Besides, i don't see correlation between wearing signature campaign and DT1/DT2 since AFAIK you don't get paid to give feedback to user or make a vote on flag.
OP has a point. After all, money is the root to all evil.
/s
Topic: change into election algorithm - page 2. (Read 793 times)
OP has a point. After all, money is the root to all evil.
/s
Is this because nobody wants to hire the Turkish monkeys into campaigns? 
I don't understand why you insult us.Harming people causes deep wounds in the soul of the person performing this act.You're a pretty old member.I love and respect you.legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Hire Bitcointalk Camp. Manager @ r7promotions.com
I would flip the script and say that you shouldn't have voting power unless you are being paid to wear a signature.
OP had a crazy idea in mind and you came up with a better one so far. :-PThese dramas are more enjoyable when it's in reputation board :-D
Is this because nobody wants to hire the Turkish monkeys into campaigns?
I don't understand why you insult us.Harming people causes deep wounds in the soul of the person performing this act.You're a pretty old member.I love and respect you.
I would flip the script and say that you shouldn't have voting power unless you are being paid to wear a signature.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
Why? Can you support your claim by evidence?I can present a counter argument: users with negative feedback are often not allowed to join a signature campaign, and your proposal would increase their chances to reach DT1, which means they can influence their own negative feedback.
You're suggesting to reduce Bitcointalk's freedom, while this forum aims to be as free as possible.
Is this because nobody wants to hire the Turkish monkeys into campaigns?
I don't think this is something to implement on DT1 selection since signature campaign isn't directly related with forum administrators. The simple solution is as @suchmoon said simply ~distrust the user who wear paid signature. If in case implement your expected points then most likely maximum DT1 will be red tagged users. Its because most of campaign manager doesn't accept red tagged users.
Is this because nobody wants to hire the Turkish monkeys into campaigns?
😂😂😂
Is this because nobody wants to hire the Turkish monkeys into campaigns?
I propose a minor change into election algorithm. Everybody who wears a paid signature should be considered unworthy for DT1.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
You can start by not including such users in your own trust list.
DT1 is actually no different from the MPs, judges or court officers in that term.
DT1 is not a paid position. It's more like a town council or a school board - not a full-time position and members typically have day jobs. If you have specific examples of how signature campaigns corrupt DT members you should probably bring it up.
It would be almost impossible to automate looking for the signature markup on some user's profile because there's no database of them all.
Wouldn't be hard at all for BPIP or LoyceV to scrape signatures when they scrape the profile. Duplicate signatures can be detected instantly.
Or, Theymos could create a database of paid signatures, and you'd have to select one if you wanted a sig. How many people notice signatures anyway?
Where is corruption? Is DT making laws
Significant grop of them essentially does. De jure, each DT member has unlimited degree of autonomy and permitted to do whatever he wants. However, de facto there is a system of precedents which is enforced by trolling the "inappropriate" individuals as well as using other shady practices against them. That is corruption as is.for companies advertising here? Determining tax rates etc.?
There is no way to verify that itn't so. So, the only way to guarantee absence of any kind of pressure is to isolate all paid signature wearers from the decision making process.Trust, but verify. Remove the conflict of interests and you won't need to puzzle yourself with a question how to settle it.
Nothing personal, just logic as is. Occam's razor is your friend.
In my opinion, the whole point of the suggestion doesn't make much sense.
While politicians are determining the laws for companies and dividing interests from politicians and companies makes sense, the forum (or especially DT) doesn't make any laws how (for example) casinos have to operate. I don't know how you are going to compare that, just doesn't make sense to me. DT doesn't have any influence how companies advertising here have to do their business while politicians ofc do.
While politicians are determining the laws for companies and dividing interests from politicians and companies makes sense, the forum (or especially DT) doesn't make any laws how (for example) casinos have to operate. I don't know how you are going to compare that, just doesn't make sense to me. DT doesn't have any influence how companies advertising here have to do their business while politicians ofc do.
To be fair, paid signatures are even worse because these things are acting as a ground for the persistent corruption.
Where is corruption? Is DT making laws for companies advertising here? Determining tax rates etc.? 
I propose a minor change into election algorithm. Everybody who wears a paid signature should be considered unworthy for DT1.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
You can start by not including such users in your own trust list.
DT1 is actually no different from the MPs, judges or court officers in that term.
DT1 is not a paid position. It's more like a town council or a school board - not a full-time position and members typically have day jobs. If you have specific examples of how signature campaigns corrupt DT members you should probably bring it up.
minor
That's no minor change. New signature campaigns are made every now and then and it would be almost impossible to automate looking for the signature markup on some user's profile because there's no database of them all.
That being said I don't have a grudge against people wearing sig ads. I don't get your reasoning behind this either.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
To be fair, paid signatures are even worse because these things are acting as a ground for the persistent corruption. People are free to wear any signature of their choice, of course, but this action must lead to restriction of their electoral rights. Just like we have similar restrictions for those who are holding various positions in the public offices. For example, you can't be allowed to receive funds from the foreign power while working for the court. That would be simply a crazy loophole for corruption and fatal risk for integrity of the state. DT1 is actually no different from the MPs, judges or court officers in that term.
However, there is seemingly no way to deal with this issue, unfortunately.
Trust system, feedback and merit...
none of them are used properly because they are all subjective
I think rank jumping with the time spent in the forum (activity) was a fairer system.
people spend time with these vacant jobs
instead of discussing projects and the market
for what!
nothingness
none of them are used properly because they are all subjective
I think rank jumping with the time spent in the forum (activity) was a fairer system.
people spend time with these vacant jobs
instead of discussing projects and the market
for what!
nothingness
I propose a minor change into election algorithm. Everybody who wears a paid signature should be considered unworthy for DT1.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
The motivation is simple, paid signatures are reason to question their judgement.
Jump to: