Should Forum Leaders Be Held to a Higher Standard?

[Kazkaz27]

I challenge members to answer the questions below honestly

I’ve observed deeply concerning behaviors on the forum—not from newcomers, but rather from DT1 members who abuse their privileged status through unchecked misconduct.

I’m going to provide some examples of different types of toxicity.

Pure Examples of How Not to Act:

Insulting: Direct derogatory terms (e.g., “idiot,” “clown,” “moron,” “prick,” “fucktard,” “scumbag,” “bitch,” “asshole”), including profanity like “fuck you.”

Condescending: Belittling tone, mockery, or sarcasm that demeans (e.g., “LMFAO at you,” “waste of time,” “fragile mind,” “clown looking for attention”).

Other problematic behaviors include: engaging in drama or escalating conflicts via public threads; issuing retaliatory or disproportionate negative trust; being emotionally driven with profanity, name-calling, or personal insults; making baseless accusations or mocking intelligence/motives; abusing the trust system for vengeance; dismissing concerns with taunts (e.g., claiming “free rent” in someone’s mind); accusing others of mental health/anger issues without basis; creating threads to publicly shame critics; and harshly bullying newcomers or other members.

Pure Examples of How to Act:

As a DT1 member on Bitcointalk.org, upholding professionalism and fairness is crucial to cultivating a positive community environment. In disputes involving trades or auctions, respond calmly with factual timelines and propose neutral mediators, such as escrows, to resolve issues without escalation. When issuing trust feedback, emphasize verifiable evidence—like transaction proofs—while steering clear of emotional language or personal attacks to safeguard the system’s integrity. Address criticism in reputation threads constructively by thanking the user, clarifying any misunderstandings, and soliciting community input to redirect focus toward solutions. During heated discussions, de-escalate by pivoting to evidence and tagging moderators as necessary, rather than amplifying conflicts. Guide newcomers with helpful resources and encouragement, fostering inclusivity in areas like the collectibles section. Defend against unfounded accusations neutrally by outlining your qualifications and seeking specific evidence to promote transparent dialogue. Award positive trust or merit to commend exemplary behavior, and contribute thoughtfully to forum-wide enhancements through proposals like refined guidelines. Approach provocative posts with empathy, dissecting issues to uncover resolutions, while consistently embodying objectivity, courtesy, and de-escalation to exemplify leadership and bolster collective trust.

I believe our leaders should be held accountable to a higher standard.

Here Is a List of Questions I Have for the Community:
 
1. How can the community address hypocrisy among DT1 members who preach against toxicity but engage in it themselves?

2. Does exhibiting some positive behaviors inherently grant the right to engage in all the negative behaviors I’ve outlined above?

3. What impact does this kind of behavior have on the overall trust and reputation system on the forum?

4. Should there be stricter guidelines for DT1 members regarding professionalism and civility, especially in public threads?
   
5. What respectable examples have you seen of DT1 members using insulting or condescending language in forum disputes?
   
6. Do you believe there’s a double standard where DT1 members face less accountability for toxic behavior compared to regular users?
   
7. How does aggressive tone in threads from DT1 members affect users trying to participate in the Bitcointalk community?
   
8. Have you noticed patterns where DT1 members defend or mimic toxic tactics, and if so, why do you think this happens?
   
9. Has anyone experienced retaliation or negative trust feedback after calling out toxic DT1 conduct?
   
10. What alternatives to aggressive language could DT1 members use to handle disputes more constructively?
   
11. Do you think the influence of DT1 members exhibiting such behavior contributes to a “clique” mentality among users, and how does that affect fair discussions?

12. Should DT1 members act this way? Yes or No

13. Should DT1 members exhibiting such behavior be removed as DT1 if unreformed patterns persist? Yes or No

14. Does favoritism exist here? Yes or No

15. Should Forum Leaders Be Held to a Higher Standard?
Yes or No

16. Should Forum Rules Be Updated? Yes or No


I believe members here are hesitant to answer these questions honestly, as doing so would fundamentally shift how the forum elects or removes its leaders. It would no longer be a mere popularity contest where leaders can act or speak without consequence. Instead, it would hold DT1 members to a higher standard, making them accountable and dismantling the cliques that have proliferated through unchecked misconduct by those who abuse their privileged status. It may even provoke backlash, much like what I’ve experienced—a common response when challenging corruption, standing up to those in power, and advocating for a shift in authority by exposing flaws in the powerful or the system itself.

The failure to address these questions and the deliberate avoidance of doing so serve as evidence of complicity. Members who cannot honestly answer these questions are acting disingenuously or protecting the status quo, which, as I’ve illustrated, encourages unchecked misconduct by those who abuse their privileged status.

Please, let’s encourage open responses to the initial questions in this topic to move the discussion forward.

Answering these questions truthfully would ultimately shed light on key issues and lead to a positive shift in forum dynamics, discussions, and relationships.

I believe that if members are courageous and can stand alone in their beliefs—without regard to the hierarchy, knowing what is right versus what is wrong—these questions would have clear answers.


This topic has been modified to be more generalized and better suited for the Meta board, addressing DT1 behaviors impacting the Bitcoin Forum—including rule suggestions, enforcement feedback, and issues raised in the questions.

[Kazkaz27]

Please Acknowledge!

This topic has been revised for greater generality and better alignment with the Meta board. It now focuses on all DT1 behaviors affecting the Bitcoin Forum—not just one,—including suggestions for rules, feedback on enforcement, and concerns highlighted in related inquiries.

Note: These are two distinct threads.

It’s Time to Call Out the Hypocrites Poisoning Our Forum

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I've always been of the opinion that the freedom of speech this forum affords its members is one of the most important aspects of it--and like it or not, when there's free speech there are going to be things said that might offend some.  But that's a small price to pay when it's a discussion forum we're talking about and not a country under a regressive regime. 

For example, if there's name calling, one can certainly defend themself (and should, if a serious accusation is being made and not just a silly ad hominem grenade).  Don't you think it's better that opinions are shared out in the open even if there's some language used that you don't like?

And OP, those members who are on the DT list aren't 'leaders' of the forum.  Their feedback carries more weight, yes, but that doesn't mean their opinions are listened to more closely than any other member here.  On top of that, members are on and off of the list due to the rotating nature of it.  What DT members should not be doing is abusing the trust system when they've got a beef with someone--and yeah, I've seen that happen more often than I'd like.  However, if someone on DT does that consistently they'll most likely get booted off the list by other DT members (which is how it's supposed to work).

[Smartvirus]

And OP, those members who are on the DT list aren't 'leaders' of the forum.  Their feedback carries more weight, yes, but that doesn't mean their opinions are listened to more closely than any other member here.  On top of that, members are on and off of the list due to the rotating nature of it.  What DT members should not be doing is abusing the trust system when they've got a beef with someone--and yeah, I've seen that happen more often than I'd like.  However, if someone on DT does that consistently they'll most likely get booted off the list by other DT members (which is how it's supposed to work).

That’s where the OP didn’t quite get it. Being a DT isn’t a position conferred on you by the forum administrator, those are the actual leaders on the forum, the staff or those within the moderation systems. DTs can’t really do nothing on their own rather than promote an idea and send out tags that would be visible due to the DT status and this is a function even a newbie can perform but, wouldn’t expect it to be visible because, it doesn’t carry any weight.

In essence, they are allowed to carry the same rights as anyone else and I’ll include the actual leaders on the forum even though, you wouldn’t find a staff being derogatory or offensive without any prompt. For the most part, most staff excludes themselves from a lot of engagements except when required to, clarifications, updates and partake in some fun on the forum.

The forum censored what need be and that is, cases of actual threats to a user or a people and not some users doing their most to portray themselves as clowns to be of much or any concerns.

[Daniel91]

The forum is not a solid organization with defined rules, but simply an online community of very different people, with a common interest in crypto.
The issue of trust on this forum is very sensitive due to a lot of financial transactions, and although it is not perfect, the DT system still helps to separate trusted and reliable people from others.
Of course, there are abuses of the DT system, but so far the community has always reacted well and through discussion, based on arguments, the problem has always been solved.
I also had a personal experience of receiving negative trust for a problem that had nothing to do with this forum, from a DT1 member, after I applied for merit source, but through discussion on the forum the problem was solved.

[Kazkaz27]

First and foremost, I respect that you’ve all shared your thoughts on this topic. That said, it’s disappointing that none of you have addressed any of the specific questions I’ve posed.

I’ll break down and respond to each point you’ve raised. I’d greatly appreciate the same courtesy in return.

I've always been of the opinion that the freedom of speech this forum affords its members is one of the most important aspects of it--and like it or not, when there's free speech there are going to be things said that might offend some.  But that's a small price to pay when it's a discussion forum we're talking about and not a country under a regressive regime.

I truly appreciate this sentiment, although I don’t believe my topic has anything to do with regard to “free speech”—it has everything to do with holding DT1 members accountable to a higher standard of conduct, addressing unchecked toxicity, and fostering a fair, professional community where leaders exemplify positive behavior rather than hypocrisy.

For example, if there's name calling, one can certainly defend themself (and should, if a serious accusation is being made and not just a silly ad hominem grenade).  Don't you think it's better that opinions are shared out in the open even if there's some language used that you don't like?

Respectfully, answer at least one of my posed questions before posing your own—it’s only fair, as deflecting to open opinions or self-defense ignores DT1 accountability for toxic behaviors that erode forum integrity.

And OP, those members who are on the DT list aren't 'leaders' of the forum.  Their feedback carries more weight, yes, but that doesn't mean their opinions are listened to more closely than any other member here.  On top of that, members are on and off of the list due to the rotating nature of it.  What DT members should not be doing is abusing the trust system when they've got a beef with someone--and yeah, I've seen that happen more often than I'd like.  However, if someone on DT does that consistently they'll most likely get booted off the list by other DT members (which is how it's supposed to work).

There is a hierarchy here, it goes admins, Moderators, DT1, DT2, legendary, hero, senior, full member, member, Jr, newbie. That is the structure. DT members are leaders in this space over hundreds of thousands of members whether you or anyone else would like to admit that or not—and with that leadership comes the responsibility to model exemplary conduct, not exploit their weighted feedback for personal vendettas or toxicity, as highlighted in my questions about accountability and higher standards.

That’s where the OP didn’t quite get it. Being a DT isn’t a position conferred on you by the forum administrator, those are the actual leaders on the forum, the staff or those within the moderation systems. DTs can’t really do nothing on their own rather than promote an idea and send out tags that would be visible due to the DT status and this is a function even a newbie can perform but, wouldn’t expect it to be visible because, it doesn’t carry any weight.

I’m having a hard time understanding why none of you can address a single question I posed—especially when downplaying DT roles ignores their real influence and visibility in shaping community norms, which demands higher accountability for toxicity rather than deflection to staff or newbies.

In essence, they are allowed to carry the same rights as anyone else and I’ll include the actual leaders on the forum even though, you wouldn’t find a staff being derogatory or offensive without any prompt. For the most part, most staff excludes themselves from a lot of engagements except when required to, clarifications, updates and partake in some fun on the forum.

In essence, not at all. DT1 members obviously carry more weight than every other member excluding moderators and admins—their visibility and influence demand they uphold higher standards of conduct, avoiding toxicity and hypocrisy as outlined in my questions, rather than hiding behind equal “rights” that erode community trust when abused.

The forum censored what need be and that is, cases of actual threats to a user or a people and not some users doing their most to portray themselves as clowns to be of much or any concerns.

This is not about censorship, I think a handful of you may be confused. Members are 100% allowed to say whatever they want although there should be accountability and standards when it comes to earned statuses such as DT1—leaders whose influence shapes the community must model professionalism to prevent toxicity, hypocrisy, and abuse of power, as my questions aim to explore for a healthier forum.

The forum is not a solid organization with defined rules, but simply an online community of very different people, with a common interest in crypto.

Not sure what this has to do regarding the topic—my focus is on establishing accountability and higher standards for DT1 members to curb toxicity and hypocrisy in this crypto community, not dismissing the need for rules just because it’s informal.

The issue of trust on this forum is very sensitive due to a lot of financial transactions, and although it is not perfect, the DT system still helps to separate trusted and reliable people from others.

That’s right, it is not perfect—every question I’ve posed here aims to address the underlying issues with the system. It’s a shame not one of you has even attempted to answer them. The system can be improved through honest and open discussions, but if topics like this are created to tackle problems and they’re completely sidestepped by everyone who replies, then it’s not very productive. It’s also disingenuous and manipulative to acknowledge imperfections while avoiding the specific calls for accountability that could lead to real reform, as my questions on hypocrisy, double standards, and higher leadership expectations seek to foster.

Of course, there are abuses of the DT system, but so far the community has always reacted well and through discussion, based on arguments, the problem has always been solved.

The acknowledgment that there are abuses in the DT system is a step forward. That means solutions should be made to eliminate or at the very least reduce this abuse. It’s a persistent issue which could be resolved with higher standards and accountability—precisely why I’ve posed these specific questions to spark honest discussions on hypocrisy, double standards, and reforms, yet it’s telling that no one has engaged with them directly, perpetuating the very problems we agree need addressing.

I also had a personal experience of receiving negative trust for a problem that had nothing to do with this forum, from a DT1 member, after I applied for merit source, but through discussion on the forum the problem was solved.

I’m happy to hear you resolved differences or issues through discussion. Systemic problems can’t be treated the same and not every personal situation is the same as others—widespread toxicity, hypocrisy, and abuse of power by DT1 members require broader reforms like stricter guidelines and accountability, which is why engaging honestly with my questions could drive meaningful change rather than relying on case-by-case fixes that often favor the status quo.

[Smartvirus]

This is not about censorship, I think a handful of you may be confused. Members are 100% allowed to say whatever they want although there should be accountability and standards when it comes to earned statuses such as DT1—leaders whose influence shapes the community must model professionalism to prevent toxicity, hypocrisy, and abuse of power, as my questions aim to explore for a healthier forum.

It boils down to how they became DTs in the first place and that is, they were trusted by others to make almost good judgements and decisions on certain issues and suspicions, the only way to check this would be to distrust them and that’s how certain users gets dropped from DT status.

Now, this isn’t something that you rally around for although, flags can be raised but, not for issues such as you’ve mentioned because in the real sense, they are just like everyone else with support from certain users.

When certain users to have put DT members on their trust list refuses to remove them or distrust them, keeping them as DTs even when they wouldn’t want to be, do you go after those too?
Possibly, some users don’t mind that they are DTs but, they’ve got it anyways by their trust ratings and so, you wouldn’t want them to exercise certain rights and privileges enjoyed by everyone on the forum…

I am not in support of any one being nasty and derogatory, I see some of those and I want to puke but, in a community such as we’ve got, it’s a character we can deal with. If rules were to be created on this and certain terms reached, it’s got to apply with everyone and we would find a more modest forum where a lot about free speech would be hindered.

You wouldn’t even dare being nasty to a friend in a funny way.

[ibminer]

If you all want to argue with an AI prompt, just go to the AI prompt directly... no need to feed into the constant AI copy/pasting that the OP has been continually engaging in.

edit:

Respectfully, I've addressed this before. I formulate my own responses and use AI as an assistant. How would you feel if I suggested you refrain from using Google or a hammer? I would appreciate it if we could avoid responses that detract from this discussion.

I didn't suggest anything to you.

Fine then... I guess I'll give AI my response and see what it comes up with:

So, I support accountability and higher standards. This said, calls for reform should meet the same standards of evidence, precision, and fairness they demand of others. With that in mind, I’d like to ask the following:

• Which specific DT1 members are you alleging misconduct against, and where are the exact post links demonstrating each claim?
• How do you distinguish between “toxicity” and legitimate criticism, sarcasm, or adversarial dispute—especially in high-stakes trade or scam threads?
• What objective standard are you using to label language as unacceptable, and how is it applied consistently across all users, not just DT1 members?
• Can you show evidence that the behaviors you describe are systemic rather than isolated or context-dependent incidents?
• How do you guard against confirmation bias when interpreting tone, intent, or sarcasm from users you already view as part of a “clique”?
• Why does your post rely on generalized accusations instead of a verifiable, case-by-case analysis, given the forum’s emphasis on archived evidence and receipts?
• What safeguards did you take to ensure this post itself does not function as a reputational attack without due process?
• How do you reconcile condemning public shaming while publishing a thread that implicitly encourages it through broad and unspecified allegations?
• What evidence supports the claim that retaliation via trust feedback is common, rather than anecdotal or coincidental?
• Are you applying the same standards of professionalism and restraint to yourself that you are demanding of DT1 members in this post?
• If a DT1 member uses harsh language while exposing scams or protecting users, how should harm-reduction be weighed against tone policing?
• What enforcement mechanism do you propose that does not centralize power or undermine the forum’s adversarial, self-policing model?
• How would your proposed changes prevent coordinated groups from weaponizing “civility” claims against unpopular but accurate critics?
• Why are many of your questions framed as Yes/No prompts that pre-assume conclusions instead of inviting evidence-based or nuanced responses?
• What would falsify your thesis—what evidence would convince you that widespread DT1 abuse is not occurring?
• How do you clearly differentiate between accountability and control, and where do you draw the line to avoid moral or ideological policing?

[Kazkaz27]

It boils down to how they became DTs in the first place and that is, they were trusted by others to make almost good judgements and decisions on certain issues and suspicions, the only way to check this would be to distrust them and that’s how certain users gets dropped from DT status.

A cult, mob mentality, popularity contest or other should not be how DT1 members get elected or stay in power. It should be true integrity, respect, honesty and helpful leadership. Minus the corruption, insulting, condescending and other negative behaviors I’ve listed above—relying solely on initial trust and distrust mechanisms ignores ongoing patterns of abuse, which is why my questions emphasize systemic reforms like stricter guidelines and removal for unreformed misconduct to ensure genuine accountability over superficial judgments.

Now, this isn’t something that you rally around for although, flags can be raised but, not for issues such as you’ve mentioned because in the real sense, they are just like everyone else with support from certain users.

Sure, that’s all partly true. The differences are the behavior differences—DT1 members’ elevated status and influence mean their actions carry greater weight, demanding higher accountability to avoid toxicity and abuse, rather than equating them to “everyone else” with mere user support, as my questions on hypocrisy, double standards, and reforms highlight to prevent unchecked misconduct and promote true leadership.

When certain users to have put DT members on their trust list realise to remove the or Detrust them keeping them as DTs even when they wouldn’t want to be, do you go after those too?

Well if that’s really the case then we have a major problem. It’s hard enough to have you address a single one of my questions. When bad DT1’s come into power it’s almost impossible to make amends being that we can’t even answer simple questions let alone come together to put a stop to toxic behaviors committed by DT1 leaders. Again and Respectfully, answer at least one of my posed questions before posing your own—it’s only fair, as deflecting to open opinions or self-defense ignores DT1 accountability for toxic behaviors that erode forum integrity—your question about pursuing users who maintain trust lists sidesteps the core issue of holding DT1 members to higher standards for ongoing misconduct, rather than shifting focus to others, which only perpetuates the favoritism and cliques my inquiries aim to dismantle through honest dialogue and reforms.

Possibly, some users don’t mind that they are DTs but, they’ve got it anyways by their trust ratings and so, you wouldn’t want them to exercise certain rights and privileges enjoyed by everyone on the forum…

Some members have it and use it greatly, some have it and don’t use it, others have and cause damage. One of those 3 examples of DT1 members should not belong—those who cause damage through toxicity, abuse, and unchecked misconduct must be held accountable and potentially removed, as relying on passive trust ratings ignores the harm to the community, which is why my questions on reforms, double standards, and higher expectations aim to ensure only true leaders with integrity retain such privileges.

I am not in support of any one being nasty and derogatory, I see some of those and I want to puke but, in a community such as we’ve got, it’s a character we can deal with. If rules were to be created on this and certain terms reached, it’s got to apply with everyone and we would find a more modest forum where a lot about free speech would be hindered.

I am glad we are on the same page regarding the despicable behavior which is showcased when those who are above others in status and power on this forum act nasty and derogatory. Puking is a response. A better response would be to call it out, and even put them on the distrust list if their bad behavior is persistent. Dealing with it is one thing. Being under its control is another. I disagree that we have to hold every member to the same standards a newbie In no shape or forum should be held to the same standard as a DT1 member. Again it doesn’t hinder free speech. Say what you want but if you are a DT1 don’t be condescending, insulting, nasty, derogatory, or conduct yourself in a despicable manner—leadership demands higher accountability to foster a positive community, as my questions on hypocrisy, double standards, and rule updates explore, rather than applying uniform rules that excuse privileged misconduct and perpetuate toxicity under the guise of equality.

You wouldn’t even dare being nasty to a friend in a funny way.

I believe there is little need for that type of toxic rhetoric, given the status involved, but let's entertain the possibility. If a DT1 member has a 'friend' and chooses to engage in negative rhetoric or behavior, such actions should occur privately rather than publicly, as a matter of respect and integrity. This distinction is essential. Furthermore, a single lapse in judgment should not result in removal from DT1 status; rather, it would require a pattern of consistent or persistent behavior. In my view, assessing this frequency is straightforward and does not demand extraordinary insight.

If you all want to argue with an AI prompt, just go to the AI prompt directly... no need to feed into the constant AI copy/pasting that the OP has been continually engaging in.

Respectfully, I've addressed this before. I formulate my own responses and use AI as an assistant. How would you feel if I suggested you refrain from using Google or a hammer?

Members are encouraged to freely utilize any tools at their disposal—just remember, safety first: no running with scissors!

I would appreciate it if we could avoid responses that detract from this discussion.

Respectfully, I've addressed this before. I formulate my own responses and use AI as an assistant. How would you feel if I suggested you refrain from using Google or a hammer? I would appreciate it if we could avoid responses that detract from this discussion.

I didn't suggest anything to you.

Fine then... I guess I'll give AI my response and see what it comes up with:

So, I support accountability and higher standards. This said, calls for reform should meet the same standards of evidence, precision, and fairness they demand of others. With that in mind, I’d like to ask the following:

• Which specific DT1 members are you alleging misconduct against, and where are the exact post links demonstrating each claim?
• How do you distinguish between “toxicity” and legitimate criticism, sarcasm, or adversarial dispute—especially in high-stakes trade or scam threads?
• What objective standard are you using to label language as unacceptable, and how is it applied consistently across all users, not just DT1 members?
• Can you show evidence that the behaviors you describe are systemic rather than isolated or context-dependent incidents?
• How do you guard against confirmation bias when interpreting tone, intent, or sarcasm from users you already view as part of a “clique”?
• Why does your post rely on generalized accusations instead of a verifiable, case-by-case analysis, given the forum’s emphasis on archived evidence and receipts?
• What safeguards did you take to ensure this post itself does not function as a reputational attack without due process?
• How do you reconcile condemning public shaming while publishing a thread that implicitly encourages it through broad and unspecified allegations?
• What evidence supports the claim that retaliation via trust feedback is common, rather than anecdotal or coincidental?
• Are you applying the same standards of professionalism and restraint to yourself that you are demanding of DT1 members in this post?
• If a DT1 member uses harsh language while exposing scams or protecting users, how should harm-reduction be weighed against tone policing?
• What enforcement mechanism do you propose that does not centralize power or undermine the forum’s adversarial, self-policing model?
• How would your proposed changes prevent coordinated groups from weaponizing “civility” claims against unpopular but accurate critics?
• Why are many of your questions framed as Yes/No prompts that pre-assume conclusions instead of inviting evidence-based or nuanced responses?
• What would falsify your thesis—what evidence would convince you that widespread DT1 abuse is not occurring?
• How do you clearly differentiate between accountability and control, and where do you draw the line to avoid moral or ideological policing?

I’m eager to engage with every comment and question you have.

I appreciate your support for higher standards and accountability.

If you genuinely stand by that, please prove it—begin by answering my questions. Then I’ll gladly answer yours.

Let’s keep this conversation sincere. Let’s not be disingenuous.

The failure to address these questions and the deliberate avoidance of doing so serve as evidence of complicity. Members who cannot honestly answer these questions are acting disingenuously or protecting the status quo, which, as I’ve illustrated, encourages unchecked misconduct by those who abuse their privileged status.

Please, let’s encourage open responses to the initial questions in this topic to move the discussion forward.

Truly, what is it that all of you fear answering my questions honestly and straightforward?—My only thought is that it would dig your own graves or those you support.

Unfortunately, everyone involved, even those who may have engaged inadvertently, is struggling with this challenge. It reflects poorly on all of you. Not answering is an answer and it speaks much louder than words. I challenge each of you to respond to the questions I posed with genuine honesty. If no one can provide answers, it clearly supports my case.

I am fully committed to an open discussion, answering questions and addressing concerns. I want to have a continuation of this debate with my questions answered. Simply put, I view new questions posed as derailments. Frankly, newly posed questions skip over the initial questions I challenged members to address.

[Nathrixxx]

Other problematic behaviors include: engaging in drama or escalating conflicts via public threads; issuing retaliatory or disproportionate negative trust; being emotionally driven with profanity, name-calling, or personal insults; making baseless accusations or mocking intelligence/motives; abusing the trust system for vengeance; dismissing concerns with taunts (e.g., claiming “free rent” in someone’s mind); accusing others of mental health/anger issues without basis; creating threads to publicly shame critics; and harshly bullying newcomers or other members.

The same way DT can be voted in, they can also be voted out, if found abusing the system, there are past examples of something similar from the forum if you ask the more experienced members, being a DT shows your judgement can be trusted on anything, there are members that are not yet a DT and can never be, because they are already known for abusing the system of trust and making the right judgement over a situation.

Secondly, know that we were not all brought up the same way or in the same place, instead we all come together as individuals to discuss about bitcoin, while you also have to accept this aspect of tolerance, which is needed in other to maintain your stay amongst group of people.

Lastly OP, this directs to you, here's my advice, allow others to post after each post you made, don't make posts on a row, secondly, you don't have to paint all your post blue before we can know they are of relevant, instead bolden some part of it that needs more emphasis.

[libert19]

The blue color is eyesore.

[ibminer]

I’m eager to engage with every comment and question you have.

That was the intent.

I appreciate your support for higher standards and accountability.

If you genuinely stand by that~

I was more curious how far your AI was willing to go on the answers and what it will say, but my AI doesn't think you are being genuine at all here, smh, let's see what it says.

1. How can the community address hypocrisy among DT1 members who preach against toxicity but engage in it themselves?

Through open discussion, evidence, and community judgment—not censorship. Credibility rises or falls based on public behavior and archived information.

Trust isn't moderated, but how you use it is your "business card" to the community.

2. Does exhibiting some positive behaviors inherently grant the right to engage in all the negative behaviors outlined?

No special rights are granted, but free speech applies equally to everyone. The forum does not guarantee comfort—only openness to expression and rebuttal.

3. What impact does this kind of behavior have on the overall trust and reputation system on the forum?

Very little unless Trust feedback is misused. Disliking someone or their tone is not grounds for negative trust, but a person is free to do it, and free to be judged by others on their actions.

If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

4. Should there be stricter guidelines for DT1 members regarding professionalism and civility, especially in public threads?

No. Stricter civility rules invite subjective enforcement and censorship. Bitcointalk is an adversarial discussion forum, not a moderated social space.

If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

5. What respectable examples have you seen of DT1 members using insulting or condescending language in forum disputes?

Respectability is determined by accuracy and evidence, not tone. Many correct scam accusations and dispute resolutions were delivered bluntly.

6. Do you believe there’s a double standard where DT1 members face less accountability for toxic behavior compared to regular users?

No. DT members are more accountable, not less, because their judgment is continuously evaluated by others through Trust lists.

Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.

7. How does aggressive tone in threads from DT1 members affect users trying to participate in the Bitcointalk community?

Users are free to respond, disengage, ignore, or customize whose judgment they see. Participation does not require approval from DT members.

Anyone can customize their Trust list!

8. Have you noticed patterns where DT1 members defend or mimic toxic tactics, and if so, why do you think this happens?

High-conflict contexts such as scams, trades, and reputational disputes naturally produce adversarial language. This reflects subject matter, not coordinated behavior.

9. Has anyone experienced retaliation or negative trust feedback after calling out toxic DT1 conduct?

If it occurs, it is visible and subject to social correction through Trust list exclusion and reputational scrutiny.

Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.

10. What alternatives to aggressive language could DT1 members use to handle disputes more constructively?

Evidence, reference links, neutral feedback, and reputation threads already exist, but no user is required to adopt a particular tone.

Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted.

11. Do you think the influence of DT1 members exhibiting such behavior contributes to a “clique” mentality among users?

DT is opt-in, transparent, and rotating. Any influence exists only because users choose to trust that judgment.

You should add users who left accurate feedback and have good Trust lists to your Trust list.

12. Should DT1 members act this way? Yes or No

This is a false binary. DT members must follow forum rules; beyond that, speech style is subjective.

13. Should DT1 members exhibiting such behavior be removed as DT1 if unreformed patterns persist? Yes or No

That already happens organically when others stop trusting their judgment and exclude them from Trust lists.

You should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback.

14. Does favoritism exist here? Yes or No

The system minimizes favoritism through transparency and public Trust records.

All Trust lists are public.

15. Should Forum Leaders Be Held to a Higher Standard? Yes or No

DT members are not forum leaders. Moderators enforce rules; DT members provide opinions on trust that users may accept or reject.

Anyone can leave feedback, and anyone can customize their Trust list!

16. Should Forum Rules Be Updated? Yes or No

No. Existing rules already address actual misconduct. Expanding rules to police tone would undermine free speech and adversarial debate.


Oh, and:
The failure to address these responses—or the refusal to engage with the facts presented—demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the Trust system works. Members who do not understand the Trust system should not attack, or attempt to prevent, others for exercising their right to speak and give opinions.
 

[Kazkaz27]

I’m eager to engage with every comment and question you have.

That was the intent.

I appreciate your support for higher standards and accountability.

If you genuinely stand by that~

I was more curious how far your AI was willing to go on the answers and what it will say, but my AI doesn't think you are being genuine at all here, smh, let's see what it says.

1. How can the community address hypocrisy among DT1 members who preach against toxicity but engage in it themselves?

Through open discussion, evidence, and community judgment—not censorship. Credibility rises or falls based on public behavior and archived information.

Trust isn't moderated, but how you use it is your "business card" to the community.

2. Does exhibiting some positive behaviors inherently grant the right to engage in all the negative behaviors outlined?

No special rights are granted, but free speech applies equally to everyone. The forum does not guarantee comfort—only openness to expression and rebuttal.

3. What impact does this kind of behavior have on the overall trust and reputation system on the forum?

Very little unless Trust feedback is misused. Disliking someone or their tone is not grounds for negative trust, but a person is free to do it, and free to be judged by others on their actions.

If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

4. Should there be stricter guidelines for DT1 members regarding professionalism and civility, especially in public threads?

No. Stricter civility rules invite subjective enforcement and censorship. Bitcointalk is an adversarial discussion forum, not a moderated social space.

If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

5. What respectable examples have you seen of DT1 members using insulting or condescending language in forum disputes?

Respectability is determined by accuracy and evidence, not tone. Many correct scam accusations and dispute resolutions were delivered bluntly.

6. Do you believe there’s a double standard where DT1 members face less accountability for toxic behavior compared to regular users?

No. DT members are more accountable, not less, because their judgment is continuously evaluated by others through Trust lists.

Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.

7. How does aggressive tone in threads from DT1 members affect users trying to participate in the Bitcointalk community?

Users are free to respond, disengage, ignore, or customize whose judgment they see. Participation does not require approval from DT members.

Anyone can customize their Trust list!

8. Have you noticed patterns where DT1 members defend or mimic toxic tactics, and if so, why do you think this happens?

High-conflict contexts such as scams, trades, and reputational disputes naturally produce adversarial language. This reflects subject matter, not coordinated behavior.

9. Has anyone experienced retaliation or negative trust feedback after calling out toxic DT1 conduct?

If it occurs, it is visible and subject to social correction through Trust list exclusion and reputational scrutiny.

Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.

10. What alternatives to aggressive language could DT1 members use to handle disputes more constructively?

Evidence, reference links, neutral feedback, and reputation threads already exist, but no user is required to adopt a particular tone.

Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted.

11. Do you think the influence of DT1 members exhibiting such behavior contributes to a “clique” mentality among users?

DT is opt-in, transparent, and rotating. Any influence exists only because users choose to trust that judgment.

You should add users who left accurate feedback and have good Trust lists to your Trust list.

12. Should DT1 members act this way? Yes or No

This is a false binary. DT members must follow forum rules; beyond that, speech style is subjective.

13. Should DT1 members exhibiting such behavior be removed as DT1 if unreformed patterns persist? Yes or No

That already happens organically when others stop trusting their judgment and exclude them from Trust lists.

You should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback.

14. Does favoritism exist here? Yes or No

The system minimizes favoritism through transparency and public Trust records.

All Trust lists are public.

15. Should Forum Leaders Be Held to a Higher Standard? Yes or No

DT members are not forum leaders. Moderators enforce rules; DT members provide opinions on trust that users may accept or reject.

Anyone can leave feedback, and anyone can customize their Trust list!

16. Should Forum Rules Be Updated? Yes or No

No. Existing rules already address actual misconduct. Expanding rules to police tone would undermine free speech and adversarial debate.


Oh, and:
The failure to address these responses—or the refusal to engage with the facts presented—demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the Trust system works. Members who do not understand the Trust system should not attack, or attempt to prevent, others for exercising their right to speak and give opinions.
 

Very well said. Thank you. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to address my questions. In doing so, you’ve enlightened me and alleviated many of my concerns. I’ll prepare a full rebuttal soon, along with responses to your questions—rest assured, but I must get some rest first.

AI is influenced by its operator but it is quite remarkable, isn’t it?—Virtual fist-bump 👊

… Can’t sleep.

In all honesty, I feel relieved. I truly appreciate your answers, reasoning, and logic. I now see how you based these responses on the principles you’ve highlighted, and it all makes sense. You’ve persuaded me and helped raise my awareness in meaningful ways. I can clearly identify errors in my previous thinking, which I can now adjust. I want everyone to know that I hold myself accountable for my decisions and thought processes. I’m happy to be proven wrong or remain open to new perspectives as it allows me to learn and grow. This experience gives me a sense that I can close this chapter and elevate myself moving forward.

At times in my responses, I may have come across as defensive or frustrated, feeling like my concerns were being sidestepped. I want members to acknowledge that addressing concerns head-on can make a big difference—at least in my experience and in this case. It’s also worth noting that when DT1 members (or any members, for that matter) exhibit the negative behaviors I’ve outlined toward others, it’s natural to respond defensively. I’ve been guilty of that myself at times, but I’ll work on overriding those instincts going forward, largely thanks to ibminer’s help in addressing my concerns and broadening my perspective.

I’ve had a rapid change of heart, really because of how ibminer answered my questions—with a solid foundation in rules and order. It flipped a switch in my mind. His response felt genuine; it wasn’t insulting or dismissive. It was a legendary member helping a hero member, and that’s how it should be. I don’t even need to revisit how I would have answered those questions before, because I see things differently now. That said, I still stand on principle and remain opposed to unconstructive negativity on the forum—it doesn’t help anyone. It reduces participation and fosters unnecessary tension among members.

All that being said, everything happens for a reason. I have about a million thoughts I want to express, along with some changes and fixes I’d like to make moving forward with this newfound knowledge. It would be nice if members weren’t so judgmental about AI, or so rude toward each other at times. You never know what someone else is going through, so it’s always better to treat people with kindness rather than dehumanizing them over differing opinions. I’ll do better at being more tolerant and neutral, keeping this in mind.

I’m going to address the questions shortly and then pose a few more of my own. I just want everyone to know that I pour my heart into this forum, both consciously and subconsciously, because I’ve tied my identity and reputation to this place. My intentions are pure and remain so, despite any misunderstandings or mistakes along the way. I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on fostering a more supportive community—feel free to share.

Now Let’s Address Your Questions

• Which specific DT1 members are you alleging misconduct against, and where are the exact post links demonstrating each claim?

Anonymousminer. Examples, are here:

References and Examples of anonymousminer’s Problematic Behavior🔗

Examples that negatively impact the Bitcoin Collectibles Community.🔗

• How do you distinguish between “toxicity” and legitimate criticism, sarcasm, or adversarial dispute—especially in high-stakes trade or scam threads?

I believe the key to distinguishing between toxicity and legitimate criticism, sarcasm, or adversarial disputes—particularly in high-stakes contexts like trade or scam threads—lies in evaluating intent, evidence, tone, and impact. Toxicity undermines productive dialogue through personal attacks, harassment, or unfounded escalation, while the others can contribute positively if handled constructively. Below, I’ll break this down clearly, drawing on the principles outlined in my original post about toxic behaviors (such as name-calling, threats, or deliberate misinformation).

Legitimate Criticism
Definition and Characteristics: This is constructive feedback aimed at improving understanding or highlighting flaws. It should be evidence-based and measurable—rooted in facts, data, or verifiable examples—rather than purely anecdotal or emotional. For instance, in a trade thread, saying “This deal seems overvalued based on market data from [source]” is legitimate, as it provides a helpful devil’s advocate perspective without personal insult.

Distinction from Toxicity: If criticism devolves into belittling (e.g., “You’re an idiot for thinking this is a good deal”), it crosses into toxicity. Legitimate criticism focuses on the issue, not the person, and invites reasoned response.

Sarcasm
Definition and Characteristics: Sarcasm uses irony or mockery to make a point, often lightly. Alone, it’s not inherently problematic or a major issue—it can even add humor or emphasize absurdity in a discussion.

Distinction from Toxicity: The line is drawn at condescension, insult, or provocation. Neutral sarcasm like “Oh sure, because scams never happen online” might highlight skepticism without harm, but if it’s laced with hostility (e.g., “Wow, you’re so naive, genius”), it becomes toxic. In scam threads, assess if it escalates tension unnecessarily or targets individuals personally.

Adversarial Disputes
Definition and Characteristics: These are debates involving opposing views, common in high-stakes threads where money, trust, or reputation is at risk. They can be passionate but should remain respectful, acknowledging differing opinions without derailing into chaos.

Distinction from Toxicity: Respect is the benchmark—even amid disagreement, parties should avoid ad hominem attacks or inflammatory language. For example, in a trade dispute, “I disagree because the terms violate standard practices” is adversarial but fair, whereas “You’re just trying to rip me off, you scammer” (without evidence) is toxic. Disputes thrive on logic and civility; toxicity shuts them down.

Special Considerations in High-Stakes Trade or Scam Threads
Heightened Scrutiny for Scam Claims: Accusations like “This is a scam!” carry weight and can damage reputations, so they demand rigor. Those “crying wolf” must back claims with concrete evidence (e.g., screenshots, transaction logs, or third-party verifications) or explicitly label them as suspicions (e.g., “This raises red flags for me based on similar past experiences, but I lack proof”). Presenting unverified hunches as undisputed facts is toxic, as it sows distrust without accountability.

Overall Distinction Method: Observe for the toxic behaviors I highlighted earlier—such as persistent harassment, doxxing, or gaslighting. If the interaction fosters learning, resolution, or caution (e.g., through evidence-sharing), it’s likely legitimate. If it breeds fear, division, or personal harm, it’s toxic. In practice, moderators or participants can flag patterns: Is the language solution-oriented or destructive? Does it respect boundaries, or does it provoke endless cycles?

By applying these criteria, discussions in sensitive threads can stay productive, ensuring criticism and disputes serve the community rather than harm it.

• What objective standard are you using to label language as unacceptable, and how is it applied consistently across all users, not just DT1 members?

I don’t believe these stricter standards need to apply to the broader forum community. Instead, they represent a higher bar that is essential for earning or retaining DT1 status, ensuring leaders model exemplary behavior.

The objective standard I employ is grounded in clear, observable behaviors that demonstrably harm community trust, escalate conflicts unnecessarily, or hinder productive dialogue—criteria explicitly outlined in the examples below.

These include:
   •   Personal attacks: Direct insults or derogatory terms that target individuals rather than ideas.
   •   Demeaning tone: Condescending, mocking, or belittling language that undermines others.
   •   Escalatory actions: Baseless accusations, abuse of the trust system for retaliation, or public shaming without evidence.

This standard draws from universal forum principles (e.g., no harassment, evidence-based discourse, and mutual respect) and is applied consistently to all users through measurable evaluation: Any reported or observed violation triggers a review based on context, intent, and impact, with potential consequences like warnings, thread locks, or trust adjustments enforced by moderators. Community input can also inform decisions via feedback threads. However, DT1 members face heightened scrutiny and swifter accountability due to their influential role, preventing double standards while promoting equity. This approach isn’t subjective—it’s evidence-driven, with transparency in enforcement to foster a healthier environment for everyone.

• Can you show evidence that the behaviors you describe are systemic rather than isolated or context-dependent incidents?

Many members defend this behavior as “free speech,” but it becomes systemic when DT1 members repeatedly engage in it and are protected by widespread complicity or silence from other trusted members.

Regarding your question — “Can you show evidence that the behaviors you describe are systemic rather than isolated incidents?”

Yes. The strongest evidence is anonymousminer’s own reply in this thread (“It’s Time to Call Out the Hypocrites Poisoning Our Forum”). In response to a call for higher standards, a DT1 member replied with multiple personal insults including “kid”, “asshat”, “fuck you”, “AI vomit”, “pile of shit”, and “clown”, while refusing to engage with any of the questions.

This single interaction perfectly illustrates the systemic issue: not only does the toxic behavior occur, but it is openly displayed even when directly challenged on the topic of toxicity.

• How do you guard against confirmation bias when interpreting tone, intent, or sarcasm from users you already view as part of a “clique”?

Well, I’d say that not being part of a clique would automatically help mitigate perceptions of favoritism or bias in forum interactions. However, hypothetically, even if you’re not actually in one but are viewed as such, this perception often stems from displayed biases—such as selective enforcement of rules or uneven responses to similar situations or behaviors.

“How do you guard against confirmation bias when interpreting tone, intent, or sarcasm from users you already view as part of a ‘clique’?”—I actively employ several strategies to ensure fair and objective analysis, recognizing that preconceptions can cloud judgment in subjective areas like tone or intent.

Here’s how I approach it systematically:

   •   Seek External Validation: Before concluding on tone or sarcasm, I cross-reference interpretations with neutral third parties (e.g., other moderators or unbiased community members) or review similar past interactions from non-clique users to check for consistency. This helps identify if my view is influenced by prior assumptions. For example, an external validation could include consulting an AI tool like Grok for an impartial breakdown of language patterns, or polling a diverse group of forum users anonymously to gauge consensus on intent—ensuring the input comes from sources without vested interests in the clique dynamic.

   •   Evidence-Based Evaluation: I focus strictly on verifiable elements, such as word choice, context, and patterns in the user’s history, rather than gut feelings. For instance, sarcasm is assessed by looking for irony markers (e.g., exaggeration or quotes) without assuming malice based on group affiliation.

   •   Self-Reflection and Bias Checks: I regularly pause to question my own lens—asking, “Would I interpret this the same way if it came from a newcomer?” Tools like journaling past decisions or using anonymous review processes can highlight patterns of confirmation bias.

   •   Encourage Open Dialogue: When possible, I directly clarify intent with the user (e.g., “Can you elaborate on this to ensure I understand your tone?”) to avoid misinterpretation, fostering transparency and reducing reliance on biased assumptions.

   •   Diverse Perspectives: I draw from a broad range of sources, including forum guidelines, psychological resources on cognitive biases, and community feedback threads, to build a more balanced viewpoint. This minimizes the echo chamber effect that cliques can create.

By implementing these guards, interpretations become more equitable, promoting a healthier forum environment where actions are judged on merit, not preconceived notions. This approach not only counters bias but also models better behavior for the community.

• Why does your post rely on generalized accusations instead of a verifiable, case-by-case analysis, given the forum’s emphasis on archived evidence and receipts?

That’s a fair point, and I appreciate the push for specificity, as it aligns with Bitcointalk’s community-driven emphasis on evidence to maintain transparency and prevent unfounded claims.

I’ve provided evidence in the linked threads, though this particular post is generalized to encourage an open and honest discussion on the matter. I believe this approach will make the conversation more productive while ensuring it fits appropriately in the Meta board rather than the Reputation board.

That said, my post isn’t avoiding case-by-case analysis—it’s strategically generalized here in Meta to spark broader dialogue about systemic patterns (e.g., hypocrisy in DT1 conduct) without derailing into personal disputes, which are better suited for the Reputation board where detailed evidence is the norm.

• What safeguards did you take to ensure this post itself does not function as a reputational attack without due process?

I attempt to utilize the various methods I’ve outlined in my previous responses above. My observations and stance are based on experiences and perspectives that I’ve illustrated throughout this post and others.

I appreciate the emphasis on fairness, as Bitcointalk’s guidelines stress evidence-based discussions to avoid unsubstantiated harm to reputations. To prevent this post from veering into unwarranted attacks, I implemented several deliberate safeguards rooted in transparency, generalization, and community-oriented practices:

   •   Generalization Over Specificity: Rather than naming individuals or dissecting personal cases (which could resemble targeted attacks), I focused on broader patterns of behavior, such as hypocrisy in DT1 conduct or systemic complicity. This keeps the discussion conceptual and invites collective input without isolating users, aligning with the Meta board’s purpose for forum-wide improvements rather than the Reputation board’s focus on individual disputes.

   •   Evidence Linking Accusation: All references to examples are tied to publicly archived threads. Any implied critique is backed by existing, searchable evidence that others can review and contest.

   •   Balanced Language and Invitations to Dialogue: I used neutral, descriptive phrasing (e.g., “concerning behaviors” instead of inflammatory terms) and explicitly encouraged honest responses from all sides, including questions like “What alternatives to aggressive language could DT1 members use?” This promotes constructive debate and due process by giving space for rebuttals, clarifications, or counter-evidence.

   •   Self-Reflection on Bias and Intent: As outlined in prior responses, I applied bias checks—such as seeking external validation through community feedback—and framed the post as a call for accountability, not vengeance. For instance, I acknowledged potential backlash and emphasized positive examples of “How to Act” to model desired behavior.

   •   Adherence to Forum Rules: This post complies with Bitcointalk’s no-harassment policy by avoiding personal insults, doxxing, or baseless shaming. If any part is perceived as overstepping, I welcome moderator review or community flags to ensure due process, as the forum’s system allows for edits, deletions, or resolutions based on collective judgment.

These measures ensure the post serves as a catalyst for positive change rather than a reputational hit job, prioritizing evidence, equity, and open discourse. If you see areas where it falls short, please share—let’s refine it together!

• How do you reconcile condemning public shaming while publishing a thread that implicitly encourages it through broad and unspecified allegations?

I appreciate you highlighting this potential inconsistency—it’s a fair critique, and addressing it head-on aligns with my call for open, honest dialogue in the thread. Let me reconcile this as thoughtfully as I can, drawing from the principles I outlined in my original post.

First, to clarify: In my OP, I explicitly condemn “creating threads to publicly shame critics” as a toxic behavior because it often involves targeted, personal attacks without evidence, aimed at humiliation rather than resolution. This includes baseless accusations, name-calling, or doxxing-like escalations that harm individuals without fostering community improvement. My thread, however, was intentionally designed differently—it’s a generalized discussion on systemic patterns among DT1 members (e.g., hypocrisy in preaching against toxicity while engaging in it), posted in the Meta board to propose reforms like stricter guidelines and accountability. I have attempted to avoid naming individuals in the this post to keep it broad and solution-oriented, focusing on behaviors rather than people, which I believe prevents it from being “shaming” in the condemnable sense.

That said, I recognize how the broad allegations (e.g., referencing “cliques” or “unchecked misconduct”) could implicitly encourage scrutiny or judgment of DT1 members as a group, potentially leading to what feels like shaming if readers interpret it that way. Here’s how I reconcile that:

•  Intent and Framing Matter: My goal wasn’t to shame but to spark constructive debate on higher standards for leaders who hold influence over trust and reputation. I included “Pure Examples of How to Act” alongside the negatives to model positive alternatives, and my 16 questions are phrased to invite community input (e.g., “What alternatives to aggressive language could DT1 members use?”). This contrasts with outright shaming threads, which typically lack balance, evidence links, or calls for solutions. If it came across as encouraging shaming, that’s unintended—I even noted potential backlash and emphasized that “answering these questions truthfully would ultimately shed light on key issues and lead to a positive shift.”

•  Generalization as a Safeguard, Not Evasion: Bitcointalk’s structure guided this: Meta is for forum-wide topics like rule suggestions and enforcement feedback, so I revised the thread (as noted in post #2) to be “more generalized and better suited” after feedback. Specifics (e.g., links to anonymousminer’s behavior) were added later in responses or linked threads (like the Reputation board examples) to provide evidence without derailing the main discussion into personal vendettas. This approach ensures due process—anyone can review, rebut, or provide context—rather than unspecified smears. If I’d started with names, it might have violated Meta’s spirit or escalated into the very toxicity I criticize.

•  Self-Accountability and Growth: As I reflected in post #13 after ibminer’s thoughtful responses, I’ve had a “rapid change of heart” on some aspects, thanks to perspectives like theirs. If this thread inadvertently mirrored shaming through its breadth, I own that and see it as a learning moment—much like calling for DT1 reform without demanding perfection from myself. The difference is transparency: I’m engaging here, providing links, and welcoming pushback, which shaming rarely does. Ultimately, exposing flaws in systems or behaviors (with evidence) isn’t shaming if it’s done to build a healthier community; it’s accountability.

• What evidence supports the claim that retaliation via trust feedback is common, rather than anecdotal or coincidental?

The below statement by theymos acts as indirect evidence supporting the claim that retaliation via trust feedback is common on Bitcointalk, rather than purely anecdotal or coincidental.

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost.

• Are you applying the same standards of professionalism and restraint to yourself that you are demanding of DT1 members in this post?

As I’ve stated previously, I don’t believe these stricter standards need to apply to the broader forum community. Instead, they represent a higher bar that is essential for earning or retaining DT1 status, ensuring that leaders model exemplary behavior. Although I am attempting to abide by these higher standards myself—which I admittedly fall short of at times—the purpose is not to demand constant perfection. We all have bad days. Rather, these standards aim to hold DT1 members accountable for persistent toxic behavior and abuses, as I’ve highlighted.

• If a DT1 member uses harsh language while exposing scams or protecting users, how should harm-reduction be weighed against tone policing?

I don’t see any circumstances under which DT1 members need to act in a vile manner, as Smartvirus aptly puts it.

There is no way you could be insulting and still appear respectable at the same time—that’s the truth.

That being said, if clear evidence supports the exposure of a scam—ensuring it is neither assumed nor accused without substantiation—and a DT1 member employs harsh language in the process, I don’t believe it should weigh against them to the same degree. That said, it nonetheless casts a poor light on their character and might be leveraged against them later. After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

• What enforcement mechanism do you propose that does not centralize power or undermine the forum’s adversarial, self-policing model?

I would suggest this,

#1
So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.

See here for live info on this "DT voting".

Although, this I hard to do when DT1 members are surrounded by enablers who perpetually rationalize their missteps. Right is unequivocally right, and wrong is undeniably wrong. True accountability eludes those whose circle endlessly cheers their flaws or fabricates defenses for them.

• How would your proposed changes prevent coordinated groups from weaponizing “civility” claims against unpopular but accurate critics?

To address the concern of coordinated groups weaponizing “civility” claims against unpopular but accurate critics, the proposed changes incorporate several built-in safeguards within the DT1 evaluation process. First, any civility-related complaint would require verifiable evidence of persistent toxicity (e.g., documented patterns of insults, condescension, unfounded accusations, or false alarms), rather than isolated incidents or subjective interpretations. This evidence-based threshold prevents frivolous or orchestrated attacks by demanding objective proof, reviewed transparently by the community or a neutral panel of DT1 peers.

Second, the system emphasizes context: Harsh but fact-based critiques (e.g., exposing scams with evidence) would not qualify as violations, even if delivered bluntly, to protect legitimate whistleblowers. Coordinated weaponization would be mitigated through anti-collusion measures, such as limits on group exclusions from trust lists and public logging of feedback changes, allowing the broader forum to scrutinize and counter manipulative campaigns.

Finally, an appeal mechanism enables affected DT1 members to challenge claims, fostering accountability while deterring abuse. Simply avoiding insulting, condescending, or unfounded behavior ensures the principle cannot be weaponized—unless a DT1 member is genuinely acting unreasonably or disrespectfully, which these reforms actively discourage through ongoing monitoring and potential status revocation.

• Why are many of your questions framed as Yes/No prompts that pre-assume conclusions instead of inviting evidence-based or nuanced responses?

Out of the 16 questions, 5 are framed as yes/no. Many others are intentionally designed to ignite thoughtful debate around those core yes/no inquiries. While a straightforward yes or no response would clearly signal which side you lean toward, I strongly encourage members to elaborate beyond that if inspired—it adds depth and enriches the discussion for everyone

• What would falsify your thesis—what evidence would convince you that widespread DT1 abuse is not occurring?

DT1 members addressing questions about DT1 abuse versus sidestepping, enabling complicity, or remaining silent on the matter.

• How do you clearly differentiate between accountability and control, and where do you draw the line to avoid moral or ideological policing?

To clearly differentiate between accountability and control in the context of Bitcointalk’s DT1 system and forum dynamics, I draw from the principles outlined in my responses throughout the thread—emphasizing evidence-based, transparent self-regulation while preserving the forum’s adversarial, free-speech nature. Accountability focuses on holding individuals (especially influential DT1 members) responsible for persistent, verifiable harms like toxicity, hypocrisy, or misuse of trust, through community-driven mechanisms like public discussions, trust list exclusions, and “DT voting” (as referenced from theymos’ 2019 statement). It promotes growth and fairness by addressing patterns of behavior with facts, not mandates, allowing users to learn from mistakes without stifling expression. Control, on the other hand, implies centralized or subjective enforcement—such as imposing strict tone-policing rules or ideological mandates that could lead to censorship, favoritism, or suppression of legitimate criticism.

The line is drawn at evidence and intent: Accountability requires objective proof (e.g., archived posts showing repeated insults, unfounded accusations, or retaliation) reviewed transparently by the community, fostering organic corrections like distrusts or exclusions without top-down intervention. This avoids moral or ideological policing by sticking to forum rules (e.g., no harassment or scams) rather than enforcing vague “civility” standards that could be weaponized against unpopular views. As I noted in response to similar concerns, “right is unequivocally right, and wrong is undeniably wrong,” but true accountability eludes those enabled by cliques—ensuring the process remains principle-based, not a tool for control. If patterns persist without reform (e.g., unreformed toxic conduct), community judgment via trust lists handles it, as LoyceV’s guide emphasizes: “You should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback.” This balances responsibility with freedom, preventing overreach into personal morals or ideologies.


Lastly, It is hard for me engage with those who fail to grasp that it’s the principle at stake. It’s not merely what’s done, but the manner in which it has been. What intensifies the frustration is realizing that, if roles were reversed, many unravel just the same. Certain individuals remain stunted in growth, surrounded by enablers who perpetually rationalize their missteps. Right is unequivocally right, and wrong is undeniably wrong. True accountability eludes those whose circle endlessly cheers their flaws or fabricates defenses for them.

[Smartvirus]

I believe our leaders should be held accountable to a higher standard.

Not everyone considers DT members as leaders. They might have some influence but, certainly are still like everyone else. Look at it this way, we have influencers on social media with large following, their opinions carry weight but, they aren’t actual staff of the media they operate on. Same applies to DTs and besides, it’s not like, the DT status is displayed on their profile for you to note them, you only know by checking them up on bpip.org or should you have some extensions in place on your browser to display those and by their trust ratings being visible.

Here Is a List of Questions I Have for the Community:

1. How can the community address hypocrisy among DT1 members who preach against toxicity but engage in it themselves?

By showing them their hypocrisy if they would come to terms with their double standards and have some shame if any and this doesn’t rest on DT members but, forum users. Double standards isn’t subjective where certain users are allowed and others are not.

2. Does exhibiting some positive behaviors inherently grant the right to engage in all the negative behaviors I’ve outlined above?

Of course not, wrong will always be wrong and a right doesn’t dispute this. However, being right sometimes and wrong at other times shows you aren’t some AI and have feelings too.

3. What impact does this kind of behavior have on the overall trust and reputation system on the forum?

This tends to remind us that, the system isn’t a perfect one and cases are subjectively handled where, a cases ought to be treated on a case by case basis to avoid certain users being targeted.

4. Should there be stricter guidelines for DT1 members regarding professionalism and civility, especially in public threads?

The DT1 stands on the forum is a position of trust rather than mannerism. Perhaps the lines between these might tend to blur but, here is what Theymos had to say on how to resolve a stupid behaviour from users on DTs

#1
So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.

See here for live info on this "DT voting".

5. What respectable examples have you seen of DT1 members using insulting or condescending language in forum disputes?

There is no way you could be insulting and still appears respectable at the same time, that’s the truth.

6. Do you believe there’s a double standard where DT1 members face less accountability for toxic behavior compared to regular users?

Possibly because, according to this quote from Theymos on the purpose of the trust system;

A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

7. How does aggressive tone in threads from DT1 members affect users trying to participate in the Bitcointalk community?

What I think of this is that, it reminds every user to thread with caution, confines you within the borders of the rules because, you just know you are being watched and whatever it is you do could easy end negatively. You just know you are not getting it soft but hot, the African child up bring way.

8. Have you noticed patterns where DT1 members defend or mimic toxic tactics, and if so, why do you think this happens?

I haven’t being keeping an eye out for this so, I can’t comment on it.

9. Has anyone experienced retaliation or negative trust feedback after calling out toxic DT1 conduct?

Certainly not me so, I’ll pass but, my last quote from Theymos has something on this, question 6 above.

10. What alternatives to aggressive language could DT1 members use to handle disputes more constructively?

I don’t think a lot of insults are used in handling disputes, you don’t find this in every case and those where you don’t find this shows what path both DTs and an accused can follow to be respectable from both sides.

11. Do you think the influence of DT1 members exhibiting such behavior contributes to a “clique” mentality among users, and how does that affect fair discussions? [/b]

Possibly, a lot of users when they find themselves in a position of questioning and all fingers pointing, it’s not abnormal to entertain the clique mentality but, the fact that someone entertains this idea doesn’t make it true. I have come across cases where a DT1 member vindicates an accuse by simply making statements about their grammatical expressions and that was enough to solve the issue, no cliques.

12. Should DT1 members act this way? Yes or No

“No” of course no one should insult anyone and that’s my stand on this. However, you wouldn’t throw a jab and expect to be given the other cheek, this is no Christendom.

13. Should DT1 members exhibiting such behavior be removed as DT1 if unreformed patterns persist? Yes or No

Who removes them I wonder,,, it’s a perceptual thing for those who have put certain users in their trust list, it isn’t moderated.

14. Does favoritism exist here? Yes or No

“No”

15. Should Forum Leaders Be Held to a Higher Standard?
Yes or No

“Yes” and that means, actual staff.

16. Should Forum Rules Be Updated? Yes or No

“No” More rules could lead to more confusions. If there is an absolute or obvious need, then I might change my response.

[howardsentell]

As a new full member, I have been disappointed by the conduct of certain legendary members on the forum. I wish to acknowledge Kazkaz27, CARIBBEAN_TREASURES, and Cryptogreatdane for their valuable advice and constructive contributions. Although I have encountered other courteous members, my interactions with them have been limited. Initially, I expected legendary members to serve as mentors; however, I now perceive some of their behavior as arrogant and dismissive. I have observed that many members remain silent and cautious in their participation. When someone expresses an opinion, it is frequently met with criticism, and LM often appears to act collectively to target specific accounts. I believe the forum would benefit from an LM mentorship program to support new members. LM should reflect on their own experiences as newcomers. Ultimately, we are all equal, and providing support to others is essential. If these negative attitudes persist, the forum may experience decline, similar to the internal decay that contributed to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE. While this may be interpreted as a complaint, I am expressing sincere concerns.  My intention is to see the forum prosper.