Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance

[1miau]

I'm hereby starting Bitcointalk defensive Alliance, where we are founding a strong defensive Organisation on Bitcointalk.
It is meant to protect its members against unjustified negative Trust and other cyberbullying.


An attack against one Member is seen as an attack on the whole alliance. If an attack occurs, it is crucial for all members to be defended against any accusation. The alliance will be a fair share to protect its members against attacks.


Founding members


1miau

Applications

Our Defensive alliance is only as good as joined members are caring to protect each other. As a Member based alliance, we are relient on good support and Membership.
You can apply here right away but we need to have at least one sentence why you should be eligible to join our alliance.


Bitcointalk Account name:
Reson why you are eligible to joine here:



Alliance members:

SuperBitMan
rat03gopoh
KingsDen
MaxMueller
Tungbulu
Kazkaz27

[Karl_3000]

An attack against one Member is seen as an attack on the whole alliance. If an attack occurs, it is crucial for all members to be defended against any accusation. The alliance will be a fair share to protect its members against attacks.

What if a member is part of your alliance, be given a negative trust and later you people found out that the person is guilty and worth the negative trust?

What I am insinuating is that before you can form this kind of alliance, it is better you first have rules that should not be broken by your members.

[Vod]

What I am insinuating is that before you can form this kind of alliance, it is better you first have rules that should not be broken by your members.

Yes, 1miau what you say about this?   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5564694.msg66014870#msg66014870
Don't use the word "die" unless you are 100% sure you will not be coming back.   Such words are permanent - like death itself.

Application:  No way I could apply since I am accused of more crimes than Al Capone.  :/

[SuperBitMan]

An attack against one Member is seen as an attack on the whole alliance. If an attack occurs, it is crucial for all members to be defended against any accusation. The alliance will be a fair share to protect its members against attacks.

What if a member is part of your alliance, be given a negative trust and later you people found out that the person is guilty and worth the negative trust?

What I am insinuating is that before you can form this kind of alliance, it is better you first have rules that should not be broken by your members.

Good question karl_3000, but I believe they will not defend someone that has broken the forum rules when it’s very clear with evidence or proof, before they will defend anyone they will look into the case very carefully and if the person is guilty of the crime or offense they are dragging him or her for then the law will take it full cause however, if they look into the case and discover the member that is being accused is innocent then they will defend the member.
According to the OP the group is ment to protect its members against unjustified negative Trust and other cyberbullying and not just negative Trust.

I think they have rules already and only members that is accepted can see it.


My application:

Bitcointalk Account name: SuperBitMan
Reson why you are eligible to joine here: I’m one of those members that don’t support unjustified negative trust and cyber bullying in this forum, I believe everyone should be treated equally and always given the right for Fair hearing.

[bitbollo]

Bitcoin as decentralized technology has teached that oligopoly/centralization are not the best scenario in any case.
Actually rules explains clearly how to handle this cases of bully and to be honest we are adults, we don't need "groups"/internal police.

I know very well the reason and effort and good faith behind this proposal since there is one of the trustesd user of forum involved.
Anyway, it could be impossible get an "official" recognition by forum rules/admin since there are already other rules and this could appear questionable...
Imagine you made some mistakes on your decision, should we have another alliance?
What there is an "opinable question"? Like a user spreading false accusation mixed with real ones? ...
What about DT1? This is a system already implemented, ok we don't need to trust a "central" group in the forum, but if everyone could create "an alliance"... it would be a gang fight ...
[ot]
One of the last rules that bitcoin would teach to you is: you are alone on this earth. Stop to seek help.
No friends, no family, no community. There is only you and your txid/privkey/wallets/explorers.... Even when we decide on how to "deal" with alleged "friends/brothers" it's evident we are not trusting a process or a friend in the same way we trust bitcoin.
Trust in bitcoin is just superpartes. Trust in humans no... and has also some interpretrations.

Anyway, best of the luck for this alliance, as told before, in any case due person invovled you have my support even if I would not join directly.

[rat03gopoh]

My application:
I live in a poor country that by default, is more susceptible to cyberbullying at various times. I can't afford to change citizenship, at least not to move my ass. I think this thread is my last hope for personal protection from such things in the future. Otherwise, I'll have to live in a concrete bunker 30 meters underground to avoid the noise. Sadly, the ignore button and the forum's trust system no longer work to protect me.

@1miau I know this thread is just a joke, altough 23 days late from April Fools' Day. ;)

[yahoo62278]

I'm not sure this is needed honestly. While it sounds like a good initiative, some are going to look at it like the new DT mafia. I'm not telling you not to do it, but I can see this not turning out to be such a good experiment.

An attack against one Member is seen as an attack on the whole alliance. If an attack occurs, it is crucial for all members to be defended against any accusation. The alliance will be a fair share to protect its members against attacks.

This screams trust abuse and bullying waiting to happen IMO.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I'm not sure this is needed honestly. While it sounds like a good initiative, some are going to look at it like the new DT mafia.

I think the same. I have a very high opinion of the three people who are initially part of this alliance, but over time we’ve seen people on the forum who had a great reputation end up getting red-tagged for scamming and things like that. Saying that you're going to defend someone to the bitter end, regardless of the facts, sounds quite mob-style.

An attack against one Member is seen as an attack on the whole alliance. If an attack occurs, it is crucial for all members to be defended against any accusation. The alliance will be a fair share to protect its members against attacks.

This screams trust abuse and bullying waiting to happen IMO.

Yeah. That is just BS, especially that "any". I think it's an analogy to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. That's simply a false analogy.

[(BTC)]

I personally think it's strange how you declared yourself to be "dead" in the name of protecting the user behind the account. Only to come back, make a topic about how you're back to discuss bitcoin, altcoins, and strengthening relationships with the bitcointalk community, and then lock the topic. Then, your next topic is that you want to start what feels like, honestly, a feedback-gang?

This is super odd. Pointing out one user's flaw shouldn't invite the attention of several other users in the spirit of guildsmanship.

[JeromeTash]

This might not end well, though, in case one of the members of the alliance goes astray or especially in those cases where there is a spat or dispute between members that cannot clearly be stopped by taking sides.

I personally think it's strange how you declared yourself to be "dead" in the name of protecting the user behind the account. Only to come back, make a topic about how you're back to discuss bitcoin, altcoins, and strengthening relationships with the bitcointalk community, and then lock the topic. Then, your next topic is that you want to start what feels like, honestly, a feedback-gang?

This is super odd. Pointing out one user's flaw shouldn't invite the attention of several other users in the spirit of guildsmanship.

I think the death he meant was more about the "miau" or "cat character". More like saying goodbye to the forum, just like Lauda did, but he took a break, and after some time felt like the community was part of him, so that's why he is probably back. People do this all the time. I don't think this should be an issue so long as he is the same person behind the account.

[OgNasty]

How about taking a look at some of my negative trust. I’ve been given trust for all sorts of nonsense. For example, I’ve received negative feedback for stating the ROI of my coins in dollars. I’ve received negative feedback just calling me names. I’ve received negative feedback for untrue allegations… I don’t think any negative trust rating I’ve ever received has been warranted…

I’m also the only person among the top 25 most trusted users who has had my ratings excluded from default trust in spite of none of my ratings being even close to controversial. Excluding one of the most active longtime traders and trusted user’s ratings from default trust itself is a sure sign of shenanigans.

[Vod]

How about taking a look at some of my negative trust. I’ve been given trust for all sorts of nonsense. For example, I’ve received negative feedback for stating the ROI of my coins in dollars. I’ve received negative feedback just calling me names. I’ve received negative feedback for untrue allegations… I don’t think any negative trust rating I’ve ever received has been warranted…

I’m also the only person among the top 25 most trusted users who has had my ratings excluded from default trust in spite of none of my ratings being even close to controversial.

OgNasty, we just went over the reasons for your distrust.   You had an agreement with pirate and stole 99% from your ponzi members, you stole treasury money from Theymos because he hadn't paid you in almost a year, and you lied about your control over your ICO.    If you want to discuss it sober, I am willing.

Excluding one of the most active longtime traders and trusted user’s ratings from default trust itself is a sure sign of shenanigans.

Stupid legal shenanigans, firing a treasurer for theft and having the community trust the administrator over a liar....  

[LoyceV]

An attack against one Member is seen as an attack on the whole alliance. If an attack occurs, it is crucial for all members to be defended against any accusation. The alliance will be a fair share to protect its members against attacks.

I'd say it's better if everyone uses the Trust system by the book:

Trust list: a list of people whose judgement on others you trust (username) or don't trust (~username).

There's no need to form an alliance, and there's no need to "retaliate" against accusations. Just vote through your Trust list.

[examplens]

I'm not sure this is needed honestly. While it sounds like a good initiative, some are going to look at it like the new DT mafia. I'm not telling you not to do it, but I can see this not turning out to be such a good experiment.

Centralization of something that is considered decentralized.

[iqbal26]

I respect your initiative, but I don’t agree with this kind of alliance. Bitcointalk trust is meant to be personal and decentralized, not controlled by a group or alliance

[OgNasty]

How about taking a look at some of my negative trust. I’ve been given trust for all sorts of nonsense. For example, I’ve received negative feedback for stating the ROI of my coins in dollars. I’ve received negative feedback just calling me names. I’ve received negative feedback for untrue allegations… I don’t think any negative trust rating I’ve ever received has been warranted…

I’m also the only person among the top 25 most trusted users who has had my ratings excluded from default trust in spite of none of my ratings being even close to controversial.

OgNasty, we just went over the reasons for your distrust.   You had an agreement with pirate and stole 99% from your ponzi members, you stole treasury money from Theymos because he hadn't paid you in almost a year, and you lied about your control over your ICO.    If you want to discuss it sober, I am willing.

Excluding one of the most active longtime traders and trusted user’s ratings from default trust itself is a sure sign of shenanigans.

Stupid legal shenanigans, firing a treasurer for theft and having the community trust the administrator over a liar....  

See what I mean...  Nobody lost any coins from my pirate pass-thru.  theymos himself said that I didn't steal from the treasury and even confirmed that I sent him the forked coins.  He even claims I'm not sober when I don't even drink alcohol.

Clearly there is something wrong with a trust system that thinks this is ok behavior.  You'd think constantly lying about someone and filing frivolous lawsuits would be discouraged in a functioning trust system.

[KingsDen]

Welcome back 1miau...ThankGod it's Friday and this is a good Friday. I think it's time to edit my personal text. Who knows, o_e_l_e_o could one day re-appear.
Concerning the Defensive Alliance proposal, it is not a bad one and I know I once read that the presence of cult is allowed in the forum and it flourished in the early days of bitcointalk. Also, seeing a few reputable members that have already endorsed this alliance means it should be taken seriously.

You launched a proposal or campaign in the past about improving the quality of posts in the local board and I supported that campaign very well

Campaign Supporters:
- 1miau
- GazetaBitcoin
- NeuroticFish
- KingsDen
- PrivacyG

See also GazetaBitcoin's important points below.

However, I am not blind to the fact that some persons had been bullied or wrongly tagged by some DT abusers and didn't get justice. This happens in every system, as no system is ideal, including the trust and merit system.

I need clarity on this;

• Will the alliance have a strong public/private rules, stating conditions under which a member of the alliance will not be protected by its members. This rules will keep every member checked, such that no member will go attract unnecessary fights hoping the Brotherhood to fight for them.
• Will every trust decision made by a member be his personal decision or will it always represent the decision of the alliance. If the later will be the case, does it therefore mean that the alliance will have a coordinated strong voice in any trust issues even if it doesn't directly affect their members.
• Don't we think there will be trust system disruption. I mean, if user A distrusts a member of the alliance, they might be tempted to distrust all other members of the alliance. And the alliance will be tempted to retaliate.

I have a feeling that such an alliance might be secretly existing among BTT members, which is how it fits best. The difference is that you came out clean, which will call for much debate, scrutiny and exclusion of the members. I would like you to address a few of my concerns, such that I'll be sure that a coordinated loyalty mechanism will not replace an evidence-based trust system.

[Odohu]

The first thing this will do is to make the entire forum assume a cult-like fashion and with time, it will make some people so powerful such that even when they do something wrong, they will be protected. Hence, it will breed abuse of the highest order. I know your intention may be genuine at the beginning but with time it will lead to abuse, cyberbullying and many things we wouldn't want to see in this forum. As we all know, Vod and OG cannot be on the same side, that means we will have at least two cartels in the forum and with time more cartels will emerge and this will even make us forget about Bitcoin and focus on power tussle and so many irrelevances.

[goldkingcoiner]

I would like to report this user for bullying me  ---->>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2143453

This individual decided to post an overly dramatic leaving topic, using words of finality such as "died", only to return only a short while later to form a Bitcointalk NATO. I consider this deceitful and an attempt at scamming me out of my feelings.

Welcome back. Hope you had a nice long break to rejuvenate yourself from whatever ailed you.  

[The Cryptovator]

An attack against one Member is seen as an attack on the whole alliance. If an attack occurs, it is crucial for all members to be defended against any accusation. The alliance will be a fair share to protect its members against attacks.

Definitely it's a good initiative to defend each other, but I am not sure we need a separate alliance for this. Even if a non-DT member is wrongly tagged or raises a wrong allegation, then the forum members, including DT members, should defend them. So far I can see DT members defending wrong accusations and tags. Even you may find some counter feedback as well.

Let's say I am one of the alliance members and I did something wrong or scammed someone. Then allegations against me or tags on my profile are legitimate. Alliances shouldn't defend such allegations or tags. But still I believe if someone wrongly tags me or raises vague allegations, the community, including DT members, will defend me. Hope you understand what I want to express: from the humanity we should defend legitimate users, whether they are DT members or not.