Implement stabbing.

[gmaxwell]

In person if someone is too over the top obnoxious they might well walk away with a black eye.  Online people can abuse with impunity.  Free from the risk of being punched some people reach hereto unseen levels of obnoxiousness.  In such cases further responding just provides them with more opportunity to misbehave.  The response they need is a good old stab in the face.

Unfortunately, no one has developed the technology to allow you to stab someone in the face over the internet.

Yet.

Has there been any discussion around having a negative merit thing?  Like something that costs 100 merit to deliver 1 stab or something.   Obviously there are tools like the trust system, but the focus of the trust system is on fraud or at least trust worthy behavior.  Someone can be not untrustworthy but still be deserving of a swift kick in the groin. 

[paid2]

Has there been any discussion around having a negative merit thing?  Like something that costs 100 merit to deliver 1 stab or something.   Obviously there are tools like the trust system, but the focus of the trust system is on fraud or at least trust worthy behavior.  Someone can be not untrustworthy but still be deserving of a swift kick in the groin.  

I think most of us use neutral tags for this sort of things, even if it was implemented for other purposes..

[Findingnemo]

Has there been any discussion around having a negative merit thing?  

LoyceV's deMerit source application
Demerit won't be helpful either in this particular scenario apart from giving us a satisfactory feeling or there could be some kind of restrictions can be imposed if someone receive negative merit like can't able to post for next 24 hours.

[dkbit98]

Has there been any discussion around having a negative merit thing?  Like something that costs 100 merit to deliver 1 stab or something.   Obviously there are tools like the trust system, but the focus of the trust system is on fraud or at least trust worthy behavior.  Someone can be not untrustworthy but still be deserving of a swift kick in the groin. 

I honestly don't want to open this can of worms, and I am sure this member won't care any merit deduction, 100, 1000 or 10.000 negative merits.
You can use one nice remedy called ignore button, than just stop reading all his posts and stop responding to him.
Many of us are doing that and it works very good.

[bigmanik]

In person if someone is too over the top obnoxious they might well walk away with a black eye.  Online people can abuse with impunity.  Free from the risk of being punched some people reach hereto unseen levels of obnoxiousness.  In such cases further responding just provides them with more opportunity to misbehave.  The response they need is a good old stab in the face.

Unfortunately, no one has developed the technology to allow you to stab someone in the face over the internet.

Yet.

Has there been any discussion around having a negative merit thing?  Like something that costs 100 merit to deliver 1 stab or something.   Obviously there are tools like the trust system, but the focus of the trust system is on fraud or at least trust worthy behavior.  Someone can be not untrustworthy but still be deserving of a swift kick in the groin. 

Hopefully nobody will be able to invent technology that makes you stab someone through the Internet 😅😅

But that aside I understand your point here
But there are some people on the forum who abuse this trust system that has already been put in place they give neutral tags to fellow members for no particular reason or to some reason best known to them well I personally I'm not.a victim of this but while going through the forum I actually found at that situations like that are comon on the forum
If such people are able to attain the power to demerit
Other users I'm pretty sure they will abuse it too and cause the delayed ranking of other members (then imagine they are able to stab someone through the Internet 😅)

[Stalker22]

I remember we discussed implementing some kind of upvote/downvote system before.  I think themos was hesitant about it - maybe he felt it could be misused.  The intent would be for people to upvote helpful posts and downvote unhelpful ones.  but lets face it, folks would likely end up using the votes to show agreement or disagreement more than anything. and  Before long you would have petty rivalries playing out through strategic upvoting and downvoting.  Online forums often become echo chambers where opposing views get silenced.  A downvoting free-for-all could accelerate that.  Perhaps we could disable downvoting abilities for new users until they build up some credibility?

Im not sure if theres a perfect solution to this problem, If someone is being obnoxious, its often best to simply ignore them. People troll for attention as much as anything.  Depriving them of that attention can be a very effective way to deal with them.

[Alone055]

Me after reading the first post of someone trying to start an unnecessary argument with me:

[DaveF]

Well there are services for that 

https://rentahitman.com

But seriously, for whatever reason unless it's really extreme people seem to tolerate the name calling, the lies, and all the other crap that people continue to post.
And when you do post a negative the complaints start coming in.

So then you wind up ignoring them, which means that there is a good chance that the BS they post does not wind up with a good counter argument.

-Dave

[un_rank]

I think most of us use neutral tags for this sort of things, even if it was implemented for other purposes..

It is poor use of the feature and should be discouraged, but it is so common for people to use neutral tags for just about anything right now.

...but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

The feature that works well in this case is the ignore button.

- Jay -

[Sandra_hakeem]

Has there been any discussion around having a negative merit thing?  Like something that costs 100 merit to deliver 1 stab or something.   Obviously there are tools like the trust system, but the focus of the trust system is on fraud or at least trust worthy behavior.  Someone can be not untrustworthy but still be deserving of a swift kick in the groin.  

Unfortunately, the freedom of speech in here has, as always, been very unconstrained...  So, we'll always have people coming on the Internet to suspect or allege shenanigans like this one... With the level of anonymity in here, how does anyone get intrigued in people's personal business/ decide what a person should and shouldn't do?

I ain't even able to read through the wall of text, but a few lines got me thinking.
 Maxwell, the best way to avoid bickering of any sort is to ignore; they don't have any response hence, no reason to keep the argument and, THAT'S IT!

Well there are services for that 

https://rentahitman.com

I'd poop my panties if this was for me   

[Vod]

In person if someone is too over the top obnoxious they might well walk away with a black eye.  ...  The response they need is a good old stab in the face.

Or you can leave them positive feedback.   :/

The key is consistency.  If two people gaslight, you can't forgive one if you like them.  Otherwise merit sources will become rich taking bribes.  

[nutildah]

As others have already pointed out, I don't think our frank will be the slightest bit deterred by any sort of virtual punishment, whether it be through demeritings or stabbings.

What you should both do instead is have a virtual boxing match using Oculus or one of the other VR headsets. That would be dope  Just be sure to record it so we can all watch it later.

Until then, don't worry gmax, nobody takes him seriously.

[uchegod-21]

Like something that costs 100 merit to deliver 1 stab or something.   

Unfortunately, only merit sources can stab, and they'll only stab non merit sources who will likely not sacrifice 100 merits to counter stab.

Instead of stabbing and counter stabbing and in order to avoid the blood splashing on innocent passersby, we can just use the ignore button.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I don't know how it is on the internet but the problem in real life when you go to try to stab someone is that you can be stabbed yourself first, if not shot, and that there is a thing called police and jail. Feeling like stabbing someone over a forum discussion doesn't seem like a good plan for that reason, better to use the ignore button.

[cryptoaddictchie]

further responding just provides them with more opportunity to misbehave. The response they need is a good old stab in the face.

Wont be allowed in here based on the rule.

8. No threats to inflict bodily harm, death threats.

Unfortunately, no one has developed the technology to allow you to stab someone in the face over the internet.

Yet.

Even there is, still weve got rules. If there is a misunderstanding or worse a serious nut cracking for both. Maybe contact one another and settle it personally.

I didnt read the long hyperlink thread but by the looks of it obviously its a disagreement.

[stwenhao]

I think we should make a soft-fork for that. For example: create a "stabber" account, which will give "merits of shame". Then, non-upgraded browsers will see regular merits flying around, but upgraded ones will see "demerits". And because sending a single merit from "the stabber" will cost 100 merits, people will quickly run out of them, even if they have thousands.

Also, if "stabber" will be a merit source (or rather a "merit sink"), then it can just have N "stabs" per month, so every other sMerit will be quickly burned, if for example that account will receive 1000 merits (500 sMerits), and send only 10 "stabs".

As usual, old browsers should see, that "stabber" is a public account, where everyone can log in, and send a stab. But: upgraded browsers will enforce soft-forked rules, so if the majority of "posting power" will upgrade their browsers, then old browsers can see what they want, but the upgraded ones will ignore the irrelevant traffic.

Also, if having a single "anchor" for "stabber" is not an option, then it is possible to create alt-accounts, like "stwenhao_demerit", send 100 merits there, and deliver a single "stab", by sending a single sMerit from that alt-account. Also, because merits can be traced as "transactions", it is possible to simply not display excessive merits (for example if someone will deliver 50 "stabs" for 100 merits, that should be displayed and tracked as a single "stab", and additional merits and sMerits should be marked as "ignored"; then, browsers following them in the old way, will simply land on a wrong chain).

[gmaxwell]

You can use one nice remedy called ignore button, than just stop reading all his posts and stop responding to him.

Works really good at turning lies into accepted facts.  I've had multiple journalists who printed outright falsehoods that I complained to point to some (usually reddit) thread and say "no one disagreed" --  though on reddit it's extra sweet since logged out users don't see neg rated comments, so in one instance *I'd* actually thoroughly debunked the post and reddit helpfully hid it from the person who needed it most.

In any case, I don't mean to argue that anyone needs to waste their time on idiots.  But ignore isn't a magic fix-all solution either and has in its own way cause a tremendous amount of harm, but sure it saves the poster from wasting their time.  It can be easy to forget though that the most readers of many posts over the long run won't be regulars or thread participants, but randos doing research or people that landed in from a search engine.

It occurs to me that keeping a counter on what percentage of posters in the thread are ignoring a poster could help, but that's getting offtopic.

[Vod]

It occurs to me that keeping a counter on what percentage of posters in the thread are ignoring a poster could help, but that's getting offtopic.

If I may, you are in a (more of a) position to get such ignored information displayed in some way... so BPIP or others can access it and/or rank it.   

[ABCbits]

How about enforcing this rule for once?

3. No trolling.

[arabspaceship123]

He shouldn't confuse other ppl it's like he doesn't care he's made problems. You're trying to protect random ppl from getting wrong info so it's upright concern but you can't stop him in reddit or bitcointalk. You can't use ignore button because you don't want someone's lies turned into facts & you can't reply to his posts because you'll provide more opportunity to misbehave. It isn't easy choice if you stop intercepting him but it's his freedom of speech so he won't stop.

You can use one nice remedy called ignore button, than just stop reading all his posts and stop responding to him.

Works really good at turning lies into accepted facts.  I've had multiple journalists who printed outright falsehoods that I complained to point to some (usually reddit) thread and say "no one disagreed" --  though on reddit it's extra sweet since logged out users don't see neg rated comments, so in one instance *I'd* actually thoroughly debunked the post and reddit helpfully hid it from the person who needed it most.

In any case, I don't mean to argue that anyone needs to waste their time on idiots.  But ignore isn't a magic fix-all solution either and has in its own way cause a tremendous amount of harm, but sure it saves the poster from wasting their time.  It can be easy to forget though that the most readers of many posts over the long run won't be regulars or thread participants, but randos doing research or people that landed in from a search engine.

It occurs to me that keeping a counter on what percentage of posters in the thread are ignoring a poster could help, but that's getting offtopic.