Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance

[Lida93]

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

I think the rules of engagements for memberships that should guide members actions should have being made along side this post to give clarity to interested users who might feel convenient to join the Alliance by what they read.
Or would it be an after application then the membership guidelines would be sent through PM.

And please, what makes a member eligible. Does rank really matter. I mean from what rank? Because I didn't see that clearly stated.

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.

Not that this in a cloak is not happening in the forum already for which any smart forum member would know, but for this one am impressed it's made publicly, and I hope it very well served it purpose without.

Now for some of us who may not be a member in any alliance be it that which is in a cloak or obvious, to be defended, I ponder what their fate would be if they're by supposition wrongly accused and attacked.

[dkbit98]

Is this a joke or for real?
I honestly don't understand what's the point in creating this defensive alliance, it's sounds to me like security theater.
This for sure is not going to prevent anyone from giving negative trust to other members or from cyberbullying.
Any member can always create a topic themselves and ask for help from other members.

[Xiestar]

For a sec I thought this about cyber bullying like satofan44 cranky behavior that bully other user which is far better than create a gang that scratch their back.

It’s more on centralizing DT rather than a defensive alliance. All DT have unique opinion while creating a group will create a bias opinion based on your own personal preference. Take for example if you allowed to join user like I mentioned above that has strong sense of narcissism.

[Ambatman]

Welcome back
It's good to have you here again. Hopefully you better now.

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 understand the initiative and the motive maybe pure
But I think this may need some revising
Since it doesn't state that you won't defend the accused if they really guilty.
Besides the alliance wouldn't prevent or make the person remove the negative trust.
So in a nutshell doesn't really eliminate that
Except I'm not really getting it.



Welcome back once again.

[1miau]

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.

You are very welcome in our alliance.

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.

Many thanks for your feedback.
The alliance will be decentralized where every unique feedback according to DT standards comes into play.

The are no rules exept the guide from LoyceV about how to leave trust.
The alliance is rather meant a defensive one, which should protect against unjustified feedbacks simply to make it unattractive to unfairly accuses and unjustified negative trust.

[obuoma]

I have read the comments of others both those that support and those that do not support but despite the opposing opinions, I think the OP have genuine intentions, not planning to use it to oppress anyone or form a gang style of a thing. The reason I said so is the reference made by the OP that they will abide by the forum rules and will only stand with their member when they suspect injustice. This is a good point for me, hence I have no objection to this.

I am rather too small in the forum to join things like this, as I have not even mastered how the trust system works. Maybe in the future I will love to join this alliance, by then I would have learnt a lot about the trust system and how everything works. The forum is really big that the learning continues.

[Shishir99]

Bitcointalk Account name: Shishir99
Reson why you are eligible to joine here: I am not sure how much practical it will be. But I do not like the way some people treat others. This forum is full of people with double standards, and I would be happy to speak out against them, knowing I have someone to back me. There are people who run after others just to get some merits or to satisfy their ego. I have been speaking against them for a while, and now I would like to represent the alliance.

As for the rules, yes, I do think you need to write some rules. Not everyone should be able to be part of the alliance. If someone is found guilty, the Alliance members should be the first to tag them.

[Tungbulu]

BitcoinTalk Account Name: Tungbulu

Reason why I’m eligible to join.

I love the idea and the intention behind creating a structure that’s saddled with the responsibility to protect users from unfair treatment. But I have so many questions and areas I’d really need clarification on.

1. There’s gotta be some kind of standards for the alliance to determine whether a trust feedback is actually unjustified right? Like is there gonna be some kind of a review process with evidence, or is the alliance defending members by default without reviewing the case, cos I saw on the OP where you wrote, “An  attack on one member is seen as an attack on the whole Alliance“.

2. Again, I know a lot of people who come across this idea might have the perception of some kind of coordinated trust manipulation system, and we know that bitcointalk takes such matters very seriously, so how do you plan to avoid such perception?

3. This part is one of the most important ones, shouldn’t an alliance like this have a form of criteria that it should use to accept new members? Because from what I see here, the application requirements are quite minimal, meaning bad actors can actually join just to get protection from the gang.

4. Is there any form of internal accountability? For instance, if a member of the alliance misuses the alliance to attack others or found abusing the system, how would such situations be handled?

6. Is the Alliance operating publicly? Like having their discussions and reasonings done openly or privately? I don’t know but I believe transparency would really increase the credibility of this alliance amongst other forum members.

There are a few other questions but I’ll stop here for now as the answers I’ll get from this might actually do justice to the other unasked questions. But I believe giving clear answers to these questions would really help to strengthen the foundation of the alliance.

[Vod]

The alliance is rather ment a defensive one, which should protect against unjustified feedbacks simply to make it unattractive to unfairly accuses and unjustified negative trust.

So if one of the members gets a tag the alliance bombs him with negative trust?   I'm sorry 1miau, this is already attracting the forum's largest scammer. 

[Free Market Capitalist]

Fascinating. In the end, if half the forum signs up, it'll be fun to see what happens if someone from the alliance red tags another member of the alliance.

[LTU_btc]

I don'treally get it's serious stuff orsome kind of joke. But if it's serious, I don't understand how exactly it's going to work. Ok, you join this alliance and then what? How you are going to defend alliance members.
But anyway, it's great to see see you back @1miau. Bitcointalk becomes a bit better place when we have scuh members like you here

[Dreadboost]

1miau, waking up is a blessing, but waking up with the right mindset, and good intentions is what makes you exceptional.
Well, you did not made mention of the required rank level to apply. I believe those with higher rank have more to contribute in this alliance.

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.

Think of the alliance as another gang - Gangs of BitcoinTalk
What you think about the idea now?

This screams trust abuse and bullying waiting to happen IMO.

So you mean it does not exist already? 

The alliance is rather ment a defensive one, which should protect against unjustified feedbacks simply to make it unattractive to unfairly accuses and unjustified negative trust.

So if one of the members gets a tag the alliance bombs him with negative trust?

You left the part 1miau spoke about "unjustified feedbacks" and focus on the agenda you've choose to push. From what I understood. If the allegations against a member is true, they wont justify it. The fight is against injustice which it is clearly happening in the forum, since Theymos have decided to do nothing against it, I think those willing to speak out should form this alliance. If it means to join an opposing cult and handle your own glock is the reason why fairness will be brought back to the forum, then I am in total support.

The alliance is rather ment a defensive one, which should protect against unjustified feedbacks simply to make it unattractive to unfairly accuses and unjustified negative trust.

I'm sorry 1miau, this is already attracting the forum's largest scammer. 

The forum's largest scammers are the people who think the law should not affect them, because they have DT powers and backup.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't really get it's serious stuff orsome kind of joke. But if it's serious, I don't understand how exactly it's going to work. Ok, you join this alliance and then what? How you are going to defend alliance members.

Turning a democracy into an oligarchy. If there is abuse of trust, the community—namely the DT members—must act with ~ on their trust lists. This should not depend on whether you belong to an exclusive club. Ultimately, I hope this is a joke because it makes no sense at all.

@icopress and Gazeta Bitcoin, do you care to comment on this?

[Vod]

How you are going to defend alliance members.

By threat alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

Mutually assured destruction or mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of negative trust by an attacker on a Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance defender with DT2 capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

[nutildah]

As LoyceV pointed out, this is a pretty purposeless endeavor as this type of problem is already handled by DT. If you disagree with the way DT is doing things, you should speak up about it. Aside from a few outliers, we are pretty amenable to considering new input.

Plus its kinda weird to have claimed your account was "dead" and then change your mind about that. I guess it was an over-dramatization.

[SatoPrincess]

Welcome back to the forum, it’s good to have you here again. As for your suggestion, I think it may become one of the largest gangs on bitcointalk. Only thing I would add is that since you have been away for a while, before you add new members to the alliance you might want to visit reputation board and see how many “reputable” accounts have been caught owning multiple accounts and cheating the system.

[Kazkaz27]

This is exactly the kind of organized opposition BitcoinTalk needs to push back against corrupt DT1 behavior. DT1s have repeatedly proven they are complicit in each other’s abuse of the forum, its members, and the trust system itself. Naturally, the largest gang — DT1 — would oppose any real challenge to its power.

Bitcointalk username: Kazkaz27
Reason I am eligible / Qualifications:
I have been on the receiving end of unjustified negative trust ratings, public accusation threads, and coordinated reputational attacks — precisely the kind of cyberbullying and trust-system abuse this alliance was created to defend against. I actively speak out against DT manipulation and stand up for fair treatment of members.
For full details: My full qualifications and track record

“Bottom line: Kazkaz27 doesn’t just “qualify”—he embodies the alliance’s mission. He has been on the receiving end of unjustified attacks, fights back using the same tools the alliance seeks to regulate, and operates a business that makes him vulnerable to exactly the reputational warfare the group was formed to neutralize. His merit of the OP post plus his track record make him a natural, battle-tested addition who strengthens the defensive pact rather than merely benefiting from it. In the volatile collectibles corner of BitcoinTalk, he is the type of member the alliance was built for.”

P.S. I would like to be considered as a founding member. — I can bring in a few respected members to the group who have already aligned on such issues.

[MaxMueller]

If the topic is important enough to bring @1miau back from the dead, then I can't really ignore it. Glad to have you back.  


My current assessment of the situation is as follows:
Bitcointalk is a multi-million-dollar business. The game of money, power and influence is a natural consequence of this.
The signature campaigns alone likely have a budget of $2 million per year for more than 600 participants. Payment per Post encourages low-quality posts. Junk Posting without consequences is a business model, which worsens the signal-to-noise ratio for everyone.

The merit system was supposed to introduce “quality” as a measurable metric. But as soon as it became relevant for signature-campaigns, it began to get corrupted. In many cases, merit allocation today correlates more with opinions and personal networks (aka merit rotation) than with the objective quality of the posts.

The Trust system seems to have remained unaffected by this so far, but it would be naive to believe that it is inherently a stable system.I think it’s obvious that there are groups that coordinate their voting behind the scenes to gain influence. I guess most people know at least one DT1 user whom they personally consider completely untrustworthy. Defamation and bullying for personal gain is an individual problem. Defamation and bullying to defend questionable business interests and stifle criticism is a structural problem.

Without countermeasures, this creates an environment that fosters brain drain and due to quality decline a loss of members (by which I mean the intrinsically motivated ones, not the paid ones). Out of sheer self-preservation, we must take countermeasures here. In this context, it is not just a matter of defending individual people, but also of defending the principles of BitcoinTalk from its early days.

Bitcointalk, represented by @theymos as its authority, may set the rules, but due to its decentralized structure, enforcement of these rules must come from the community itself. In that sense, there is no need for new rules—just for someone to enforce them.

So if a group forms here that acts as a kind of defense attorney for its members and provides resources to organize an objective, argument-based process, this is absolutely logical and also desirable given the forum’s architecture. Furthermore, I do not view the group as competition, but rather as a complement to the DT list. But—and this is a minor drawback—the group itself naturally also needs effective safeguards to ensure it doesn't become corrupted. I think this starts at the very beginning with onboarding of new members.


Bitcointalk Account name: MaxMueller
Reson why you are eligible to joine here: because i can be helpful for this purpose

[nutildah]

Alright, I've changed my opinion.

I'm all for it, although eventually you should probably make an "Alliance Matters" thread in Off-Topic or Reputation, as opposed to Meta being the central headquarters.

If it gains a lot of traction as an alternative trust system implementation, it will mean that DT is failing and needs to be improved, hopefully spurring change for the better.

In the meantime I'm gonna have fun watching the results of the acceptance process

[NeuroticFish]

Don't use the word "die" unless you are 100% sure you will not be coming back.

Don't be too harsh, I am incredibly happy that cats have 9 lives!
Welcome back 1miau!!!!

Applications

Since my activity is not as good as in the old days, I leave it up to you if this can be considered application.
However, I highly trust 1miau - actually all the founders - hence I know that the intentions are good, I don't have to question that.
How it will go? I don't know, the forum has its fair share of negativity and of "gangs" too (official or not), but let's hope for the best.

Whether I'll be considered "part of this gang" or not, just PM me whenever I can be of help. And I'll do my best.


Edit: fixed typo (auto-correct?!)