2 sensible suggestions that MAY solve most of the problems with the trust system

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's debate these alterations and discuss if they would result in a net positive move. Or if you believe you can demonstrate these ideas would be NET negative when weighing all positives and negatives. Then simply post your civil reply and describe in detail your reasoning.

When implementing control systems it is important to consider not only how well they can reduce the negative behaviors we need reduced, but also what impact on the most important and desirable aspects of a community will they have.  Freedom to freely express your well reasoned views and creating a pleasant and cohesive environment are certainly even MORE important in this type of community even than protecting people against scams.


1. REMOVE the trust score for FEEDBACK - just have it as feedback for the old system. No positive, no negative. Just called feedback. People can still read through it all but there will be no "scores" and DT members will have no greater influence or weight than any other member but make a reference MANDATORY.

The reason being that the old system was undeniably BROKEN and abused. Hence the reason for the new objective flagging system.

Although the old system is clearly no longer useful due to people just using it for their own personal ends, and anything dealing with a REAL FINANCIALLY DANGEROUS persons that you have even a tiny bit of real evidence against.. is now covered by the flagging system ??

The negatives of  leaving it there hamstringing the flagging system are holding this back.

a/ it is still used as a personal weapon with no need to have ANY KIND of hard evidence or real reason to apply red trust with regard to being a clear financial danger.
b/ it crushes free speech (related to later points)
c/ Campaign managers still use it as a tool to remove accountability for their own decisions, and to ensure those dishing out red trust are the only ones that are guaranteed the highest paying sig spots. To punish those that have red tags.
d/ peoples opportunities here are still damaged by this regardless of whether they have done anything wrong at all.
e/ the subjectivity is what causes all the wars, if there was clear undeniable evidence of directly financially dangerous behaviors there would be far less bickering. The vast majority will accept yes we have been busted if there is clear undeniable evidence and leave. That is what the flags are supposed to do.

Further more it is totally illogical boarding on crazy to grandfather in the very trust abuse that was the original driver to develop a new LESS EASILY ABUSED flagging system. I mean the only people that are left with big signs on their account are those that had more NEGATIVES than positives in the old abused system??  that seems completely mad.  It is like saying to people. Yes we see that you are being trust abused. We will develop a system where the abuse is mitigated somewhat. But your abuse will remain grandfathered in forever??

Getting red trust now is clearly saying

We can not demonstrate you have done anything financially damaging to others  (else you would get a flag) but your punishment (no sig campaigns, trading damaged) will remain. Further more now that we have the flagging system we will say that you can give red trust for nearly ANYTHING you like but the punishment will remain the same in terms of sigs and trading etc.

Feedback must just be feedback. No scores no higher weighting for DT but there must be a valid reference. People who feel there COULD be some information that will protect them over what the flagging system can provide can spend time reading the low value nonsense contained in the OLD feedback system.


2. The LEMONS FLAG. The lemons FLAG needs to be tightened up. Sure it can be for NOT-YET-COMMITTED crimes and thought crimes. However there should be a requirement that there is some clear FINANCIAL danger posed directly by the observable actions of the person you are flagging. DIRECT AND OBSERVABLE SIGNS that clearly are reasonably the actions of someone setting up/preparing a scam.

I feel with just those 2 small improvements you will.

Reduce or completely mitigate

a/ it is still used as a personal weapon with no need to have ANY KIND of hard evidence or real reason to apply red trust.
b/ it crushes free speech (related to later points)
c/ Campaign managers still use it as a tool to remove accountability for their own decisions, and to ensure those dishing out red trust are the only ones that are guaranteed the highest paying sig spots.
d/ peoples opportunities here are still damaged by this regardless of whether they have done anything wrong at all.

But the most important points would be that people will not be afraid to say what they like without considering if someone will randomly decide to take away their sig, trading etc.

Easy to spot those that do not provide a reference.

Reduce the fighting and bickering over subjective, low value, and misleading feedback.

The new flagging system was a good idea but it was hamstrung badly by leaving the old trust system there. I mean making the little numbers next to your name slightly less damning if they were based on bogus trust abuse in the old system sounded attractive. However it is clear the old system (that should have been deleted or at least the scoring removed) is still the biggest threat to free speech. In fact it has got worse for free speech than before.

The reason being. We have reduced the requirement from it to be ONLY for directly financially dangerous matters (so now you can be given red trust for almost anything) but the damage of getting it is JUST THE SAME considering most are most terrified of their sigs being removed and the campaign managers still use this weapon.

The very most stupid and very most greedy are ALWAYS going to be victims of ... well themselves.  There is no reason to use them as an argument to provide tools that crush free speech and cause most of the wars over the abuse of subjective and unrealistic mental gymnastics to connect ANY action to a possible financial risk. It is that area specifically that is abused most frequently.

So if you don't understand...

If someone has clearly scammed - there will be little to argue about the observable instances of scamming will be there.  FLAG

If someone is clearly demonstrating they are showing classic signs of setting up a scam. Those will be there and be directly linked to a financial danger. Lemons flag. This flag could be given a bit more visibility than it is now if it was tightened up to be a more reliable indicator for financial danger.

If someone just says something you do not like, or shares an opinion you don't agree with,  but you are unable to demonstrate that is posing a direct financial danger without a lot of mental gymnastics then this is FEEDBACK with no score. People can read this and do their homework before sending their btc to people on the internets. This will most all consist of whining and bickering over small personal battles completely removed from anything that adds any protection or value over the flagging system. However it could be worth reading and researching all the reference links if you see something you directly think is related to a persons inclination to scam you.

[Rengga Jati]

Let's debate these alterations and discuss if they would result in a net positive move.

Why we must debate this? If this is a suggestion for forum improvement, you can send this to theymos via PM, right? Then, let him read and consider it. I think it is much easy and efficient than debating something like this. 

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's debate these alterations and discuss if they would result in a net positive move.

Why we must debate this? If this is a suggestion for forum improvement, you can send this to theymos via PM, right? Then, let him read and consider it. I think it is much easy and efficient than debating something like this. 

You MUST not. You can do what you like except ask stupid questions in my threads.

The reason for debate should be clear to anyone that joins a forum. You debate, you thrash out and improve the weak points. You then reach the optimal solution and that can then be brought to the attention of theymos via PM if there is merit to the ideas.

You are suggesting that theymos should have to evaluate every idea here before it is first optimized by running it past the brains of all the other members. Of course this is meta board so that gauntlet isn't going to optimize it as much as on one of the other boards. However this is the correct board for changes that have system wide applications here.

Now either read the suggestions and evaluate or get back to the real forum and stop lurking in meta for merit scraps.

[HCP]

The reason for debate should be clear to anyone that joins a forum. You debate, you thrash out and improve the weak points. You then reach the optimal solution...

And what happens if the vast majority of the community decides that the "optimal solution" for a given problem is not what you want?

Would you accept that "the community has spoken" and accept the solution? Would you leave the forum and find a community of like minded individuals who agree with your idea of what the "optimal solution" was? or would you just open countless threads demanding that it be changed to what you still believed was the "optimal solution"?

[The-One-Above-All]

The reason for debate should be clear to anyone that joins a forum. You debate, you thrash out and improve the weak points. You then reach the optimal solution...

And what happens if the vast majority of the community decides that the "optimal solution" for a given problem is not what you want?

Would you accept that "the community has spoken" and accept the solution? Would you leave the forum and find a community of like minded individuals who agree with your idea of what the "optimal solution" was? or would you just open countless threads demanding that it be changed to what you still believed was the "optimal solution"?

Just because you want something to be optimal does not make it optimal. What is optimal is optimal. There would be MORE positives than negatives. Optimal does not mean PERFECT it just means it is as good as it can be given the restrictions that can not at that time be altered.

You don't decide or just give an opinion on what is optimal and that is that. Regardless of Majority or minority. You must use reason to present arguments/ideas that are then analysed and tested. That is what debate is for. It is kind of like a stress tess with different minds presenting different tests until all weaknesses and strengths are identified then compared and measured against each other.

I mean it stands to reason if you have someone that is very smart in a room of baboons then just because the baboons claim something to be optimal does not mean that it is optimal. You see you don't need a majority for an idea to be optimal.

So for example. Let's take this thread.

Would it be an improvement to implement these changes or not. You list the positives and negatives and then you analyse them and thrash them out.

We notice nobody has joined the debate because they WANT the current system to be OPTIMAL because it suits them for selfish personal reasons.

Let's take our last 4 red trusts that we have in the last 2 days just to demonstrate how SUB OPTIMAL this system is. We can debunk each one ...actually we can debunk ALL Of the red trust we have ever received of course and NO PERSON CAN DENY THIS. If they want to try we will meet them in open debate and clearly crush their arguments.

But let's just take the last 4 in the last few days. ALL are trust abuse

mindrust   2019-12-04      This guy is on some illegal hard drugs. Crackhead.

this person provides no reference of us say we are on illegal hard drugs. This is just a random groundless abuse of trust. He just appeared apparently some pal of bobs from the WO thread.

TMAN   2019-12-04      TOAA is Censoring OBSERVABLE INSTANCES of proof. THIS IS PURE DOUBLE STANDARDSTHIS IS PURE DOUBLE STANDARDS THIS USER IS A PRIZED CUNTSMOUTH

The truth of this matter is we opened a self moderated thread, the rule in the initial post is - Any post that gives opinions they do not corroborate with observable instances will be deleted.  He simply posted a bunch of garbage with NO observable instances to corroborate his weird statements. We deleted it. Actually in a self moderated thread you can delete what you want. We left posts with far greater opposition that did try to corroborate their statements with observable instances.  He is actually breaking the rules by continually reposting what we have deleted around 15x now.

BobLawblaw   2019-12-02   Reference   Signs of disordered mental processes. Would not recommend engaging with this account, who, in this authors opinion, appears to be an alt account for an even more nefarious user.

This person bob comes to the debate we opened on the definition of blackmailing/extortion (that you have posted on yourself hcp so must be familiar with it) bob just appeared and claimed that the initial post (just observable instances of prior blackmail/extortion claims) was evidence that we had been fucked in the Ass too many times and some other crazyness (this person has confessed to having mental illness)...

Then because we tell him he needs to stop coming to that thread and making strange sick sexual claims and he needs to either debunk the points in the initial post or debate them or fuck off....

He runs to red trust and claims ...claims we are nefarious and mentally ill based on that interaction LOL..

P_Shep   2019-12-05   Reference   Attacking an up-standing member of bitcoin talk community for no discernible reason. Displays clear and observable reasons not to be trusted.
Best ignored.

Next we have one of bobs pals ( a one liner shit poster by the looks of it) comes along and says because we DARE to raise a thread over bobs TRUST ABUSE and detail what that idiot has just done (TOTALLY TRUE)  we are ATTACKING a member of the forum LOL. So bob can come to our thread and tell us we been taking too much ass fucking and we are NEFARIOUS for presenting some observable instances. Then go and red trust our account. If we point out the fact he is doing these things then we are the ATTACKERS...haha

I mean since we had boblawblaw come to our thread and just randomly claim presenting observable instances are clear evidence you been getting fucked in the ass too much and we are nefarious (oh and mentally ill) then he gives us red trust next. Because we dare to complain and present the facts that filthy imbecile has just trust abused us. ALL his pals come and support our flag ( all from that wall observer thread) and some give us red trust.

This CLEAR evidence that the trust system is just used to punish people for personal reasons and nothing to do AT ALL with warning people about SCAMMERS. I mean those giving red trust are supporting PROVEN scammers.

Of course red trust means little to us we don't need a sig or to trade. BUT IMAGINE this was person who did want a sig or to trade??

SO back to discussing the sensible changes that could fix all of this kind of behavior. Or rather it could seperate this kind of childish ABUSE of the trust system (it would not longer be part of the TRUST system really it would just be feedback)  the real trust system would be the flagging system.

It is UNDENIABLE that the old feedback system needs to be either DELETED entirely or its influence over peoples ability to trade or have a sig must be crushed.  This feedback is weaponized to crush free speech and punish people for personal reasons NOTHING TO DO WITH SCAMMING.


So let's start the debate. Nobody wants to because they know the changes would reduce their power to weaponize the trust system for their OWN PERSONAL GAINS.