The curious case of sticky topics created by authors with negative Trust

[The Sceptical Chymist]

• Bitcoin discussion/Legal: List of court cases, complaints, regulatory actions, etc. is created by Stephen Gornick, which has a negative feedback from The Sceptical Chymist for account selling, encouraging of scams, spam, and account farming.
• Bitcoin discussion\Legal: this board has another sticky topic created by Stephen Gornick

Oh man, I handed out that negative when I was on a rampage back in 2016 and anyone even placing a bet (when forum accounts were being auctioned publicly) would get one from me. 

To the point of this thread, I don't think it matters who the author is of a stickied thread as long as whatever point is being made is valid, which should be the case since the assumption is that pegging a thread to the front page of a section is an endorsement of its importance and accuracy by Theymos and/or the mods.

Stephen Gornick never asked me to remove that feedback as far as I know.  I probably should, since it was so long ago but I have mixed feelings about it.  Judging from his other feedback he looks to be a chronic seller of accounts of various types.  Or at least was when he was last active here.[/list]

[PX-Z]

Permanent solution could be an admin/mods made account ^{(or just them)} that is only for this kind of topics ^{(pinned topic)}. This thread can be edited by mods as well so it will be easy to edit it when it becomes outdated just need a reminder.

Creating special account just for pinned posts is kinda over complicating the issue and it would be more elegant if they just did it by themselves on their own main accounts. After all, how often mods get tagged for scams?

The creation of special account is to avoid of having negative feedback since it will only be used for such purpose since the main issue here is the account/s of having negative trusts/tag because mods even admins can be tagged, like who knows they are inevitable from that.

[Rikafip]

The creation of special account is to avoid of having negative feedback since it will only be used for such purpose since the main issue here is the account/s of having negative trusts/tag because mods even admins can be tagged, like who knows they are not inevitable from that.

Let's say one of the forum staff creates an account for that specific purpose and at some point in time he gets tagged for something (on his main account). Since this new account is connected with his main one, it will automatically get tagged as well. Therefore, creating new account just for that makes no sense to me and its unnecessary complication.
In the end, you can't 100% prevent an account getting negative feedback due way trust system works.

[Findingnemo]

I get your point which you are talking how can a scammers's thread can serve as a guide to the newcomers but what if we think in different POV, no body knows how to scam someone better than a scammer then its rational to read their guides about how to avoid scams and what to do when someone got scammed,etc.

Apart from scam accusation threads DT score is irrelevant to the knowledge so we don't have to remove those pinned threads unless the data becomes obsolete.

[GazetaBitcoin]

May be I messed up my memory but as far as I remember the plagiarism thing happened a long time ago and after discovering it we also passed long years. When Lauda asked for banning herself, at that time there were nothing existed, she was doing well and the good bye thread came just suddenly. Again I may messed up my memory, after all I am ageing 🤣

Iirc plagiarized posts were made in 2015 and they were discovered in 2020 so yeah I think you are right. And then few months after the discovery, Lauda decided to leave the forum . Since he didn't get any sort of ban in the meantime I am not so sure that was the main reason for leaving. Unless he felt kinda embarrassed with all that mess since he was very strict when other plagiarized and decided to leave.

I believe this may explain why Lauda was not banned (again) in 2020:

You may not be aware of this, but I was banned several times for the infractions made during my earlier time on the forum.

At the same time, when Lauda plagiarized, there was no rule against plagiarism. Yes, believe it or not, there was no such rule:

Added new rule with an explanation (as per hilariousandco's suggestion):

33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e]

<...>

33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own.

The absence of any anti-plagiarism rule from the list in the time period up to 10 May 2015 is confirmed by the earliest available archive.org snapshot, which, by coincidence, was made several hours after the latest post in question.

Therefore this may be another reason for the absence of the ban: there was no such punishment in 2015, when Lauda plagiarized; the anti-plagiarism rule was implemented in 2016.

Stephen Gornick never asked me to remove that feedback as far as I know.  I probably should, since it was so long ago but I have mixed feelings about it.  Judging from his other feedback he looks to be a chronic seller of accounts of various types.  Or at least was when he was last active here.[/list]

Well, at least, we still have something good from this topic, as you remembered about this user and you decided to remove that negative feedback

[OgNasty]

With the state of the trust system currently, I wouldn't worry too much about this.  Hell, I've been trusted with millions of dollars in trades on this site now (hundreds of millions worth of BTC at today's valuation), and I have negative trust from users that some of you think are honest in spite of never having lost a single satoshi of anyone's, ever...  So I have a hard time thinking about users who may not have my extensive list of trusted feedback being blacklisted by dishonest members who got themselves into DT, usually through things other than real world Bitcoin activity.  When DT became more about politics than safety for end users, it stopped being useful for this sort of blacklisting.

[joker_josue]

The creation of special account is to avoid of having negative feedback since it will only be used for such purpose since the main issue here is the account/s of having negative trusts/tag because mods even admins can be tagged, like who knows they are not inevitable from that.

Let's say one of the forum staff creates an account for that specific purpose and at some point in time he gets tagged for something (on his main account). Since this new account is connected with his main one, it will automatically get tagged as well. Therefore, creating new account just for that makes no sense to me and its unnecessary complication.
In the end, you can't 100% prevent an account getting negative feedback due way trust system works.

But I also don't think that's very fair to other respectable members.
I say this because some of us can create a very well-developed topic about an important subject for the whole community, and the moderators conclude that it should be a sticky topic.
If only that special account creates these topics, other good topics created by other users will no longer be marked and forgotten.