Red Tag is becoming Rampant in the Forum.

[KingsDen]

My perception of Red Tag in the forum has changed vastly compared to when I newly joined this forum late May this year.
I used to avoid anyone with -ve trust, I hardly quote them or reply their quotes and they were somewhat few then.
But recently, you cannot go through a page without seeing atleast 7 users with -ve tag, especially in gambling section.
These users are wearing signatures, doing other things normally in the forum as if the -ve tag doesn't really matter.
If the number of negatively tagged users keep increasing, it will reach to a stage that majority of the users in the forum would be negatively tagged and hence could fault the essence of the trust system.
I think something should be done to remedy this situation;
By a way of checking if some of these users were tagged without genuine reasons.
Or maybe as a result of increase in scam companies advertising their projects.
Whatever way, if not redressed could be damaging to the forum.

[Charles-Tim]

Negative tag should just be a warning, the reason that caused the tag can be checked, some are useless, but many are not, like the 1xbit campaign participants and people involved in malacious post contents that can result to scam. In my opinion, I do not think there is anything bad with it, that was why negative tag was created.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If the number of negatively tagged users keep increasing, it will reach to a stage that majority of the users in the forum would be negatively tagged and hence could fault the essence of the trust system.

I think you're just seeing clusters of shitposters for 1xbit or some other shady campaign or members of an alt ring that got busted; I don't think the level of tagging has increased drastically over the last few months or even years (though I could be wrong, as I have no data on that).

Keep in mind, though, that there are thousands of active accounts on bitcointalk and the chances that the majority of them are going to have some kind of DT tag is fairly slim IMO.  Also keep in mind that there are a lot of scammers and otherwise dishonest people who frequent the forum.  It's been that way for a long time now.

[RapTarX]

I used to avoid anyone with -ve trust, I hardly quote them or reply their quotes and they were somewhat few then.

You should keep them separate; engaging in discussion & trading. Feedback is a sign of how much trusted a user can be while engaging in discussion is somewhat else. I don't mind hearing, replying to people who put quality into their posts regardless of their feedback. I guess you can't deny that Quickseller is a good quality poster but he has a lot of negative feedback; that doesn't mean you should avoid them.

I think you're just seeing clusters of shitposters for 1xbit or some other shady campaign or members of an alt ring that got busted; I don't think the level of tagging has increased drastically over the last few months or even years (though I could be wrong, as I have no data on that).

Most likely but in recent days, negative tagged accounts are also accepted in different signature campaigns depending on the legitimacy of the feedback. Apart from that, the number of active signature campaigns has increased significantly in comparison to the last 2 years I have observed. That can be another reason probably.

[dimonstration]

I think you're just seeing clusters of shitposters for 1xbit or some other shady campaign or members of an alt ring that got busted; I don't think the level of tagging has increased drastically over the last few months or even years (though I could be wrong, as I have no data on that).

Most likely but in recent days, negative tagged accounts are also accepted in different signature campaigns depending on the legitimacy of the feedback. Apart from that, the number of active signature campaigns has increased significantly in comparison to the last 2 years I have observed. That can be another reason probably.

There's only a rare case that negative trust user got accepted on campaign maybe less than 10 base on my trust list depth. The only users I know that got accepted by many campaign was QS and Ognasty despite there negative trust rating is more than 1. I don't question it since they made contribution in the forum in the past and they didn't steal money on any user here.

But on this case, I believe the opinion on the above post is accurate. 1xbit is the main reason why user posting on gambling has -ve feedback since that campaign pay well and even accept the fact that there participants will later on got -ve feedback.

[isaac_clarke22]

When a user has a -ive tag, I mostly read the feedback first before deciding to make a reply or quoting them. If they were tagged as a spammer or account farmer, I don't bother replying to them unless they mentioned something "quite interesting" which I highly doubt that it will happen as I expect that I won't even make an interesting conversation with them.

By a way of checking if some of these users were tagged without genuine reasons.

It would be better to let them address their own tag/s or feedback/s by their own for now. If they really care about their accounts, they wouldn't do something stupid in here or at least reach out to the user/s that left them a feedback either through threads or DMs.

[RapTarX]

There's only a rare case that negative trust user got accepted on campaign maybe less than 10 base on my trust list depth.

I don't know how many negative tagged users have been accepted but I'm sure I have seen users other than OgNasty and Quickseller. I can't remember the name. If you have seen recent signature campaign, you will find out that there's not enough quality participants applying. Last time, I checked blackjack.fun campaign & found they had few open slot but there was not enough quality application. That's what I meant. There are a lot of campaign but lack of quality posters which increased the demand of quality posters; campaign managers are more likely to accept quality poster instead of shit poster. As a result, they would accept negative tagged member depending on the legitimacy of the feedback.

When a user has a -ive tag, I mostly read the feedback first before deciding to make a reply or quoting them. If they were tagged as a spammer or account farmer

People get tagged for spamming? I seriously need to check people’s feedback page LOL. JK, I don't care. I quote if I find it necessary to quote. Feedback is mostly given for having better trading experience. I would prefer using feedback for that purpose.

[isaac_clarke22]

When a user has a -ive tag, I mostly read the feedback first before deciding to make a reply or quoting them. If they were tagged as a spammer or account farmer

People get tagged for spamming? I seriously need to check people’s feedback page LOL. JK, I don't care. I quote if I find it necessary to quote. Feedback is mostly given for having better trading experience. I would prefer using feedback for that purpose.

Well account farming leads to spamming anyway, so when I see an "Account farming" tag I don't bother make any interaction with them.
While the feedback is indeed for trading experience, it is still a good precaution for me whether I should interact with whoever that user is or not through whatever means, after I saw that orange "-1" below their profile.

[Csmiami]

I think something should be done to remedy this situation;

You can create your own personal trust list to see whose feedback you trust // distrust, hence only seeing the relevant feedbacks AND helping in the DT1 election (further decentralizing it). There's a useful thread from Loyce about how the whole of the system works and how you can actively participate (although it's not an official guide).

Other than that, trust, as scams, is not moderated and is "completely" in hands of the community

[LoyceV]

checking if some of these users were tagged without genuine reasons.

Admin isn't going to moderate the Trust system. All we can do is set our own custom Trust list. Yours is still empty. See LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

These users are wearing signatures, doing other things normally in the forum as if the -ve tag doesn't really matter.

Negative feedback has lost it's meaning, unfortunately.
Some DT-members just tag many users (I think Lauda holds the record with about 800 negative tags sent in 1 day). I don't think it helps much: Is tagging for instance Newbie "bounty abusers" (who get paid made-up tokens for spamming said made-up token) doing anyone any good?

I think you're just seeing clusters of shitposters for 1xbit or some other shady campaign or members of an alt ring that got busted; I don't think the level of tagging has increased drastically over the last few months or even years

I noticed that too, since the scam-casino says to pay them even with negative tags, they show up in many topics just to get paid.

I guess you can't deny that Quickseller is a good quality poster but he has a lot of negative feedback; that doesn't mean you should avoid them.

My gut feeling tells me he wouldn't scam me either if I'd make a trade with him, unlike most users with negative feedback.

[UserU]

When a user has a -ive tag, I mostly read the feedback first before deciding to make a reply or quoting them. If they were tagged as a spammer or account farmer, I don't bother replying to them unless they mentioned something "quite interesting" which I highly doubt that it will happen as I expect that I won't even make an interesting conversation with them.

Lately for the ones with at least -2, I'd guess that they've joined 1xBit and most of my assumptions would be proven true

[BITCOIN4X]

But recently, you cannot go through a page without seeing atleast 7 users with -ve tag, especially in gambling section.
These users are wearing signatures, doing other things normally in the forum as if the -ve tag doesn't really matter.
If the number of negatively tagged users keep increasing, it will reach to a stage that majority of the users in the forum would be negatively tagged and hence could fault the essence of the trust system.

Note that most of them are 1xbit troop that have been tagged by DT but they can't be stopped because the campaign pays for it or it's an account managed by their own site. If you are worried about them then I can only suggest you ignore them instead of having to reply to their post. If none of the campaigns and bounty received users with negative tags then 90% of them I'm sure would sleep.

[KingsDen]

In my opinion, I do not think there is anything bad with it, that was why negative tag was created.

Please re-visit this your comment. Did you say there is nothing wrong with negative feedbacks or did I understand wrongly?

checking if some of these users were tagged without genuine reasons.

Admin isn't going to moderate the Trust system. All we can do is set our own custom Trust list. Yours is still empty. See LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

Someone has sent me that link before but I was being lazy not to go true it, but this time I'll peruse. Thanks for the data, it revealed that @Lovesmayfamilis doesn't trust my judgement  How did this happen?
Have I made any judgement in this forum before??  Or one has to follow his/her instinct.
 

I don't think the level of tagging has increased drastically over the last few months or even years (though I could be wrong, as I have no data on that).

I think from May till date tagging has increased drastically, I don't know if it's because of my campaign that made me start posting in gambling section that made it appear it has increased.
I think a reliable data can help if available.

[logfiles]

My perception of Red Tag in the forum has changed vastly compared to when I newly joined this forum late May this year.

Do you have any data to back this up?

Since you are a little new in the forum. You would surely know that the current situation is more than OK if you looked back during the times of members like Lauda.

But recently, you cannot go through a page without seeing atleast 7 users with -ve tag, especially in gambling section.
These users are wearing signatures, doing other things normally in the forum as if the -ve tag doesn't really matter.

Obviously those are accounts of scammers and untrusted members that just woke up to promote 1xbit scam that accepts negative tagged accounts. As soon as the campaign ends. They will all go back to slumber.

I don't see anything wrong with the current status or in the extremes

[Charles-Tim]

Please re-visit this your comment. Did you say there is nothing wrong with negative feedbacks or did I understand wrongly?

Maybe you don't get me right, irrespective of those that get negative feedback, if they are worth it, there is nothing bad about that, but that does not change the fact that some people that do not worth it are also tagged in very cases. Not that we are not familiar with this forum, if you want to make a deal with someone, at least you will check what caused the negative trust, it might be a reason you will not welcome the negative trust and go on with a deal with the person.

Or maybe you do not know trust system is not moderated, admin are neutral about it. Just leave it be of what can not be changed unless you can change people's mind.

In fact, to be more specific, 1xbit campaign participants accounts are the most tagged, so if the betting site is not trusted by many users on this forum, shouldn't the account participants on 1xbit be tagged?

[lovesmayfamilis]

Someone has sent me that link before but I was being lazy not to go true it, but this time I'll peruse. Thanks for the data, it revealed that @Lovesmayfamilis doesn't trust my judgement  How did this happen?
Have I made any judgement in this forum before??  Or one has to follow his/her instinct.

I have a counter-question. Have you done anything to be trusted?
The trust list is made up of individual findings. This is a better solution than scattering negative reviews here and there. Therefore, you can also get acquainted with other people's trust lists and make your own, based on your preferences for trusting people present on this forum.

[TheUltraElite]

I used to avoid anyone with -ve trust, I hardly quote them or reply their quotes and they were somewhat few then.
But recently, you cannot go through a page without seeing atleast 7 users with -ve tag, especially in gambling section.

A certain gambling site that has been considered as scam and also has been recruiting signature campaign participants to promote their site are the ones being referred to here.

Remember that quoting someone or replying to someone with a red tag is not a bad thing. Discussion can happen between anyone and a scammer is allowed to rebutt their claims, otherwise this would become a kangaroo court.

These users are wearing signatures, doing other things normally in the forum as if the -ve tag doesn't really matter.

A negative tag does not equal to ban. Therefore they are allowed to post.

If the number of negatively tagged users keep increasing, it will reach to a stage that majority of the users in the forum would be negatively tagged and hence could fault the essence of the trust system.

A number of users being tagged because the community considers them as outlaws but still allows them to remain free to post, is only a demonstration of free speech allowed in the forum and a show of the essence of the trust system. I have been in the forum longer and I think the system is working as intended.

By a way of checking if some of these users were tagged without genuine reasons.
Or maybe as a result of increase in scam companies advertising their projects.

DT does not tag without reason or claims that are very likely to brand the user as scammer. Use your common sense here, if you never do anything wrong or cheat by some trick, you will never be tagged by any DT. Flags and tags are going to be reassessed with time by the users who gave them, but a genuine scammer deserves their tag.

Whatever way, if not redressed could be damaging to the forum.

Nope.

[Pmalek]

When a user has a -ive tag, I mostly read the feedback first before deciding to make a reply or quoting them.

I can't say that I don't do that as well, but for other reasons. But when it comes to engaging them in a discussion or answering questions such users might have, I don't really pay that much attention to their trust score. Positive or negative, they can still have a valid point and know what they are talking about. Someone brought up Quickseller, and that's a good example. You can talk with the guy, but it doesn't mean you need to trade with him or do any business together if you don't trust him.

I noticed that too, since the scam-casino says to pay them even with negative tags, they show up in many topics just to get paid.

One of the exceptions of their campaign is that they don't accept users who are negatively tagged, but they do accept those who got tagged just for wearing their signature.

[Magicalking]

If members stay away from the likes of 1xbit signature campaign they will not have a negative tag on their account. Its all money motivated. I think many of the 1xbit particpants are alts of members who can't afford thier main account to have a red tag(conspiracy theories). Signature campaigns are hard to come by so many will just accept anything that's available.

[Findingnemo]

There is no rule exist that a red tagged member should make posts and posting is accepted by anyone as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules. Trust system is mainly acts as a warning for the people who are going to trade with forum members so don't get confused.

If you find anyone posting useless content no matter either they are highly trusted or distrusted by DT members don't hesitate to report their post with actual reason why it shouldn't be there.