish. You can't run a place like this, this big without some BASIC rules like the rest of the forum has.

I know he doesn't have the time or care to enforce every little thing, and nor should he and his staff have to. However since the beginning the trust system has had nothing but continual high level conflict resulting from it. Honestly I am not sure if he really wants decentralization or just the image of it based on the series of events revolving around the trust.

A standard of evidence, a violation of a contractual agreement, or a law being violated, should be the determining factors for judging a negative rating valid. I don't think we can rightly expect the staff to constantly be the ones to enforce this, but at the same time unless this rule is top down universal, none of these issues will ever be fixed. This is not just a logistical conflict, it is an ideological one. We all want more decentralization, but the reality is this is an inherently centralized place, and as a result nearly all of the authority originates from one place, Theymos.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I think theymos purposely doesn't give official guidelines because he wants it to be a more community oriented decision. I don't believe everyone working off the same list of rules is the goal.

Everyone do not have to work from the sane list but at least there should be a guide for leaving trust feedbacks by the community.  When I picked interest I thought leaving a negative feedback for ban evasion was correct but after I asked suchmoon he corrected me, asking me not to tag users for such but instead report them to moderator. I was mislead my other users feedbacks and I'm sure others are too.

On the board where this infograhic was posted there's currently an argument on leaving negative feedback for accepting or giving BTT account  as collateral. This type of issue who had been avoided if we have guidelines users can turn to.

[bill gator]

All the posts are one sided.

It's a "yes" or "no" question. The only way you answer that without being one-sided is if you avoid answering it at all; "maybe".

If we're going to have theymos police DT or create the rules for being part of it then why not just allow theymos to pick DT entirely and centralize the system further? Theymos is providing guidelines by providing a system for us to work with and then explaining how it's intended to work. It's really shocking to me that half of us believe theymos should take more personal control over DT, unless I understand the question incorrectly.

[TECSHARE]

All the posts are one sided.

It's a "yes" or "no" question. The only way you answer that without being one-sided is if you avoid answering it at all; "maybe".

If we're going to have theymos police DT or create the rules for being part of it then why not just allow theymos to pick DT entirely and centralize the system further? Theymos is providing guidelines by providing a system for us to work with and then explaining how it's intended to work. It's really shocking to me that half of us believe theymos should take more personal control over DT, unless I understand the question incorrectly.

Just putting a system in place is not enough because the system is able to be abused. I don't expect or even want Theymos to be the arbiter of everything around here, and he has made it pretty clear he doesn't want that either. That doesn't mean he can't simply set up a standard protocol for using the rating system that he expects the users to follow, such as requiring a standard of evidence for negative ratings.

This doesn't mean Theymos needs to be involved in every dispute, it just means it solves a large amount of disputes before they even happen and also gives the trust system a boost in actual credibility by increasing its accuracy by reducing noise. We all want more decentralization, but the reality is this forum is very centralized, bringing us full circle back to Theymos.

[OgNasty]

All the posts are one sided.

It's a "yes" or "no" question. The only way you answer that without being one-sided is if you avoid answering it at all; "maybe".

If we're going to have theymos police DT or create the rules for being part of it then why not just allow theymos to pick DT entirely and centralize the system further? Theymos is providing guidelines by providing a system for us to work with and then explaining how it's intended to work. It's really shocking to me that half of us believe theymos should take more personal control over DT, unless I understand the question incorrectly.

Just putting a system in place is not enough because the system is able to be abused. I don't expect or even want Theymos to be the arbiter of everything around here, and he has made it pretty clear he doesn't want that either. That doesn't mean he can't simply set up a standard protocol for using the rating system that he expects the users to follow, such as requiring a standard of evidence for negative ratings.

This doesn't mean Theymos needs to be involved in every dispute, it just means it solves a large amount of disputes before they even happen and also give the trust system a boost in actual credibility by increasing its accuracy by reducing noise. We all want more decentralization, but the reality is this forum is very centralized, bringing us full circle back to Theymos.

It’s very clearly being manipulated by a small group of users which makes it worse than the previous system. This was likely expected and theymos already reserved the right to blacklist people. I urge people to use their best judgement with their trust network and don’t be intimidated by this group of users playing games with the trust system. Have faith that this will be sorted out by the community eventually. I mean, DT has confirmed extortionists, doxxers, and scammers on it right now. I don’t think that will last forever. It’s embarassing.

[JusticeForYou]

It’s very clearly being manipulated by a small group of users which makes it worse than the previous system. This was likely expected and theymos already reserved the right to blacklist people. I urge people to use their best judgement with their trust network and don’t be intimidated by this group of users playing games with the trust system. Have faith that this will be sorted out by the community eventually. I mean, DT has confirmed extortionists, doxxers, and scammers on it right now. I don’t think that will last forever. It’s embarassing.

Yes, centralization of power has made it more worst as most of the people who reach DT tend to joining this "small group" and supporting there thought and I feel its the fear for them getting removed from DT if they don't follow the cliques rules or harm anyone's reputation from the clique. It pretty simple to judge and we can see it happening around many times. I personally use theymos trust list dropped by LoyceV here and can see much of the red-trusted members too are on the DT which seems very odd too me.

I hope this will be sorted out quickly and spotted by the new arising DT's here to put the scammer and other clique out of this and make the environment here pretty healthy and motivating (I see it's totally demotivating from newbies point of view). We should better work on helping people to adapt to this crypto community rather than trying to harass or frighting them about the rules as soon as they post something. It is not just about being compassionate you should rather act upon it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

(I see it's totally demotivating from newbies point of view). We should better work on helping people to adapt to this crypto community rather than trying to harass or frighting them about the rules as soon as they post something.

May I ask what you're referring to here?  What are newbies getting harassed for doing?  Hopefully you realize that a lot of the newcomers to this forum are only here to make money from bounties and sig campaigns, and judging by the amount of ban appeals in Meta they don't seem to be reading the rules before they break them. 

If we want to have a forum that isn't clogged by nonsense posts, members like the aforementioned ones shouldn't be welcomed with open arms, because they're the ones responsible for how bad bitcointalk has gotten in terms of readability.  And that small "group" on DT that people keep referring to tend to be members fighting against the useless spammers, account farmers, account sellers, and assorted scammers.  They've also left a lot of accurate feedback in that fight, which IMO is a good use of DT "power". 

It’s embarassing.

It's embarrassing for you because you got knocked off DT.  I don't think the majority of bitcointalk members share your opinion that the current DT1 list is some sort of terrible injustice.  In any case, I never lobbied to be on DT2, much less DT1.  Lauda wasn't even on DT anymore when he/she was added to the DT1 list.  It was Theymos's algorithm which was responsible for all of these changes happening, not some conspiratorial power grab by a select group of members.

[TECSHARE]

(I see it's totally demotivating from newbies point of view). We should better work on helping people to adapt to this crypto community rather than trying to harass or frighting them about the rules as soon as they post something.

May I ask what you're referring to here?  What are newbies getting harassed for doing?  Hopefully you realize that a lot of the newcomers to this forum are only here to make money from bounties and sig campaigns, and judging by the amount of ban appeals in Meta they don't seem to be reading the rules before they break them. 

If we want to have a forum that isn't clogged by nonsense posts, members like the aforementioned ones shouldn't be welcomed with open arms, because they're the ones responsible for how bad bitcointalk has gotten in terms of readability.  And that small "group" on DT that people keep referring to tend to be members fighting against the useless spammers, account farmers, account sellers, and assorted scammers.  They've also left a lot of accurate feedback in that fight, which IMO is a good use of DT "power". 

It’s embarassing.

It's embarrassing for you because you got knocked off DT.  I don't think the majority of bitcointalk members share your opinion that the current DT1 list is some sort of terrible injustice.  In any case, I never lobbied to be on DT2, much less DT1.  Lauda wasn't even on DT anymore when he/she was added to the DT1 list.  It was Theymos's algorithm which was responsible for all of these changes happening, not some conspiratorial power grab by a select group of members.

Again note the regular use of personal attacks and hostility from the types of people who fancy themselves as forum police. They only know how to speak the language of threats, accusations, mobbing and inquisition. A lot more people share that opinion than you think, they just don't care to get wrapped up in all the harassment that follows bringing this information to light. Anyone without a reputation is simply dismissed as a scammer and anyone with a reputation has something you can leverage over them to force compliance.

There is no reason you and others still can't continue doing what you are doing to help the forum just because you won't be able to leave negative ratings like handing out candy. None of the things you listed require this in order to be done. Furthermore it ends up being little more than noise actual larger frauds can hide behind in the chaos of all the conflict. You just will not be able to lord arbitrary negative ratings over people in order to force compliance with every pet issue you have. The constant refrain from the wanna be forum cops is the sky will fall. It is getting old. You won't restrain yourselves so some restraint should be imposed upon you.

[JusticeForYou]

May I ask what you're referring to here?  What are newbies getting harassed for doing?  Hopefully you realize that a lot of the newcomers to this forum are only here to make money from bounties and sig campaigns, and judging by the amount of ban appeals in Meta they don't seem to be reading the rules before they break them. 

Yes, I probably don't roll out much in the altcoin announcement and bounties section and I guess you are relating your views to those section only. I agree they are worst to surf and I personally tend to avoid it due to ever increasing spam there. But some other sections on the forum like Bitcoin Technical Support,  Development & Technical Discussion even meta have much of the newbies contributing in effective way. This proves that also majority of them come here to learn crypto or trade crypto.

If we want to have a forum that isn't clogged by nonsense posts, members like the aforementioned ones shouldn't be welcomed with open arms, because they're the ones responsible for how bad bitcointalk has gotten in terms of readability.  And that small "group" on DT that people keep referring to tend to be members fighting against the useless spammers, account farmers, account sellers, and assorted scammers.  They've also left a lot of accurate feedback in that fight, which IMO is a good use of DT "power".

Some of there feedbacks could be accurate and worthy. But I just want to let you know trust should mostly be used to related the trustworthiness and to let other know if the person is legit to put funds with or not. Catching spammers and shit posters or highly annoying trollers are not the once to be tagged or handled by DT and it later is pointed to an abuse of power its better to be handled by mod or staff itself and you know they are paid for that work.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip>

I did go back and find the reason you were booted from DT back in 2014, and it's interesting reading for anyone who might want to compare that whole drama to the argument you're making about DT members leaving arbitrary feedbacks (which are nothing of the kind, BTW). 

And speaking of personal attacks and hostility, this is the neutral feedback you left for me on 3/6/2016:

Just because you can't argue your points without personally attacking me is not my fault. You tell yourself whatever you like and block my messages. It doesn't change the fact that you are just a child throwing a fit because I hurt your frail little feelings by pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Of course if you simply just debated the subject none of this would be an issue now would it?

P.S. if I was threatening you, you would know it.

If this isn't being completely hypocritical, I don't know what is.

[TECSHARE]

<snip>

I did go back and find the reason you were booted from DT back in 2014, and it's interesting reading for anyone who might want to compare that whole drama to the argument you're making about DT members leaving arbitrary feedbacks (which are nothing of the kind, BTW). 

And speaking of personal attacks and hostility, this is the neutral feedback you left for me on 3/6/2016:

Just because you can't argue your points without personally attacking me is not my fault. You tell yourself whatever you like and block my messages. It doesn't change the fact that you are just a child throwing a fit because I hurt your frail little feelings by pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Of course if you simply just debated the subject none of this would be an issue now would it?

P.S. if I was threatening you, you would know it.

If this isn't being completely hypocritical, I don't know what is.

Again, rather than even attempt to engage in a discussion about the topic you jump right into grand inquisitor mode. Thanks for proving my point. We don't need people like this lording over the whole fucking forum on a whim.

[TalkStar]

May I ask what you're referring to here?  What are newbies getting harassed for doing?  Hopefully you realize that a lot of the newcomers to this forum are only here to make money from bounties and sig campaigns, and judging by the amount of ban appeals in Meta they don't seem to be reading the rules before they break them. 

100% agree with you. Everytime when we see an tag related argumental thread easily we can find there newbies are just putting blame on DT members. Where without valid rules its not fair to post anythng like this. Even some users don't know a single rules of the forum.

As a member of bitcointalk i beleive there should be rules if anyone put blame on any member without having proper evidence should be ban. Otherwise those guys want to make this forum a piece of garbage by spamming,trolling & inspiring others to scam.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Again, rather than even attempt to engage in a discussion about the topic you jump right into grand inquisitor mode. Thanks for proving my point. We don't need people like this lording over the whole fucking forum on a whim.

And rather than be on the losing end of the argument, you resort to blaming me for presenting facts and start playing the victim.  Let's face it, when someone disagrees with you, you go on the attack.  This is why I had to block your PMs, because you wanted to keep arguing with me about something I don't even recall, and after that you left the feedback I quoted--which was clearly the kind of personal attack that you're criticizing DT members of engaging in. 

Your own words back up my claims, and if anyone reading this wants further proof they ought to check out the link in my previous post. 

Do you think the DT list would be better with you on it? 

Anyone without a reputation is simply dismissed as a scammer and anyone with a reputation has something you can leverage over them to force compliance.
<snip>
Furthermore it ends up being little more than noise actual larger frauds can hide behind in the chaos of all the conflict.

Neither of these statements are true.  There are plenty of members who've earned positive reputations starting from having no rep in the time I've been here.  Jet Cash, Coolcryptovator, marlboroza, Hhampuz, ICOEthics, xtraelv, coinlocket$, and Lafu are among the new batch of DT1 members and they all registered after me.  None of these members were dismissed as scammers.  What I see is members like them tagging actual scammers.

As to the second part, what larger frauds have been hidden behind "the chaos of all the conflict"?  Seems to me that DT has done a pretty decent job tagging the scammers who need tagging.  On our own time, without pay, and with much criticism I might add.

[TECSHARE]

Again, rather than even attempt to engage in a discussion about the topic you jump right into grand inquisitor mode. Thanks for proving my point. We don't need people like this lording over the whole fucking forum on a whim.

And rather than be on the losing end of the argument, you resort to blaming me for presenting facts and start playing the victim.  Let's face it, when someone disagrees with you, you go on the attack.  This is why I had to block your PMs, because you wanted to keep arguing with me about something I don't even recall, and after that you left the feedback I quoted--which was clearly the kind of personal attack that you're criticizing DT members of engaging in. 

Your own words back up my claims, and if anyone reading this wants further proof they ought to check out the link in my previous post. 

Do you think the DT list would be better with you on it? 

Anyone without a reputation is simply dismissed as a scammer and anyone with a reputation has something you can leverage over them to force compliance.
<snip>
Furthermore it ends up being little more than noise actual larger frauds can hide behind in the chaos of all the conflict.

Neither of these statements are true.  There are plenty of members who've earned positive reputations starting from having no rep in the time I've been here.  Jet Cash, Coolcryptovator, marlboroza, Hhampuz, ICOEthics, xtraelv, coinlocket$, and Lafu are among the new batch of DT1 members and they all registered after me.  None of these members were dismissed as scammers.  What I see is members like them tagging actual scammers.

As to the second part, what larger frauds have been hidden behind "the chaos of all the conflict"?  Seems to me that DT has done a pretty decent job tagging the scammers who need tagging.  On our own time, without pay, and with much criticism I might add.

Actually the way I see it I honored my principles and only left you a neutral rating, for much of the same behavior you are demonstrating right now I might add. How many negative ratings do you shotgun out in a day? I am sure each of them was dutifully researched first right?

"None of these members were dismissed as scammers." 

What are you even arguing? Because some people are not scammers no people gaining reputation this way are scammers? That makes sense how?

"What I see is members like them tagging actual scammers."

What you see is subjective. If they are such scammers you shouldn't have much trouble documenting evidence of a crime, violation of a contractual agreement, or violation of a law. Anything else just allows for arbitrary power tripping which you and others have just demonstrated you are quite fond of.

[Lauda]

Do you think the DT list would be better with you on it?  
-snip-

You're wasting your time here TBH. It is clear that certain users are butthurt that the majority consensus has voted to avoid having anything to do with them (because of obvious reasons). Also, JusticeForYou is almost undoubtedly a compromised account pushing this false narrative.

[TECSHARE]

Do you think the DT list would be better with you on it?  
-snip-

You're wasting your time here TBH. It is clear that certain users are butthurt that the majority consensus has voted to avoid having anything to do with them (because of obvious reasons). Also, JusticeForYou is almost undoubtedly a compromised account pushing this false narrative.

Obvious reasons... such as calling out a long history of abusive behavior? Again, notice the complete reliance on personal attacks, accusation, and inquisition. Zero discussion of the arguments presented. This is all these people know how to do, mob, bully, and intimidate. This is the type of person that seeks positions of power. These type of people need to be leashed by a simple protocol to keep their hunger for control over anyone who questions them in check.

[Lauda]

Oblivious reasons... such as calling out a long history of abusive behavior? Again, notice the complete reliance on personal attacks, accusation, and inquisition. Zero discussion of the arguments presented. This is all these people know how to do, mob, bully, and intimidate. This is the type of person that seeks positions of power. These type of people need to be leashed by a simple protocol to keep their hunger for control over anyone who questions them in check.

Nobody that knows your history here should waste their time discussing your bullshit. FYI snowflake, this isn't any of the above but rather friendly advice for The Pharmacist, i.e. none of your butthurt business. Go whine somewhere else, you ain't coming back into DT.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

"None of these members were dismissed as scammers." 

If anyone without a reputation was dismissed as a scammer (your claim), it would be very hard for them to end up on DT1.  They would have been tagged and would have little chance of achieving that.  Out of those members I listed, do you think any of them are scammers?  I'd like you to answer that question if you wouldn't mind.

What you see is subjective. If they are such scammers you shouldn't have much trouble documenting evidence of a crime, violation of a contractual agreement, or violation of a law. Anything else just allows for arbitrary power tripping which you and others have just demonstrated you are quite fond of.

If you don't see all the scamming that's going on here on the forum, you need glasses.  And you've been here long enough to know that there's no contracts when someone pulls off a loan scam, PayPal chargebacks, offers 100% ROI within a week, or any of the other typical BCT scams, nor does anyone mention law.  Why would we?  Nobody is going to the police for any of the typical scammers that DT members tag. 

As far as evidence goes, what do you call the information that gets presented in the scam accusation forms that members fill out when they get scammed?  How about the alt accounts abusing bounties?  The evidence is all there.

The forum polices itself against scams, and DT goes out of its way to help with that.  The DT list is certainly not perfect, but it's nowhere near the cabal of power-hungry little Hitlers that you make it out to be.

[OgNasty]

It’s embarassing.

It's embarrassing for you because you got knocked off DT.  I don't think the majority of bitcointalk members share your opinion that the current DT1 list is some sort of terrible injustice.  In any case, I never lobbied to be on DT2, much less DT1.  Lauda wasn't even on DT anymore when he/she was added to the DT1 list.  It was Theymos's algorithm which was responsible for all of these changes happening, not some conspiratorial power grab by a select group of members.

I’m not embarrassed about not being on DT1. I’ve been on it for a long time. I’d be a hypocrite to not stand up and voice my opinion for what is best for the forum, so that’s what I will continue to do. I admittedly place an over-importance on this forum in the Bitcoin economy, which is likely why it seems scary to me that serious investors could join here and see how some of these “trusted” members behave publicly. Maybe you don’t care, but I was a financial analyst working with multi-billion dollar acquisitions for a decade and I know how detrimental something seemingly insignificant can become. You really want government officials judging ETF approvals to see DT members belittling newbies or claiming to make deals with the Russian community? I’d be embarrassed. You should be too. What would satoshi think of his baby being represented by these folks who don’t even use the blockchain for transparent escrows or run any sort of projects involving the blockchain? Anyway, I hope that helps you see my position.

I want to create proof of concepts and help change the world, so if DT1 is only about harassing newbies in 3rd world countries out of fear they might steal a signature ad spot from you, count me out.

[TECSHARE]

Oblivious reasons... such as calling out a long history of abusive behavior? Again, notice the complete reliance on personal attacks, accusation, and inquisition. Zero discussion of the arguments presented. This is all these people know how to do, mob, bully, and intimidate. This is the type of person that seeks positions of power. These type of people need to be leashed by a simple protocol to keep their hunger for control over anyone who questions them in check.

Nobody that knows your history here should waste their time discussing your bullshit. FYI snowflake, this isn't any of the above but rather friendly advice for The Pharmacist, i.e. none of your butthurt business. Go whine somewhere else, you ain't coming back into DT.

Yes, I am sure it is quite shameful. Last I checked this is a public discussion. Perhaps you should move to private messages if you don't wish it to be a public discussion? Or maybe you just want to quietly signal to him to shut his mouth because he is making you all look bad?

If anyone without a reputation was dismissed as a scammer (your claim), it would be very hard for them to end up on DT1.  They would have been tagged and would have little chance of achieving that.  Out of those members I listed, do you think any of them are scammers?  I'd like you to answer that question if you wouldn't mind.

Anyone who questions the decrees of the forum police overlords*

If you don't see all the scamming that's going on here on the forum, you need glasses.  And you've been here long enough to know that there's no contracts when someone pulls off a loan scam, PayPal chargebacks, offers 100% ROI within a week, or any of the other typical BCT scams, nor does anyone mention law.  Why would we?  Nobody is going to the police for any of the typical scammers that DT members tag.  

As far as evidence goes, what do you call the information that gets presented in the scam accusation forms that members fill out when they get scammed?  How about the alt accounts abusing bounties?  The evidence is all there.

The forum polices itself against scams, and DT goes out of its way to help with that.  The DT list is certainly not perfect, but it's nowhere near the cabal of power-hungry little Hitlers that you make it out to be.

Oh I see it. That is exactly my point. This whole Barney Fife act isn't even putting a tiny dent in the fraud, yet there are plenty of negative results of this assembly line style of negative rating you are so fond of. In all the disagreement real con artists slip in and out.

A contract is simply an agreement that is an exchange of value. Your rambling about being no contract is a meaningless misinterpretation of the definition of the word. Either an agreement is honored or it is not. Courts and jurisdictional squabbling need not be involved. If there is evidence... there is evidence... I am not sure what you are arguing about there we agree.

Human beings seek and abuse power. We have rules and laws to make sure the damage of this is limited. I think you and your friends have made a better case for requirement for some system of restraint and standard of evidence than I ever could have.

[JusticeForYou]

Do you think the DT list would be better with you on it?  
-snip-

You're wasting your time here TBH. It is clear that certain users are butthurt that the majority consensus has voted to avoid having anything to do with them (because of obvious reasons). Also, JusticeForYou is almost undoubtedly a compromised account pushing this false narrative.

@The Pharmacist already discussed with me this topic and he is not against of putting rules or guidelines for DT members from theymos. And I see he should be interested in commenting here but you out of no interest come here and start putting some made up claims to turn the conversation looks more butthurt here.

I think you are wasting your time making fake accusations on me, everyone mostly works with real-life thoughts and it is very genuine for anyone to not prove every time he logs-in here and as I found this discussion more productive and on point to the real things happing hence I support it.

Please stop proving TECSHARE right every time by doing this.

[suchmoon]

But some other sections on the forum like Bitcoin Technical Support,  Development & Technical Discussion even meta have much of the newbies contributing in effective way. This proves that also majority of them come here to learn crypto or trade crypto.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. ~20k new users get registered every month and ~5k become active (create posts). Few of those may end up in technical discussions. The vast majority are useless bounty-hunting shitposting dregs. You only need to open Patrol to see what's going on.

Not that it has much to do with DT. It would be nice if theymos could implement some disincentives for shitposters but for now this needs to be deal with by reporting to moderators and there are many users doing just that.

[TECSHARE]

But some other sections on the forum like Bitcoin Technical Support,  Development & Technical Discussion even meta have much of the newbies contributing in effective way. This proves that also majority of them come here to learn crypto or trade crypto.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. ~20k new users get registered every month and ~5k become active (create posts). Few of those may end up in technical discussions. The vast majority are useless bounty-hunting shitposting dregs. You only need to open Patrol to see what's going on.

Not that it has much to do with DT. It would be nice if theymos could implement some disincentives for shitposters but for now this needs to be deal with by reporting to moderators and there are many users doing just that.

As far as I know, we don't have any psychics on the default trust, so the fact is we do not know what their intent is until they act, and any judgement before then is subjective and fairly arbitrary. However, you make a good point this has nothing to do with trust, and trust really not need be involved to solve any of these problems since it is a moderation issue, not a trust issue.

[TalkStar]

Not that it has much to do with DT. It would be nice if theymos could implement some disincentives for shitposters but for now this needs to be deal with by reporting to moderators and there are many users doing just that.

Yeah absolutely its a possible way to solve this kind of issue. Otherwise day by day its getting complicated here on the forum to take legal actions against shitposters. Reporting to moderators could be a solution here in current situation untill theymos implement some new rules and regulations for shitposters.

Prevention is better than cure. I wish after implementing some final disincentives  forum atmosphere will be much better for us.   

[Findingnemo]

Yeah absolutely its a possible way to solve this kind of issue. Otherwise day by day its getting complicated here on the forum to take legal actions against shitposters. Reporting to moderators could be a solution here in current situation untill theymos implement some new rules and regulations for shitposters.

Prevention is better than cure. I wish after implementing some final disincentives  forum atmosphere will be much better for us.   

Us? Who are you by the way? Donald Trump

If you want to take legal actions against someone for posting in an online forum then this forum might be in North Korea.

You can see that there is already a new implement from Cyrus (one of this forum admin) to report post history of some person so it will make some changes no need for legal actions.

[Jet Cash]

Maybe we should give them an "aa" rating. aa is a real word ( The first in the Oxford English Dictionary ), and it is a form of lava rock - frothy on the inside, and jagged edges on the outside.

[asche]

I think that a private chat room for DT1s and merit sources would be a great idea. We could then work out policies, and resolve difficulties in private. I created one, but it wasn't really used, so I have deleted it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a private board here in Bitcoin Talk. Then we could get away fro the bitching and criticism, and work on some positive solutions.

What does all this have to do with merit sources

The private board would be nice but very difficult to maintain since the DT list is going to be dynamic.

[OgNasty]

I think that a private chat room for DT1s and merit sources would be a great idea. We could then work out policies, and resolve difficulties in private. I created one, but it wasn't really used, so I have deleted it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a private board here in Bitcoin Talk. Then we could get away fro the bitching and criticism, and work on some positive solutions.

What does all this have to do with merit sources

The private board would be nice but very difficult to maintain since the DT list is going to be dynamic.

We have a private board already.  Just become a donator and you'll get access.

[asche]

We have a private board already.  Just become a donator and you'll get access.

I know about it. But it is not limited to DT members. So not really relevant to the topic, is it?

[OgNasty]

I think that a private chat room for DT1s and merit sources would be a great idea. We could then work out policies, and resolve difficulties in private. I created one, but it wasn't really used, so I have deleted it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a private board here in Bitcoin Talk. Then we could get away fro the bitching and criticism, and work on some positive solutions.

What does all this have to do with merit sources

The private board would be nice but very difficult to maintain since the DT list is going to be dynamic.

We have a private board already.  Just become a donator and you'll get access.

I know about it. But it is not limited to DT members. So not really relevant to the topic, is it?

Obviously closed door discussions about trust between DT members would be a foolish implementation counter to the goals this system is attempting to achieve.  However, it wouldn't surprise me that this is the direction some new DT1 members would want to pursue, as that sort of collusion is how many of them made it on the list in the first place.

[asche]

Obviously closed door discussions about trust between DT members would be a foolish implementation counter to the goals this system is attempting to achieve.  However, it doesn't surprise me that this is the direction some new DT1 members would want to pursue, as that sort of collusion is how many of them made it on the list in the first place.

You are right. However it would also give some ability to new DT members to easily get advice from older DTs in an easy way.

Like everything it is a tool, and you can do good or bad with it.

[mikeywith]

The private board would be nice but very difficult to maintain since the DT list is going to be dynamic.

DT discussion should always be in public for 2 simple reasons.

1- it's something that affects every member, therefore everyone has the right to share what they think about it.
2- to avoid any conspiracy theory associated with DT discussions. 

even now that we have everything in public, many people still think that there is a sort of "gang" that controls the default trust system, so i'd imagine things will get worse should discussions on DT matter be 100% private.

i suggest we keep everything public, DT members however can seek opinions / suggestions via PM when needed.

[TalkStar]

Us? Who are you by the way? Donald Trump

If you want to take legal actions against someone for posting in an online forum then this forum might be in North Korea.

You can see that there is already a new implement from Cyrus (one of this forum admin) to report post history of some person so it will make some changes no need for legal actions.

Hey my friend i think you misunderstand the meaning of "legal" actually. Do you think this "legal" words only used for USA president donald trump . Lol. I think other users already got my point without you.

By the way i know what rules we got here from our moderators but our DTs are discussing here how  to stop those shitposters. I think you got my point now

[Findingnemo]

Us? Who are you by the way? Donald Trump

If you want to take legal actions against someone for posting in an online forum then this forum might be in North Korea.

You can see that there is already a new implement from Cyrus (one of this forum admin) to report post history of some person so it will make some changes no need for legal actions.

Hey my friend i think you misunderstand the meaning of "legal" actually. Do you think this "legal" words only used for USA president donald trump . Lol. I think other users already got my point without you.

By the way i know what rules we got here from our moderators but our DTs are discussing here how  to stop those shitposters. I think you got my point now

I think you need to know what is the meaning of legal action,what is read from Cambridge english dictionary it meant as "the act of using a lawyer or a court to help settle a disagreement" (Source : legal action)

Legal can be used by anyone but you meant like you need a special place in this forum after reading

forum atmosphere will be much better for us.

That is why I asked like that,just sarcasm

[LoyceV]

Theymos posted something that could act as guidelines:

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

However if he tried to actually "game" the system to his advantage (not saying he did) should THAT be tagged?

With gaming the system I mean influencing DT list for his own sake or agenda and not for legitimate reasons. See Thule et al.

If the "gaming" takes the form of strategically sending a lot of merit, creating sockuppets, and stuff like that, then no. That sort of gaming might get me to blacklist people, in fact. But if it looks more like politics, then that's OK, and that's what H8bussesNbicycles's thread looks like to me.

[DooMAD]

Theymos posted something that could act as guidelines:

- It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them.

I'm torn on that last point.  There are certainly users on this board who I feel deserve their untrusted rating due to the manner in which they make their posts.  It's not appropriate to give someone negative trust if you disagree with a valid point they've made, but if they make repeated deceptive, dishonest or manipulative points, there should be a warning tied to their account in case some impressionable newbies take their words at face value.  There's a big problem in the world right now with misinformation.  Deliberately spreading misinformation can be construed as untrustworthy behaviour.  If someone feels the appropriate response to that would be best presented in the form of negative trust, it should be up to the individual. 

[Lauda]

Theymos posted something that could act as guidelines:

- It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them.

I'm torn on that last point.  There are certainly users on this board who I feel deserve their untrusted rating due to the manner in which they make their posts.  It's not appropriate to give someone negative trust if you disagree with a valid point they've made, but if they make repeated deceptive, dishonest or manipulative points, there should be a warning tied to their account in case some impressionable newbies take their words at face value.  There's a big problem in the world right now with misinformation.  Deliberately spreading misinformation can be construed as untrustworthy behaviour.  If someone feels the appropriate response to that would be best presented in the form of negative trust, it should be up to the individual.  

It is fine to neg. rate people who consistently post false information, e.g. "Bitcoin Cash is the real BTC". I've rated many people for stuff like that, sometimes with explicit approval (IIRC). I think he's mostly referring to things that aren't objectively true/untrue.

[TECSHARE]

Is anyone seeing the pattern yet of how subjective these rules are and how much confusion it creates even among the ones enforcing the rules? What chance do the noobs have?

[DooMAD]

Is anyone seeing the pattern yet of how subjective these rules are and how much confusion it creates even among the ones enforcing the rules? What chance do the noobs have?

Arguably, they aren't rules, but guidelines.  And trust does have a tendency to be somewhat subjective.  Everyone will naturally have their own stance on which ratings are fair or unfair, or who should or shouldn't be included in DT.  That's why you get to choose your own trust list.

[cryptohunter]

Theymos posted something that could act as guidelines:

- It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them.

I'm torn on that last point.  There are certainly users on this board who I feel deserve their untrusted rating due to the manner in which they make their posts.  It's not appropriate to give someone negative trust if you disagree with a valid point they've made, but if they make repeated deceptive, dishonest or manipulative points, there should be a warning tied to their account in case some impressionable newbies take their words at face value.  There's a big problem in the world right now with misinformation.  Deliberately spreading misinformation can be construed as untrustworthy behaviour.  If someone feels the appropriate response to that would be best presented in the form of negative trust, it should be up to the individual. 

Yes but you are taking what he said the wrong way.

You are saying that the person whom does not agree with you is PROVEN incorrect. In that case only could you consider them to be spreading false information.

The manner or style is a different debate.