Inconsistent flags

[deisik]

Say, we have a dispute involving flags where a few DT1 members are opposed by a few other DT1 members. As I see it, no such dispute could or should be considered settled as long as there is at least one DT1 member either supporting or opposing a flag. In other words, if such a case should be resolved no matter what, it should be handled by theymos himself. What I mean is that he can then remove DT1 members from his trust list whose opinion he considers inappropriate and thus settle the dispute. Otherwise, it should be considered open and unresolved until there is a universal agreement between DT1 members

Please delete the thread if this matter has been discussed before

[1713894138]

1713894138

[1713894138]

1713894138

[1713894138]

1713894138

[1713894138]

1713894138

[AB de Royse777]

Say, we have a dispute involving flags where a few DT1 members are opposed by a few other DT1 members. As I see it, no such dispute could or should be considered settled as long as there is at least one DT1 member either supporting or opposing a flag. In other words, if such a case should be resolved no matter what, it should be handled by theymos himself. What I mean is that he can then remove DT1 members from his trust list whose opinion he considers inappropriate and thus settle the dispute. Otherwise, it should be considered open and unresolved until there is a universal agreement between DT1 members

Please delete the thread if this matter has been discussed before

You are asking theymos to involve with every flag that has been created and monitor all the DTs (it's impossible for one person)? The current DT system and flag system was created to have decentralization in mind so, I doubt something like this will ever happen.

The power is in the community's hand.

Say, we have a dispute involving flags where a few DT1 members are opposed by a few other DT1 members. As I see it, no such dispute could or should be considered settled as long as there is at least one DT1 member either supporting or opposing a flag.

The active and the inactive status of a flag is what considered as settled. If it has more DT support vote then the system is settling it as active and if more opposed vote from DT for the same flag then the system is settling it as inactive.

[deisik]

Say, we have a dispute involving flags where a few DT1 members are opposed by a few other DT1 members. As I see it, no such dispute could or should be considered settled as long as there is at least one DT1 member either supporting or opposing a flag. In other words, if such a case should be resolved no matter what, it should be handled by theymos himself. What I mean is that he can then remove DT1 members from his trust list whose opinion he considers inappropriate and thus settle the dispute. Otherwise, it should be considered open and unresolved until there is a universal agreement between DT1 members

Please delete the thread if this matter has been discussed before

You are asking theymos to involve with every flag that has been created and monitor all the DTs (it's impossible for one person)? The current DT system and flag system was created to have decentralization in mind so, I doubt something like this will ever happen

No, only the cases which unreservedly require immediate resolution

Other than that, it is theymos who decides on blacklisting DT1 members (if I'm not mistaken), so it is definitely centralized around just one person when it comes to important things. But this is exactly what I have in mind and suggest above

Say, we have a dispute involving flags where a few DT1 members are opposed by a few other DT1 members. As I see it, no such dispute could or should be considered settled as long as there is at least one DT1 member either supporting or opposing a flag.

The active and the inactive status of a flag is what considered as settled. If it has more DT support vote then the system is settling it as active and if more opposed vote from DT for the same flag then the system is settling it as inactive

In my view, there is certain inconsistency in DT1 members being in opposition to each other. Not that it is something which should be avoided at all costs, rather their disagreement should render the issue unresolved by default until there is such agreement

[nutildah]

I think I see what you're getting at, but really, the spirit of democracy doesn't require "universal agreement." If I disagree with a flag, but am in the minority, I will not demand that my vote override the vote of a majority. Very rarely will all of us agree on any specific issue.

[AdolfinWolf]

In my view, there is certain inconsistency in DT1 members being in opposition to each other. Not that it is something which should be avoided at all costs, rather their disagreement should render the issue unresolved by default until there is such agreement

I don't understand why though...? Why does everyone needs to be in agreement at all times?

Just.. no?

[deisik]

I think I see what you're getting at, but really, the spirit of democracy doesn't require "universal agreement." If I disagree with a flag, but am in the minority, I will not demand that my vote override the vote of a majority. Very rarely will all of us agree on any specific issue

What about the idea of "supermajority" then? Does it violate the spirit of democracy or is it more "neither here nor there" kind of thing?

In my view, there is certain inconsistency in DT1 members being in opposition to each other. Not that it is something which should be avoided at all costs, rather their disagreement should render the issue unresolved by default until there is such agreement

I don't understand why though...? Why does everyone needs to be in agreement at all times?

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

[AdolfinWolf]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

Why?

It just seems counterproductive as the only thing that'll lead to is self-censorship, DT members being afraid to voice their opinions, and even more ass licking.

[deisik]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

Why?

Imagine a situation when one DT1 member is threatening a regular user (users) with certain negative consequences (which obviously involves raising a trust flag) for doing something or refraining from doing something while another DT1 member is openly opposing these threats. This is an obvious conflict and as I see it, the solution is to blacklist one of these members which is a task for theymos

Or the dispute should be officially left unsettled

[AdolfinWolf]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

Why?

Imagine a situation when one DT1 member is threatening a regular user with certain negative consequences (which obviously involves raising a trust flag) for doing something or refraining for doing something while another DT1 member is openly opposing these threats

This is an obvious conflict and the solution is to blacklist one of these members

Threatening as in blackmailing someone? I'm pretty sure if someone in DT1 were to be found extorting regular forum members, they'd be excluded of DT1 pretty damn quickly.

Or is that not what you're referring to? If it's a subjective matter; one DT1 member finds it immoral what X forum member does, and another DT1 member doesn't, i don't see a problem really? The community will outvote either of parties, therefore settling the "communal opinion" of the matter?

I see blacklisting any party who has a different opinion about certain matters as something that will lead to nothing but a monotonous trust system. - ...

Although that's already largely the case. Whether that's a bad thing, i don't necessarily think so.

[deisik]

Or is that not what you're referring to? If it's a subjective matter; one DT1 member finds it immoral what X forum member does, and another DT1 member doesn't, i don't see a problem really? The community will outvote either of parties, therefore settling the "communal opinion" of the matter?

It is not a "communal opinion" as it is the opinion of DT1 members

So it is moral what the majority of DT1 members decide on the matter, right? But since you, as a regular user, can't know the final outcome of the existing disagreement among the DT1 members (i.e. whose part wins in the end), your best course of action is to basically sit on the fence and wait until the dust settles, correct? But if this is the exact reason for being tagged "immoral" (in your speak) in the first place, isn't there a problem?

I see blacklisting any party who has a different opinion about certain matters as something that will lead to nothing but a monotonous trust system

Having a different opinion is one thing (which I'm totally cool with). Going to enforce this opinion is a completely different one (which I'm not)

[o_e_l_e_o]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

This was already addressed when the flag system was created. A newbie warning flag only needs a simple majority, but a scammer warning flag needs a majority of 3 to become active.

Suggesting that all DT1 member should be in agreement over every situation is to suggest that every situation has a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, which is simply not the case. If things were so easily black and white all the time, then there would not be the need for a trust system at all; theymos could just pass the correct judgement himself in every case. It's the same reason why many criminal cases are decided by a jury and not simply by a judge.

[deisik]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

This was already addressed when the flag system was created. A newbie warning flag only needs a simple majority, but a scammer warning flag needs a majority of 3 to become active

So it is more about supermajority. Okay then

Suggesting that all DT1 member should be in agreement over every situation is to suggest that every situation has a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, which is simply not the case

That's why only such cases should count, i.e. where every DT1 member agrees

Otherwise, it is not "black and white" as you say yourself, and the verdict should be better left undelivered where such conflict arises (until it gets settled via an "upper hand" or through unanimous decision). The major problem is that DT1 members are part of the game (unlike jury), which can cause potential deadlocks like the one described above. Basically, one DT1 member may request you to do one thing while the other quite the opposite, with no in-between ground, and then you are instantly stuck

[xtraelv]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

This was already addressed when the flag system was created. A newbie warning flag only needs a simple majority, but a scammer warning flag needs a majority of 3 to become active

So it is more about supermajority. Okay then

Suggesting that all DT1 member should be in agreement over every situation is to suggest that every situation has a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, which is simply not the case

That's why only such cases should count, i.e. where every DT1 member agrees

Otherwise, it is not "black and white" as you say yourself, and the verdict should be better left undelivered where such conflict arises (until it gets settled via an "upper hand" or through unanimous decision). The major problem is that DT1 members are part of the game (unlike jury), which can cause potential deadlocks like the one described above. Basically, one DT1 member may request you to do one thing while the other quite the opposite, with no in-between ground, and then you are instantly stuck

Getting all the DTs to agree is like herding cats.

There are often strong opposing opinions.

Sometimes it is also subjective as to who is a scammer and when they become a scammer.

A classic example is with ponzi scams where the participants are also the promoters.

Or where normally decent people are shilling a scam ICO or project in a signature campaign.

Or where someone expresses an unethical opinion or suggests something illegal but does not actually do the illegal or unethical act.


 

[deisik]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

This was already addressed when the flag system was created. A newbie warning flag only needs a simple majority, but a scammer warning flag needs a majority of 3 to become active

So it is more about supermajority. Okay then

Suggesting that all DT1 member should be in agreement over every situation is to suggest that every situation has a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, which is simply not the case

That's why only such cases should count, i.e. where every DT1 member agrees

Otherwise, it is not "black and white" as you say yourself, and the verdict should be better left undelivered where such conflict arises (until it gets settled via an "upper hand" or through unanimous decision). The major problem is that DT1 members are part of the game (unlike jury), which can cause potential deadlocks like the one described above. Basically, one DT1 member may request you to do one thing while the other quite the opposite, with no in-between ground, and then you are instantly stuck

Getting all the DTs to agree is like herding cats

But that's not what I suggest

Well, it is assumed that the DT1 members are sort of forum elite ("crème de la crème"), i.e. only the best and most respected members of the forum society can become DT1 members. If this is the case and there is no agreement among them on a certain issue, that pretty much means that the issue in question is far from being "black or white", right? If so, shouldn't it be better left unsettled until there is such agreement or a higher authority steps in (if it is urgent and requires immediate resolution)?

[xtraelv]

Not everyone, just DT1 members should be

This was already addressed when the flag system was created. A newbie warning flag only needs a simple majority, but a scammer warning flag needs a majority of 3 to become active

So it is more about supermajority. Okay then

Suggesting that all DT1 member should be in agreement over every situation is to suggest that every situation has a "right" answer and a "wrong" answer, which is simply not the case

That's why only such cases should count, i.e. where every DT1 member agrees

Otherwise, it is not "black and white" as you say yourself, and the verdict should be better left undelivered where such conflict arises (until it gets settled via an "upper hand" or through unanimous decision). The major problem is that DT1 members are part of the game (unlike jury), which can cause potential deadlocks like the one described above. Basically, one DT1 member may request you to do one thing while the other quite the opposite, with no in-between ground, and then you are instantly stuck

Getting all the DTs to agree is like herding cats

But that's not what I suggest

Well, it is assumed that the DT1 members are sort of forum elite ("crème de la crème"), i.e. only the best and most respected members of the forum society can become DT1 members. If this is the case and there is no agreement among them on a certain issue, that pretty much means that the issue in question is far from being "black or white", right? If so, shouldn't it be better left unsettled until there is such agreement or a higher authority steps in (if it is urgent and requires immediate resolution)?

At the moment the criteria for DT is reasonably low. There are some good people on DT but some of it is quite randomly selected on DT2. The new system still has teething problems and infancy issues.