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

[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.