Suggestion: nuke Sent feedback from Nuked users

[LoyceV]

~ I can see there being unintended negative consequences as a result of nuking trust ratings from banned users. I would support this being done say before they become a senior member or something such as that

This topic isn't about all banned (Autobanned) users, only Newbies can be nuked (meaning all their posts are deleted when they get banned). Anyone from Jr. Member and up can't be nuked, unless a Mod manually removes enough of their posts to derank them back to Newbie.

Is there a reason why trust comments cannot be edited, only deleted?

Without an edit history, it would be unclear what you wrote at which date.

[sandy-is-fine]

~ I can see there being unintended negative consequences as a result of nuking trust ratings from banned users. I would support this being done say before they become a senior member or something such as that

This topic isn't about all banned (Autobanned) users, only Newbies can be nuked (meaning all their posts are deleted when they get banned). Anyone from Jr. Member and up can't be nuked, unless a Mod manually removes enough of their posts to derank them back to Newbie.

Is there a reason why trust comments cannot be edited, only deleted?

Without an edit history, it would be unclear what you wrote at which date.

There isn't if you just delete a trust comment and re-enter it corrected/edited either which you can do, so why not just allow an edit?  Either way there is no "paper trail."

[TECSHARE]

~ I can see there being unintended negative consequences as a result of nuking trust ratings from banned users. I would support this being done say before they become a senior member or something such as that

This topic isn't about all banned (Autobanned) users, only Newbies can be nuked (meaning all their posts are deleted when they get banned). Anyone from Jr. Member and up can't be nuked, unless a Mod manually removes enough of their posts to derank them back to Newbie.

Is there a reason why trust comments cannot be edited, only deleted?

Without an edit history, it would be unclear what you wrote at which date.

There isn't if you just delete a trust comment and re-enter it corrected/edited either which you can do, so why not just allow an edit?  Either way there is no "paper trail."

I have personally experienced issues with this where users had left me a negative rating, then after making a topic and leaving my own negative rating for them they deleted it and reposed it to muddy the waters and make it look as if I was the first to do so over nothing. If people had not previously seen it there was no other way to verify short of staff checking logs and they aren't going to do so for that kind of petty nonsense.

[LoyceV]

There isn't if you just delete a trust comment and re-enter it corrected/edited either which you can do, so why not just allow an edit?  Either way there is no "paper trail."

At least the new date shows when the new feedback was posted. I agree it's not ideal, but I didn't make it

I have personally experienced issues with this where users had left me a negative rating, then after making a topic and leaving my own negative rating for them they deleted it and reposed it to muddy the waters and make it look as if I was the first to do so over nothing. If people had not previously seen it there was no other way to verify short of staff checking logs and they aren't going to do so for that kind of petty nonsense.

I've been thinking of creating an Archive website for Bitcointalk that archives profiles and Trust, but don't have the skills
Update: see [project] LoyceV's Profile and Trust Archive site

[Timelord2067]

Excellent idea!  I have received my fair-share of these Trust Wall posts...

Is there any way to turn this thread into a Poll to survey users opinions?

[TMAN]

You know I'd like that!    Or for all I care it can be left alone but just edited down to 1 or 2 lines!    Makes for sloppy red trust.  I like neat red trust so everyone can see it then be able to more easily see and click on who left it.   

Your untrusted is hilarious, obviously I’ve never seen it till now but it just made me giggle

[LoyceV]

Bump 6 years! This post reminded me of this topic:

My first red-tag!

User redtrusts was Nuked, but his red feedback spam still exists. Wouldn't it be better to wipe every trace of a user when they're Nuked?

[(BTC)]

~

Sick suggestion.
Thx for lookin' out.

[OcTradism]

Bump 6 years! This post reminded me of this topic:

My first red-tag!

User redtrusts was Nuked, but his red feedback spam still exists. Wouldn't it be better to wipe every trace of a user when they're Nuked?

I really agree. It's different with banned users.

The nuked users received stricter moderators, all posts deleted, no trace left because they deserved that, so if only trust feedbacks they have ever left on other forum users stay, it's ridiculous and it simple doesn't make any sense.

Nuked users must become completely clean after their nukes including trust feedbacks.

theymos and Cyrus, please consider it.

[Welsh]

I also agree if that's worth anything .


Banned users feedback stays. Nuked users automatically removed.

[NotATether]

Bump 6 years! This post reminded me of this topic:

My first red-tag!

User redtrusts was Nuked, but his red feedback spam still exists. Wouldn't it be better to wipe every trace of a user when they're Nuked?

It should be a minimum of 10 merit earned to use the Trust system, in addition.

This is just my opinion.

It will filter our all the brand new accounts created to spam.

[LoyceV]

It should be a minimum of 10 merit earned to use the Trust system, in addition.

Inexperienced Newbies can easily get scammed before they earn Merit, so I don't think this is a good idea. And I've seen many scam accusations created from Newbies who got scammed outside Bitcointalk, but create an account to report it here.

[Cricktor]

Banned users feedback stays. Nuked users automatically removed.

For what it's worth, I very much agree with this, both for banned and nuked users.

IIRC, commonly nuked user's content (their posts and topics, not sure about their PMs) are removed and it seems quite logical to me to extend this also to their trust feedback (even when trust feedback isn't moderated).

It's not likely that someone and/or the admins would want to code this: a luxury version wouild be to mark nuked user's trust feedback (greyed out or in noticeably paler color) for some retention time after the user got nuked before the feedback gets erased after rentention expires.

[logfiles]

Bump 6 years! This post reminded me of this topic:

My first red-tag!

User redtrusts was Nuked, but his red feedback spam still exists. Wouldn't it be better to wipe every trace of a user when they're Nuked?

Good suggestion and I hope considers it. By the time an account is nuked, it means it was completely a nuisance to the forum and so was the feedback sent from it.

It should be a minimum of 10 merit earned to use the Trust system, in addition.

This is just my opinion.

It will filter our all the brand new accounts created to spam.

Brand-new accounts spamming the trust feedback isn't common though so I don't think we would have to go that far with restricting newbies. A majority of accounts opening up accusations are newbies and some are genuine.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

Good suggestion and I hope considers it. By the time an account is nuked, it means it was completely a nuisance to the forum and so was the feedback sent from it.

Brand-new accounts spamming the trust feedback isn't common though so I don't think we would have to go that far with restricting newbies. A majority of accounts opening up accusations are newbies and some are genuine.

It's easy for users to distrust these accounts and disable visibility of non sense trust feedback from newbies or nuked-accounts but such feedbacks are actually similar to "shits" on walls of the others. Even they're non sense and not valid to destroy any accounts but it's similar to what happen in real life. We never want anyone throwing shits to our house.

When and after accounts were nuked, everything about them must be trashed including trust feedbacks. It's different with scammers or trollers because there are valid and convincing reasons for nuking accounts, hence it's unlikely any second chance to lift the nuke like second chances given to permanent banned accounts with reasons of plagiarism or using AIs without credits/ source links.