Topic: Community generated suggestions to improve the forum (+ eventual voting on them) - page 9. (Read 26794 times)

Was waiting for someone to pop up with "Trust" being an issue. TBH bitcointalk needs some sort of "centralization", One can point out issues like trust abuse etc, But it is now needed more than ever! Scammers are getting smarter, Farmers are getting organized in ways we haven't seen in the past. Removing/Replacing the current Trust will cuz a havoc. I believe the opportunity to replace the "Trust" system has been long gone and replacing it with something less "Centralized" will be a bad move.

Imagine all the ratings applied to loan defaulters having no more value. It's like giving them a second chance they don't deserve. Coming up with something to "Decentralize Trust" has to be revolutionary and shouldn't give a clean sheet to scammers from the past. Unless you have found a way to keep everything intact moving forward, I believe its best to leave the issue of trust alone.

P.S Trust based on merit isn't the best solution IMO. You can argue that it can act as a voting system but for what exactly?

The way you put it, it does sound a bit odd; but that's not the only or absolute thing I said; I also wanted to factor in an account's age and activity; not just a newbie making a couple of posts casting aspersions and leaving negs. What's your opinion on the mod/staff opinion thing I have proposed?



Exactly, this is what I had in my mind too; while the language barrier can be an issue; it can also be a boon. Most members might not know what sort of scam is going on; in let's say Japanese or Korean threads or the mods(who r usually versed in the language) will know better.

I imagine some trust is still needed for local moderators as well though. It could be argued that they might be able to get away with more malicious actions, because of those reviewing their actions not knowing the language natively.

I think it goes without saying that admins have to have a lot of trust between theymos, and them.

That puts my trust power right under theymos (unless satoshi comes back for this, then I'll be right under satoshi)! Great plan, I like it
In reality, apart from the fact that making good posts doesn't make someone trustworthy, Merit is being traded for money (or sex). That should not turn into power over who's good or evil on the forum.

I disagree with this too: although I don't know the exact criteria used, I'm pretty sure not all staff members are picked because they can be trusted with money, some are picked because their local boards needed a Mod.
And Admins are on DT already.

Makes no sense. You're replacing an imperfect system (DT hierarchy) with a stupid one (trust linked to post quality).

Theymos has already suggested a DT replacement. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/replacing-defaulttrust-914641

I don't know why so many people tie merit to trust. It's not the same thing. One should have absolutely zero correlation to the other.

At least with the DT network, there are far fewer members "abusing" it than the merit abusers.

---

I disagree. Just because a member is a moderator doesn't make their feedback more valuable then, let's say someone who deals with thousands of dollars worth of transactions a day.


Again, I disagree. The merit system is obviously more abused than trust. I think you're just taking it personal because you were previously red-tagged.

I dunno if this sounds VERY naive; but do away with the DT; people should have to modify their Trust list to get the red/green/amber etc.

I believe DT gives a false sense of security on the forum and reduces checks and balances which otherwise people would do more.

Instead when clicking on someone's trust the trust feedbacks should be displayed in the order received by the most merited(over the default merits) and older members. A weighted system to display the feedbacks is what I mean.

EDIT: Also feedbacks by staff, admin and mods should be displayed on top.

EDIT: DT imho is the most abused system on the forum and also a breeding ground for group fights.

EDIT:
We can disagree to disagree for all we want; BUT I WAS NEVER RED/AMBER/GREEN tagged; it is only a frustrated neutral that I have ever had, so stop trying to judge based on your biases.  

Please read it carefully; I never said merit and trust are the same thing; also I think being a mod requires you to have the trust of theymos which is far more important than handling BTCs in trades; which might have never happened. Not to say that theymos is infallible, but yeah he must be doing a better DD while appointing a mod, than people do while choosing an escrow or a dealer.

The merit-abuse is rampant and I'm not defending it; but yeah it will stop once the merits dry out; Trust, on the other hand, is perennial and won't dry out and is a much more dangerous territory; cause if it wasn't, then hilariousandco wouldn't have negged mdayonliner for trying to be an inexperienced escrow; for he sure has quite a few merits but doesn't have sufficient trust.

He didn't say yes either: "OK in principle, would require thought/adjustment/implementation. Many of these things are more complex than they look at first glance". It wouldn't work without his input anyway so it's pointless without blacklisting their signatures. You can ban their accounts and trash their threads all you like but people will still continue to advertise for them and the banned campaigns will just run and organise them off site or through telegram etc. Many campaigns are already making joining telegram channels a requirement so they will just rally the troops there or on their website. We could get something going to police problem campaigns if you wanted to take things into your own hands. I've suggested before that the community starts some sort of 'campaign police' and starts leaving negative feedback for the utter crap campaigns that are doing absolutely nothing about spam and quality control and as such are being colossally abused by farmers/spammers/bots in the process. If something like five or ten users are caught copy and pasting then that campaign then gets negbomed by everyone until they show that they've made changes and removed all the spammers and bots etc. Feedback can then be removed. It won't stop them from running them but at least they'll know their behaviour is unacceptable by community standards and negative feedback doesn't look good when you're trying to raise money. It's certainly not ideal but neither is letting them get away with whatever they like and destroying the forum in the process. I would much rather theymos just put measures in place to stop or curb this behaviour such as sig blacklists and removing signatures from Juniors and/or requiring them to earn a merit before they can have a signature which would all work wonders.

Isn't this one that can be started without further effort from theymos:
I know you (hilariousandco) have suggested it before, and wrote the signature guidelines almost 2 years ago. Now that theymos says it's "OK in principle", can't you start banning them?

I've actually suggested similar things like these before. People shouldn't be allowed to spam the trust needlessly. Some do it because they actually think it makes a difference and turns their score bright red the more they do, though this probably isn't huge issue.


True, they could, but you'd have to be pretty determined to do this. Most probably won't go to those lengths.



Those are pretty much what I've already suggested. See the bit at the bottom in red.

No it is not, I can post right here a link with eth link addresses connected and a kyc passed from spreadsheet data for one abuser with atleast 10 accounts.
It's seems quite easy to "steal" ID documents. Also someone probably will sell 3rd world ID for few bucks.

Vote for this [+1]


One can still trust spam by creating new accounts. Although I think trust spam will be reduced to certain degree but still wouldn't be completely eliminated. Will vote for this as well [+1]

---

I would like to suggest adding a message like we have when we visit any thread in Investor based games to be displayed in every board where there are stickies to read the stickies of that board carefully.

What we have in Investor-based games:


And what I suggest.For example: In goods section,


Highlighting might get some good attention and that way maybe people will get aware about stickies. On top of it , it would be much better if Guest are also able to see this message.

I hope I was able to deliver my idea properly. Apologies in advance if have been already suggested earlier.

A couple of suggestions I've already made in the past and haven't been considered yet:

• Show the default trust on the Marketplace for unregistered users. A lot of guests get scammed by users who are already tagged as scammers [link]
• Implement rules to reduce trust spam. For example any user should be able to leave only one 300-char feedback per week on any other's profile. [link]

Why would you want everything to be centralized than it already is? Why should all the control be given to the DT's instead of a proper system that operates on predefined rules? We know the DT system is broken, feedback's are often biased and subjective. You know, if that ever happens, you will only see the members of DT managing the campaigns and not let anybody else to do it. I really have like 3 members in my trust-list whose feedbacks I consider appropriate. I don't mind if a set of rules are defined for one to become a bounty manager or community has to approve on an individual basis.

Not going to work out in the long run. Yes, we have DT, scams still exist, account farmers still exists, bumping services still exists and I can go in. We need an improved system to reduce this drastically.

Yeah, the context of the post is important. I've had them before and it was hard to tell where it was deleted from and many users report the deleted message notification asking why it was deleted etc. Sometimes the post can seem perfectly valid but if the post was off topic or in a thread necrobumped then that's often why they're removed but without knowing where it came from you can't be sure nor can you give a concrete explanation as to why it was deleted.


If they don't require his input then they can easily be implemented and those things can be discussed or done elsewhere.

I'm working on an ignore system with a categorised public display, and a multi-admin ticket support system.

@hilariousetc
Can we gather here also suggestions which does not required theymos to do anything, like gather a group of DTs to monitor the Bounty Managers, as you proposed earlier, this will be one way to go. Finding solutions without changing the policy of the forum.  

Maybe we should focus on this direction since no major changes can be expected in the near future.

I understand your point of view but I think that if we introduce this limit of account for a single IP it slows down and a lot of activity for people who have more than 500 accounts. I do not think these people are willing to pay for "evil fees" and I strongly doubt that they are going to change their IP 500 resetting the router every time.
Also if I'm not wrong the Evel fee is only IF anyone get a ban till that moment you can use unlimited number of accounts for IP.

I also have a small suggestion what could be improved in the forum. When a post is deleted in a self-moderated topic, you get a message, but in the message are no information about the thread in which the post was deleted. It would be good to know from which thread the message was deleted. A link to it would be great, from which thread the message was deleted. Otherwise you never know from which thread what was deleted and especially with old post, it's hard to know which post it was.   

How do you know they're all sharing an IP? Many farmers will share one or a handful of IPs but the smartest ones wouldn't. I wouldn't be against something like once an IP is used to create an account it is 'burned' and no more accounts can be created from that one. Maybe paying the evil fee or whatever per account could white-list them, but not sure how effect either suggestion would be.


Fell free to suggest them here. I plan to compile users suggestions and others can vote on them and the most popular ones among the community will be moved to the top of the list. There's no guarantees that theymos will ever implement them or not but at least he and we can see what is popular amongst users here.