Negative trust for bad posting.

[Jet Cash]

Maybe I'm too much of a purist.

I think that the merit system should be used solely to encourage good posting and beneficial forum behaviour. However, many merit awarders just think of it a a ranking tool, and their decisions seem to be based on whether they want to help a member to improve his ranking.

The trust system has now become a reputation monitoring tool. For example, if a new member buys an account because he want to trade in Bitcoin, then he will probably get a red tag, and this is despite the fact that he has not breached any of the forum rules. He may be as pure as driven snow, and not intending to defraud anybody. However his purchase of an account has turned his reputation into yellow snow.

[Sharon121212]

< >

I would not say you are too much of a purist but you the type that want things done the right way.
But this is a forum and just like most forum it's bounded by rules and regulations and once a user is within the jurisdiction of the laws of the forum irrespective of if the user committed an act which from a moral, intellectual or other wise perspective is wrong so long as its not against the forum rules then it can't be called an offense.
But the fact is once one engages in activities that are not right like buying of account but are not against the forum rules there is a high chance of the user going against other forum rules.

[jackg]

It could be accidental how long was it there for? I've seen users hit post to quickly after quoting and not writing anything and the coming back to edit it when they realise.

Repeat offenses could require a neutral tag though if it persists or maybe a negative if it continues beyond then...

[suchmoon]

The trust system was never about forum rules as the forum explicitly refuses to moderate scams or trust feedback.

Merits - post quality
Staff - rule enforcement
Trust system - trust and reputation

If we can avoid overlap with our usage of these systems I think we'll be fine. Let's not send positive trust for good posts or negative trust for spam. Let's not report shitty posts (unless they break forum rules) or scams to the moderators. Let's send merits based on the contents of the post and not the user's reputation etc.

[marlboroza]

Leave them neutral feedback, report them to moderator and please read this post and join discussion.

I have neg-trusted some egregious spammers that e.g. distribute malware. This is against the rules and mods will likely nuke them but in the few minutes or hours until that's done it's worth putting the red tag on.

They should be always tagged, I remember one case where moderators didn't ban accounts even evidence was provided in many ways https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg28915532#msg28915532.
But yes, in 99% cases users will be banned and this is to warn others before moderators do their job.

[cabalism13]

Leave them neutral feedback, report them to moderator...

He just did, or I might say he didn't actually?
I also noticed that post after mine, and reported it immediately, but it seems it hasnt been deleted yet. And then it follows the post of JC where he tagged the user.

I came to check the tagged for it wasnt appearing on my face, I even check my trust settings and it seems fine. So I think JC didnt tagged that user in the first place, he just said that as a warning I think?
At first I also think that it was some kind of mistake and I patiently wait for the user to edit his post but seem that it is a work of a bot.

[JusticeForYou]

I agree that the big quotes looks very annoying and I also saw a thread explaining how to use ~snip for newbies here. But this is totally a moderators issue and a DT or any normal user here should not be concerned of it and that's not what trust system should be used for.

If we can avoid overlap with our usage of these systems I think we'll be fine. Let's not send positive trust for good posts or negative trust for spam. Let's not report shitty posts (unless they break forum rules) or scams to the moderators. Let's send merits based on the contents of the post and not the user's reputation etc.

I personally think this is a good approach by a DT member and it could help more members work in the same way and try to give some space for new users to join and adapt to this place. By this I don't mean just don't tag newbies some of the are truly a big issue.

[Jet Cash]

I did red tag the poster, and I removed the tag based on the community comments in this thread. I didn't use the comment "trade with extreme caution", as I didn't think the posting behaviour had anything to do with trading.

This business about full quotes of opening posts is really quite extraordinary. We have legendaries and other long term members who do it, and this is despite the fact that many members try to discourage it. Don't they realise that it makes them look ill educated and desperate to provide content, or is it just laziness? I really do just skip over theses posts, and I can't be bothered to hunt for the replies. Is this what the posters want? Maybe they are just embarrassed by the inadequacy of their reply.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

For example, if a new member buys an account because he want to trade in Bitcoin, then he will probably get a red tag, and this is despite the fact that he has not breached any of the forum rules.

There's no reason why anyone would have to buy a bitcointalk account in order to trade bitcoin.  Jet Cash, you've been here long enough to have read all of the explanations as to why account dealing is toxic to the forum and thus why those who engage in buying or selling of accounts get tagged.  If you don't agree with that, don't tag 'em.  Me, I'll still be happy to.  There are exceptions, of course, and I don't think every single account seller is an evil person or even has bad intentions necessarily, but this is one of the issues where the forum rules haven't caught up to community standards--just like scamming, which isn't tolerated either.

Edit:

I think account selling should be banned - it is on most forums.

I agree with this completely, but like I said it's a case of the forum rules not reflecting what's acceptable practice here, which is why DT members have stepped in.  I've got nothing against alt accounts per se as long as you're the one who created them from the start.  The problem with buying an account is that the account's reputation/rank/merit history/etc. doesn't reflect anything the new owner did and that new owner could easily try to deceive someone when asking for a loan, trying to buy bitcoin, selling something, and probably a lot of other things.  If someone got their hands on an account with green trust, it'd be very easy to scam someone. 

Anyway, we're probably on the same side of the issue so I don't feel like writing a huge essay condemning account sales.  I've done that before, and I'm sure you've probably read a few of my rants.  Theymos isn't likely to prohibit account sales anytime soon, so tagging members engaged in that activity is really the only thing that can be done to discourage the practice.

[Jet Cash]

I think account selling should be banned - it is on most forums. Despite the fact that I have four accounts here, I think that members should only have one, or perhaps two if they want one to use with insecure connections. I'd be happy for them to be merged if such a restriction were to be implemented.

A new user wanting to buy Bitcoin may want an account to bypass the signature and image posting restrictions. I sometimes wonder if it would be better to make buyers of accounts declare their purchase, rather than red tagging them. This would act in a similar fashion to the copper membership. It would also give some value to accounts that are used as security for loans. Loans are another thing that should be discouraged, but I can understand that some people may need them as a temporary measure.

[YOSHIE]

I've just given this guy negative trust for bad posting.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2534030

Do you think that negative trust is an extreme penalty?

Even though it's annoying, it's your right or decision, giving negative trust to the member concerned, I think? for that man who is full of spaciousness and humility?
Of course there will be many people who contradict this statement.
even though emotions approach, hate others, can destroy yourself.

There are several reasons why, even though it's annoying, you have to be willing to force yourself to forgive others.

1. No human lives without error.

2. Keeping anger and revenge makes you stressed throughout life.

3. Don't let yourself feel negative feelings and thoughts.

Once you hate and harbor anger to others, that's where you plant the seeds of negative thoughts and feelings for many things. You will still think of bad treatment, anger and guilt.

This user has been archived.
Leandrojavier7

[cabalism13]

There are several reasons why, even though it's annoying, you have to be willing to force yourself to forgive others.

1. No human lives without error.

There is. Its Lauda...
Oops,... Witch are also humans don't you think?

[kd100]

I must say, as a "newbie" i find this discussion very informative 
Thanks for the info shared 

[jackg]

There is. Its Lauda...
Oops,... Witch are also humans don't you think?

Nah they're angry cats .

I'd still suggest a neutral tag even if just to help the mods for reference.

[mikeywith]

I didn't use the comment "trade with extreme caution", as I didn't think the posting behaviour had anything to do with trading.

if you are on DT then even an "empty"negative feedback will give that user "trade with extreme caution" on his profile. that user could be a legit and honest person who honors his deals and your feedback could have been the end of his business journey on this forum.

we can argue about this forever, but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only (a person who is a scammer, likely scammer or  trustworthy).
a person who plans to do business with that user doesn't care if his posts are bad.

as suggested by others, a report to moderators is all about it.

* it's good to see people seek opinions and sometimes accepting  them when it comes to trust system.

[TECSHARE]

This is a perfect example of the noise that is introduced into the trust system that makes it impossible for the people it was designed to protect, to tell who they can trust with funds. I know you are trying to help Jet Cash, but all this ends up doing is drowning out real con artists in the cacophony of negative ratings over nothing giving them cover, while creating endless conflict over what ratings are ok.

[lobcmt2]

Insubstantial or low quality posts are not related to trust.  I get that we're still finding our way with the new DT system, but some of this stuff is fairly self-explanatory:

Breaking forum rules = report to mod

Dishonest conduct = trust

If you want to give them some pointers on their posting habits, a private message would be best.  They're more likely to see it that way.

Agree. They are two different concepts, and should not be misused.
Or, I think that neutral trust with a warning message attached is enough.
Negative trust is a misuse.

[Jet Cash]

but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only

I tend to agree with this, but it seems that the new system is trying to combine reputation with trust.

[S_Therapist]

we can argue about this forever, but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only (a person who is a scammer, likely scammer or  trustworthy).

True but you know bitcointalk forum is bigger than we think and it's not possible to check whether the feedback is for a trade or not. A lot of resources will be needed just to maintain if there are any rules for leaving feedback. It will be like recovering accounts, in fact, it will be more worst than it. That's why I think the current system is okay. No fixed rule but some limitation like one is what JC has mentioned here.

[Findingnemo]

People who were posting pointless posts for too longer may turned their way of style when they really understand why we are in this forum,in the mean while time ruining someone's reputation is not acceptable.That is upto mods to decide what they want to do when people posting pointless posts for too longer don't take their powers JC.