Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance

[Majestic-milf]

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.

I second the response of Superbitman. The op stated that the purpose of opening this alliance is to defend against unjust accusations (allow me add that, op) because if the accusation is valid after proof, then they'd only be giving themselves a negative rep by defending the member so I feel it's a good initiative by 1miau.

[Btcdeybodi]

Creating an alliance against unjust negative feedback is not bad but it would be better to found an alliance that will protect any member of the forum instead of being specially designed for a group of people. However, my opinion is that creating an alliance to investigate unjust negative feedback that involves any member of the forum will be better than just protecting only its members. If this alliance is only centered at its members, a day will come when this whole thing will become dramatic when a member of the alliance receives a worthy negative tag. How do you intend to handle a member who receives a deserving negative tag? kick him out of the alliance

[Free Market Capitalist]

Creating an alliance against unjust negative feedback is not bad but it would be better to found an alliance that will protect any member of the forum instead of being specially designed for a group of people.

Are you crazy or what?

It’s much better to form an exclusive club to defend only those on the inside from injustice, and if you can’t get in, you can go fuck yourself.

However, my opinion is that creating an alliance to investigate unjust negative feedback that involves any member of the forum will be better than just protecting only its members.

We already have that. It's called the DT system in which unjust negative feedback is combated with ~ on trust lists.

[Rating Place]

I like the idea. I went 10 years without negative trust and now I’m getting it from pure dislike.

[LoyceV]

Out of curiosity: can members who are already under attack join? Kinda like taking insurance while you're house is already on fire?

[Rating Place]

Out of curiosity: can members who are already under attack join? Kinda like taking insurance while you're house is already on fire?

what was weird in my case is that I posted your guide for negative trust and still received it.


Kazkaz posted AI summary

  Bottom line: In crypto sportsbooks (unregulated, high-variance), player advocates like Rating Place perform a needed service by pushing transparency. Negative trust here looks like clique protection rather than justice. If you’re a player, side with Rating Place’s principles. If you run/rep books, holydarkness’s view aligns with risk management reality. But the trust flag itself was an overreach. The forum would benefit from clearer dispute guidelines.

Edit- AI summary and deleted some.

[MaxMueller]

We already have that. It's called the DT system in which unjust negative feedback is combated with ~ on trust lists.

Maybe I’m too inexperienced with the trust system, but I don’t understand the conflict being raised here.

As I understand the defense alliance, the DT system isn’t supposed to be replaced, is it? Rather, I see “joint defense” more as a commitment to make the effort to examine controversial cases in detail so that one can actively form an opinion.
In that sense, wouldn’t that actually strengthen the DT system because it would then be used more actively and function better?

Or what am I missing here? 

[Kazkaz27]

Maybe I’m too inexperienced with the trust system, but I don’t understand the conflict being raised here.

As I understand the defense alliance, the DT system isn’t supposed to be replaced, is it? Rather, I see “joint defense” more as a commitment to make the effort to examine controversial cases in detail so that one can actively form an opinion.
In that sense, wouldn’t that actually strengthen the DT system because it would then be used more actively and function better?

Or what am I missing here?  

Yes and no. It depends on what the defense alliance is defending against in any given situation.

Many members believe DT members are flawless and never make mistakes or abuse their power (even if some don’t believe this 99% are complicit/bystanders). Combating this mindset is extremely difficult. DT members are a tight group of “trusted” insiders who protect each other and their own interests. Only a strong counter-alliance or a tidal wave of support from “normal” members can keep that in check.

Honestly, DT members are the main issue an alliance like this would address. An alliance like this could protect the reputation of innocent members. As several DT members have openly stated, if you’re not DT, any negative trust assigned means little to nothing. They hold a complete monopoly on the narrative.

I’d say a successful alliance will inevitably challenge DT members, their judgments, and the claims they make about others.

[BenCodie]

What a surprise, the (somehow uncaught) account farmer and arguably the most corrupt signature campaign manager are teaming up to seemingly make an alliance to squash any voice that opposes their own...with the mask of "anti-bullying"

What happened to the thick skin club. Now the bullies are crying about bullying, cooing a defensive alliance to solidify their amassed power?

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

No surprise at all that you are for this too!

What a joke this forum has become and continues to devolve into.

Every time I visit, I hope for positive change, that theymos will turn the table upside down, notice and deal with the top influences and garbage propagators of it...instead it's these same people gaining more power, posting increasingly treacherous garbage...peaking now with the Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance.

if you are a legitimate member of this forum, you should oppose this motion. If you are a legitimate member of this forum with influence, you should be harshly criticizing this motion that is clearly harmful toward the non-influential majority of the community, and the powerful users who are instigating it. It is clearly a motion to prevent any criticism of the powerful users who join the motion, and will remove the ability to criticize members of the alliance even more than it already clearly exists, maybe entirely.

Sickening stuff really. Satoshi would not be proud.

[Zoomic]

Sickening stuff really. Satoshi would not be proud.

Bitcointalk was a communication platform for Satoshi and the early developers. I don't think he will be so interested in what happens here. If he is proud of bitcoin, we are good.

I also do not see bitcointalk as bad as you portrayed it or its users. The main problem I noticed is that discussions here shifted a lot from what it used to be in the early days. Majority of the people now are discussing economics, gambling and politics and little attention is paid to the real bitcoin development discussion.

Concerning the alliance, the most important thing about this forum is freedom. Anyone is free to choose what they do, provided it doesn't contradict the purpose and rules of the forum. The topic raised by Op doesn't contradict the forum operational rules. Assuming it did, the thread would have been thrashed since.

[icopress]

Glad 1miau is back! This is truly wonderful news, but I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I was completely surprised to see my name mentioned in this thread as a founder.

To be honest, I feel a little awkward that I was invited to a place where there are people about whom I know absolutely nothing, I don’t know the values ​​​​and beliefs are unfamiliar to me. I think I'd feel more comfortable if entry was by invitation only. That way, if someone vouched for and brought a new user into the group, they would be fully responsible for that user's abuses.

In my opinion, if 1miau wants this group to truly pursue its goals and stay alive, the members should definitely be anonymous. In addition, I think you should think about giving the club a brighter and more memorable name ... If I were to create something similar, I would probably call it "Raiders" or "Star Gate". 

[lovesmayfamilis]

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

Another co-founder was obviously also unaware of this venture, as he is also no longer listed in the ranks of this alliance. A rather strange pyramid about which. as it turns out, some people find out on the third day.

However, for the OP, this is a good welcome to shake up the forum with his return.

[SuperBitMan]

Alliance members:

SuperBitMan
KingsDen
MaxMueller
Tungbulu
Kazkaz27

Great work 1miau However, I think you made a mistake by putting Tungbulu application to Kazkaz27, check it so you can correct it.

[JollyGood]

I cannot speak for every member here but I can express my own opinion. Personally, I think this "Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance" is an extremely bad idea.

There are some concerns straight away. Why were members listed as founding members yet were unaware of the alliance or their participation within it?

Having said that, what would we all conclude if a group of known scammers decided to form a group? Or if a group campaign cheats or account farmers created their own group?

As good or bad as it currently is, there is a trust system within the forum and that should be the point of focus. If the trust system needs modifying or updating, members should request those changes are made to improve the forum rather than make groups within groups to further splinter relationships.

There are far too many issues that will arise when groups and alliances are created within the forum as they will further alienate members from each other. I would advise a complete halt to this.

To be honest, I feel a little awkward that I was invited to a place where there are people about whom I know absolutely nothing, I don’t know the values ​​​​and beliefs are unfamiliar to me. I think I'd feel more comfortable if entry was by invitation only. That way, if someone vouched for and brought a new user into the group, they would be fully responsible for that user's abuses.

That principle applies to all of the members joining any alliance. Why should any of them defend another if they do not know anything about them? I am baffled as to why this group was ever conceived.

[Kazkaz27]

I cannot speak for every member here but I can express my own opinion. Personally, I think this "Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance" is an extremely bad idea.

There are some concerns straight away. Why were members listed as founding members yet were unaware of the alliance or their participation within it?

Having said that, what would we all conclude if a group of known scammers decided to form a group? Or if a group campaign cheats or account farmers created their own group?

As good or bad as it currently is, there is a trust system within the forum and that should be the point of focus. If the trust system needs modifying or updating, members should request those changes are made to improve the forum rather than make groups within groups to further splinter relationships.

There are far too many issues that will arise when groups and alliances are created within the forum as they will further alienate members from each other. I would advise a complete halt to this.

To be honest, I feel a little awkward that I was invited to a place where there are people about whom I know absolutely nothing, I don’t know the values ​​​​and beliefs are unfamiliar to me. I think I'd feel more comfortable if entry was by invitation only. That way, if someone vouched for and brought a new user into the group, they would be fully responsible for that user's abuses.

That principle applies to all of the members joining any alliance. Why should any of them defend another if they do not know anything about them? I am baffled as to why this group was ever conceived.

What you suggest will never happen.

The members who actually advocate for change or need defending are all outside the DT circle. DT1s will always stick up for each other and reflexively shit on any idea that might require them to change their behavior, status, or the system they benefit from.

Many good members have already been chased out. That’s exactly why a “defense alliance” makes sense in my view. You did make one solid point. Maybe the whole idea wasn’t planned, coordinated or executed as well as it could have been.

[KingsDen]

Alliance members:

SuperBitMan
KingsDen
MaxMueller
Tungbulu
Kazkaz27

Great work 1miau However, I think you made a mistake by putting Tungbulu application to Kazkaz27, check it so you can correct it.

@SuperBitMan, I only asked for clarification and 1miau responded to it. I didn't submit an official application as requested by Op. I am surprised I am already included.

I have always supported 1miau ideas, as they are proven to better the forum. But this, I am yet to give my endorsement.

I will like to confess that 1maiu is the user that made me started using the trust system 4 years ago. I will have to expose a few paragraph of his pm that made me start using the trust system as it's not confidential. The Pm was in response to my question about DT. I was scared of DT and thought it was dangerous until this conversation with him.

DT is not "dangerous" at all and often, there's only punishment, when there are bad intentions involved.
Like the case in Reputation, where the offenders are completely unwilling to learn. Not only that, they are facilitating lies, insulting and harassing Newbies, downplaying war crimes and abusing positive trust on their troll and spam accounts for something, where no trade happened and if everyone would give out positive trust like that, some shitposters would have +100 trust and trust would be meaningless (and easy for scammers to abuse).
I hope it's a bit understandable now, how trust is intended.

And when you have some time, I encourage you to read about trust because in my opinion, it's very important for the forum to get rid of abusers. The more people are using trust and creating their trust list, the better it's getting for Bitcointalk because it's getting more difficult to abuse.

With this message back 2022, I strongly believe that 1maiu has a good intention for the community and the trust system. There could be a big advantage this Alliance could add to the forum, but maybe he didn't have time to explain better.

In the other hand, Icopress got a point.

In my opinion, if 1miau wants this group to truly pursue its goals and stay alive, the members should definitely be anonymous...

[GazetaBitcoin]

Before anything, I would like to say a very warm WELCOME BACK to 1miau! I am glad to see him returning...

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

Another co-founder was obviously also unaware of this venture, as he is also no longer listed in the ranks of this alliance. A rather strange pyramid about which. as it turns out, some people find out on the third day.

About this project, I am very honored to see he considered to assign me as a co-founder but, to be honest, this took me by surprise, as we did not talk anything about this before the thread was launched. lovesmayfamilis was right... I did not know about this.

In any case -- and I am saying this as gently and polite as possible -- I will have to decline this invitation. I share the opinions of LoyceV and of nutildah (at least first line of his post).

So while I am touched to see that 1miau took me in consideration, I will not be part of this.

[Rating Place]

Any chance of making this the first case. Holy bumped a guy with 10 merits and 47 posts so that rollinsweet’s trust against me moved from untrusted to trusted.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5581376.new

[1miau]

Any chance of making this the first case. Holy bumped a guy with 10 merits and 47 posts so that rollinsweet’s trust against me moved from untrusted to trusted.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5581376.new

I've distrusted him for now.

[Karl_3000]

Before anything, I would like to say a very warm WELCOME BACK to 1miau! I am glad to see him returning...

Why did he played with people's feelings? I also welcome him back but he need a slap before hugging him.

About this project, I am very honored to see he considered to assign me as a co-founder but, to be honest, this took me by surprise, as we did not talk anything about this before the thread was launched. lovesmayfamilis was right... I did not know about this.

In any case -- and I am saying this as gently and polite as possible -- I will have to decline this invitation. I share the opinions of LoyceV and of nutildah (at least first line of his post).

So while I am touched to see that 1miau took me in consideration, I will not be part of this.

This is not an invitation if he did not pm you first before he posted about it. It is good that you let us know he did not send you pm.