There you have it, if they haven't broken the rules then they don't deserve to be banned, voting to ban a user is a terrible idea , simply because post quality is pretty subjective, a simple example is the WO thread, many people would think that the majority of the posts there are spam/worthless but people do earn all kind of merit for such posts, which means other people view them as deserving content.
Voting has proven itself to be a drama-maker, the trust system drama went to ATH once Theymos introduced the voting system, let alone voting to ban a user, maybe everyone should come to realize that this forum or any other forum can't be sustain without the variation of content quality, this is not github - it's bitcointalk forum, it must have all different types of users and they are all welcome to post as long as they stay within a reasonable level of shitposting and don't break the rules.
I quote your reply because it's the first one; but I think my point has been misunderstood or maybe I didn't explain in an ordered way. I'm not saying that people should be judge by their post quality; but rather for their actions. I know there are threads I don't understand, with good replies that make no sense to me, but nevertheless, they are useful for other people. Of course content is updated; this is a forum after all, so that's why I think I've not explained myself pretty well.
You can vote with the "Ignore" thingy. It's actually better than a ban - sort of like "shadowban" feature available on other forums. The user can still post and they don't know that their posts are not visible to others. As opposed to getting banned and creating a new account. The only problem is to get more users to use "Ignore".
I'm aware; and have some users there. But me not liking how someone writes/feeling it's complete BS, is not the point of the suggestion
Voting against freedom of speech? I sure hope theymos will never implement that, even for the users I completely disagree with.
That's actually quite the opposite of what I'm proposing. I'm in favour of freedom of speech; but I think that there has to be some limit to it; one of the most current/modern fascist argument is actually freedom of speech. They claim to have the right to spread hate and other stuff; but that's not actually freedom of speech. I recall
some paradox on the topic....
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Your suggestion of users coming together and 'arranging' for another user to be banned is not the way it should go and is pretty controversial. It is like oppressing a different view on things. The 30 of us 'arrange' for you to get banned because we don't like you even if you didn't break any rules.
This would be some kind of "extreme resource"; not just throwing accusations and requesting to ban a user because of a different oppinion. As with everything, a system can be good, but if abused; it can be the worst thing ever created. Since the DT uptade I consider most DT users I've seen active to be quite sensible and fair; and that's why I put a "high" number of said users as "judges". Besides; that's wxactly why it's a suggestion. I had an idea, I thought it could be a good system if used with responsibility; and now I share that thought. Life would be just boring if everyone agreed, so I don't think people would be elegible for a "ban-hearing" just because of a different approach to a topic.
Your proposal is stupid. It only seems a sensible proposal to those as low functioning as yourself. You see the problems is very simple. A "useless" post to a person who is thick-as-shit (such as yourself) is likely a HIGHLY VALUABLE contribution to those that have the ability to understand the relevant and on topic valid and independently verifiable points that posters such as ourselves are capable of making.
First line and you are already insulting to prove your point. Surprinsingly, I happen to agree with the second part of the sentence: what is not useful for me can be to someone else; but that was not the point of my OP.
you hope may shart some merit into your eager face so that you can spam your sig for a slightly higher rate.
I've had to check this one; I have not participated in a Sig Camp since the Waves campaign, which was 2 years ago! I also haven't applied to any other sig camp since said time aprox.
Using DT as some kind of "must be correct" benchmark is not going to wash around here after the flagrant abuse of the trust system for so long, their OWN observable dirty histories in many cases and the fact one by one they are requesting to leave so their behaviors are not under such scrutiny.
I believe that current DT (updated a month and something ago) combined with merit system does actually have a "must be correct benchmark" function. People are trusted for a reason, or at least where I come from, trust is something you earn.
People complaining about retaliatory feedback better make sure they have not used "feedback" as their own kind of retaliation for simply not winning an argument on thread or not appreciating someones opinion that they could not debunk. Or to try and silence whistle blowing.
Please, point me a single trust I've sent as retaliation
The trust system is to warn people about direct financial risk and danger ONLY. If you use it for any other reason then you can not moan about getting retaliatory feedback without demonstrating clear double standards.
Neutral trust can in fact be used for other kind of "alerts"
