Which rank can we trust really?

[actmyname]

I think, it would be better. i.e. Full Member the highest rank, because this member has a connection to the jurisdiction of our world.

It is very difficult to assume that your opinions in this topic are unbiased. By the way, stop double-posting.

Perhaps if you had concerned yourself with the forum's rules, you would be able to become a Sr. Member.

If somebody won't want to be identified - remains simple Member. If a rank has no connection with the meanings of "Legendary", "Hero", "Senior", then it would be more better to exchange this ranks to Member or Full Member.

I would be fine with doing away with ranks but we do have some connection to 'meaningfulness' with the addition of the merit system.

Someone who has created twice as much valuable content (on average) than a Hero Member could be considered Legendary. They would also require active posting on the forum for at least 110 weeks and at least 775 posts.
The minimum requirement for a Legendary member would be an average of 1.29 merit/post. That's pretty legendary.Now, if ol' thermos does plan on removing ranks, then account selling will also cease. If he could do signatures at the same time (since ranks are associated thereof) then that would be great.

[1714025445]

1714025445

[1714025445]

1714025445

[o_e_l_e_o]

The ranks shouldn't have any relationship with trust, if ranks we shouldn't interpret as any trust level!

Ranks don't have any relationship with trust. Have you read the 20 or so replies to your initial post? No one equates rank with trust. Literally every post is saying that rank means nothing in terms of trust.

-snip-

What connection is there between "Full Member" and any jurisdiction? I have no idea what you are talking about. And you seem to still be proposing that Full Member should only be for users who undertake KYC? Not only would that never happen, but it would kill the forum overnight. The only people willing to undertake KYC just to post are bounty spammers.

[ifinta]

I think, it would be better. i.e. Full Member the highest rank, because this member has a connection to the jurisdiction of our world.

It is very difficult to assume that your opinions in this topic are unbiased. By the way, stop double-posting.
...

"unbiased"? Who is "unbiased" if the meaning of a rank has a connection to a trust level?
Why it is double-posting?
Where I used the word "jurisdiction" before?

Perhaps if you had concerned yourself with the forum's rules, you would be able to become a Sr. Member.

If somebody won't want to be identified - remains simple Member. If a rank has no connection with the meanings of "Legendary", "Hero", "Senior", then it would be more better to exchange this ranks to Member or Full Member.

I would be fine with doing away with ranks but we do have some connection to 'meaningfulness' with the addition of the merit system.

Someone who has created twice as much valuable content (on average) than a Hero Member could be considered Legendary. They would also require active posting on the forum for at least 110 weeks and at least 775 posts.
The minimum requirement for a Legendary member would be an average of 1.29 merit/post. That's pretty legendary.Now, if ol' thermos does plan on removing ranks, then account selling will also cease. If he could do signatures at the same time (since ranks are associated thereof) then that would be great.

Maybe we should delete then "Full Member" also, and we should create a new rank (i.e. for me ...): "Well Known Member" and an another one for members known only through eyewitnesses: "Known Member"...
Or similar phrases...
What is your opinion? It is better, or?

We would be able to decide in a thread & chart about the start and end-state - and then it would be possible to do the changes with many signatures. Or?

[actmyname]

"unbiased"? Who is "unbiased" if the meaning of a rank has a connection to a trust level?

It doesn't.

Why it is double-posting?

You are making consecutive replies to this thread instead of concatenating into one single post.

Maybe we should delete then "Full Member" also, and we should create a new rank (i.e. for me ...): "Well Known Member" and an another one for members known only through eyewitnesses: "Known Member"...
Or similar phrases...
What is your opinion? It is better, or?

Remove ranks except for the first four, then. Brand New, Newbie, Jr. Member, Member.

Then remove all signatures.

[Lafu]

Trust has nothing to do with what Rank you or others have !
Its possible that you can trust a Full Member or trust an Newbie before doing that on an Legendary who has done something  great for the Forum or for you !
Accounts get sold and bought and sometimes Scammer abuse this.
But if he has done something trustworthy for you that means not that he can be trusted for others with money or something else !
Thats where the Feedback comes to the play and if you gets or given an possitive Feedback means also not that the user can be trusted for others.
Its a long way for that.

[ifinta]

First, from the poll:

Staff Ranks (is bitcointalk.org centralised???)

Yes, bitcointalk is centralized.  It's not owned by the members, it has rules and staff to enforce those rules.  This is not a bad thing.  I always get the feeling that bitcoiners think everything should be decentralized, but I don't think decentralization works with everything--in fact, I'm damn sure of it and I've seen examples of this in my career, for instance.  Anyway.
...

I think the centralized STAFF with the centralized MONEY (= merits) means for bitcointalk.org (and for Bitcoin also) a political risk.
A robot can tracks members, which was already identified through an external organisation, and then can be detected, which people getting and giving most "merit"s (I think, it is a tree).
If the people with the biggest influence to the other people (and political, economical ideas behind) was identified, it is very simple to identify the jurisdiction(s), in which they living.

If the jurisdiction(s) was identified, it is possible to reach this jurisdiction and ban politically and economically the members. Or?
Maybe the staff and then important people will be exchanged (I think it was already done), and then bitcointalk.org can be used against the original targets of the founder and the original community.

In many places are bitcointalk.org Announcements a must - i.e. coinmarketcap.com, ICO's, IEO's, ... The staff, the important people here can influence the crypto market - against the original targets, ideas...
In the first block of Bitcoin we can read some orig words of satoshi - and in bitcointalk.org we speaking already mostly about "fintech firms" and "bank connections"

[ifinta]

"unbiased"? Who is "unbiased" if the meaning of a rank has a connection to a trust level?

It doesn't.

It has - through meanings in the English...... (Full, Senior, Hero, Legendary...) Such words has a connection to a trust level.
If rank shouldn't express trust, then we should choice phrases for a rank WITHOUT any connection to TRUST.

"Brand new", "Newbie", "Jr. Member" is also a trust level, but it is a technically trust level - without such ranks we are don't able to act against attacks ((through bots, simple and for us maybe dangerous people, ...))

[actmyname]

You are still making consecutive posts.

It has - through meanings in the English...... (Full, Senior, Hero, Legendary...) Such words has a connection to a trust level.

This is true. This is also why several ignorant new forum members ignorantly trust those of higher ranks.

If rank shouldn't express trust, then we should choice phrases for a rank WITHOUT any connection to TRUST.

Perhaps this is true but the solution needn't be a shift of an entire system to solve a byproduct thereof. Isn't that kind of why we have trust ratings, flags and warnings, people posting on threads, etc?

Moreover, it still won't absolutely solve the problem. There is no such thing as a foolproof forum design to prevent people from getting scammed. There will always be a fool slipperier than even the slyest of scammers, and they will slither into a scam thread and snatch their prize of financial forfeiture.

"Brand new", "Newbie", "Jr. Member" is also a trust level, but it a technically trust level - without such ranks we are don't able to act against attacks ((through bots, simple and for us maybe dangerous people, ...))

Technically. But if we want to anchor semantics into everything and reproach the idea of a ranking system, then nothing should be tracked. Activity, merit, posts.

I do have a proposition for your idea of a trust-free forum: 4chan.

[ifinta]

Then remove all signatures.

The rights of extra signatures should we give to "Donator" or "VIP"... Maybe it means more support for the Staff. Or?
The normal signatures should be remains - at Full Members, "Known Members", "Well Known Members".
"Full Member" should be then remain.

Sorry for "double posting" - I trying to give you my opinions, but I need sometimes for a issue more time as other issues - so I am not wait for opinion of others, I trying to answer every-bodies questions, issues in many posts.
I won't left my opinion to loose - so I post they at the time as I can.

"double posting" for me is i.e. "posting" with SAME content.

You are still making consecutive posts.

"consecutive posts" - this is more better as "double posting". Please read my post about my opinions above. What can I do if I want to document such ideas?

^{There is an button at the top-right of your posts, right next to and}

I do it sometimes. Many thanks. I don't like it, because it don't document the time of the changes correctly...
But - please...

[actmyname]

Then remove all signatures.

The rights of extra signatures should we give to "Donator" or "VIP"... Maybe it means more support for the Staff. Or?
The normal signatures should be remains - at Full Members, "Known Members", "Well Known Members".
"Full Member" should be then remain.

What do you mean "normal signatures"?

I advocate for the removal of signatures altogether, given that * [dD]iscussion boards—save for Technical Discussion—are boards of unending spam.

Sorry for "double posting" - I trying to give you my opinions, but I need sometimes for a issue more time as other issues - so I am not wait for opinion of others, I trying to answer every-bodies questions, issues in many posts.
I won't left my opinion to loose - so I post they at the time as I can.

"double posting" for me is i.e. "posting" with SAME content.

I can understand "not waiting" but the issue is that you respond to one person in a post, then another in a separate post that directly follows.

It's not that big of a rule, but it's better to edit the posts together if you find that your post is the most recent reply on the thread.
If someone has responded to your former half of the post (prior to the edit) then you can shift the latter half to a new post, then.

[ifinta]

You are still making consecutive posts.

"consecutive posts" - this is more better as "double posting". Please read my post about my opinions above. What can I do if I want to document such ideas?

...

It has - through meanings in the English...... (Full, Senior, Hero, Legendary...) Such words has a connection to a trust level.

This is true. This is also why several ignorant new forum members ignorantly trust those of higher ranks.

Many thanks.

I think, it is an issue. New people feels - this forum supports scam. My proposal to remove TRUST then from the rank phrases. Maybe less rank means more scam resistance. It is important, I think.

[actmyname]

You are still making consecutive posts.

"consecutive posts" - this is more better as "double posting". Please read my post about my opinions above. What can I do if I want to document such ideas?

^{There is an button at the top-right of your posts, right next to and}

[ifinta]

Then remove all signatures.

The rights of extra signatures should we give to "Donator" or "VIP"... Maybe it means more support for the Staff. Or?
The normal signatures should be remains - at Full Members, "Known Members", "Well Known Members".
"Full Member" should be then remain.

What do you mean "normal signatures"?

I advocate for the removal of signatures altogether, given that * [dD]iscussion boards—save for Technical Discussion—are boards of unending spam.

"normal signatures" - what I can create at this time - as a "Full Member". More space - should we give to "Donator", "VIP".
Spam - I hate it also.

[dillpicklechips]

Im gonna straight to the point, nowadays we cant trust on just something or someone, actually there so no rank we can actually trust above all even some higher ranks can be untrusted thats why a lot of high rank you will see that theyre have some -1 on their profile that symbolizes the negative trust but on the other hand, higher ranks can be the most trusted person because of their experiences, the conclusion part is that dont abuse the power or the way other see you because your high, you and we should be a good model to the new on the forum that why it called newbie.

[AicecreaME]

Race = Ranks

If we are going to base the level of trust in Ranks, we are going to be RANKist (racist), oh wait, is that even a word?

In real life, you can't even trust your family, even yourself betrays you.

[Bightening]

Obviously, I wouldn’t trust anyone, not even a moderator. Your trust shouldn’t be based on number of merit earned over the months, btt account rank and not even the trust level.
BTT account like every other account on the internet can be hacked.
If for any reason you have to trust someone on btt forum, I’ll suggest you trust someone that you’ve grown on btt to trust. By that I mean, a user who you’ve studied it’s posts and comments over a long time and it’s pattern/standards remain consistent.

Best advise would be to learn the best Risk Management skills.

[OcTradism]

Don't trust on anyone before you DYOR and investigate their characteristic through their history in the forum.
- Rank: people can buy accounts to have high-ranked accounts.
- Merit: people can exchange or buy merits.
- Trust: people can buy trust or feedback (sometimes they will be caught if they exchange trust / feedback back and forth, but sometimes they do get trust legally from loan services).
Fundamentally, all of things are elements that help you to judge one's general trust/ reliablility.

[Findingnemo]

Ranks is irrelevant to trust thing,you can trust newbie or legendary if they have trade history here without any issues for that trust system will help you but also read the untrusted feedback which might tell the entire trade history of the person you trade and also you need to see the recent trade history if someone is higher rank because accounts were hacked and sold so you may not be dealing with the real owner now.

[virasog]

There are many misconceptions about whom to trust or not.
A User with a lot Posts / Merits / Rank can still scam you. A person who is good at writing may not be good when it comes to trust and he may try to gain advantage of the situation.
There is a trust ranking for everyone, that can give you a little insight of the trust able person. In all these situation we still need to trust someone and generally active DT members are trust able.

[AGD]

I would trust no one here, when it comes to my money. That's why I have chosen Bitcoin to be my favourite form of money.
Some people might know where this quote comes from:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.