Topic: DefaultTrust (DT) Network - DT1/2 Members - page 2. (Read 1812 times)

Theymos started a thread about improving post quality. He is looking for changes and adjustments to make in order to achieve that goal.
The motion is there, not from me, but from theymos himself (even though the changes he is ready to make are a bit limited so far, eg "serious discussion").

I think we are at a point where the forum has to "adapt" something in order to achieve progress here. To change something, theymos should get involved and help making that change possible.
On a pure community level, this battle is lost. SMAS has little impact if there are campaigns ignoring the problem and contributing to the spam. Fighting it with less than half the campaigns is a start, but only that.

No, I dont want theymos to change the trust system to ease the work of campaign managers,
but I do believe that if theymos would work together with the majority of campaign managers on a joint effort, we could make some noticable progress in the right direction.

---

I'm the leading user in most correct reports (at least I was last I've had the chance to get an update from theymos), believe me, I know about that and I use it a lot.
There's limit to the reports though (eg I cant contact campaign managers that way, only moderators, I can only report posts that violate the rules, not spam).

Trust system haven't relation with posting quality, again spamming/shitposting exist simple, available to all "report to moderator" system.


You're talking like  the Forum should adapt trust system to signature campaign and help their manager. Why should this be? They work for a paid job.

This is welcome.

The only problem with that approach is, not many campaign managers follow SMS restrictions.The actual problem is,there are too many campaign managers on bitcointalk who are ready to work for as low as a few satoshis without caring about the participants they select.Many new services avoid taking old good campaign managers because these noobs have started to manage the same for very low rates.

Lauda
Please, get off this forums for a few days and see how a civilized and a world with freedom works.
You are possessed by your false sense of judgement and heroism. I am really not trying to be offensive against you, its just pity i feel for you.

I will just keep it short and simple
DT2 have a lot of flaws in their sense of judgement.
Lauda has negative trusted me by "assuming" that my service was a fraud while i had every proof of it being a legit service.
I've been a part of this forums since 2014 and Lauda won't even consider once to respect a fellow user's explanations. He simply never replied to my PMs and blocked me.
On top of it all, when i started proving myself legit he gave me another totally unrelated negative trust.
I've been reading Lauda's post since so many years, his sense of judgement is getting more and more possessed by a hunger of power and sense of heroism.

At that point, why use the trust system at all.
Neutral feedback makes it hard to spot those users (eg think about a campaign with 100 users, a manager would have to parse 100 trust pages to spot such tags, as they dont show up like negative trust does).
The reason some use negative feedback to tag spammers/shitposters is because it stands out. It's easy to spot.

If we already achieve consensus among campaigns on how to deal with this problem, leave out the trust system.
We dont necessarily have to use SMAS, but an apporach similar to it would be more easy to manage.

A public collective list that is easy to request and check.
If you want signature campaigns to use it, make it so they can do that without creating a huge extra effort.

This could work out, but what it needs is widespread support from all campaigns.
The way SMAS is right now, it's impact is limited. Utilizing the trust system has a way bigger impact as it affects campaigns that don't directly support the fight against spam.

---

(Note that I, currently, do not leave negative feedback for spamming/shitposting. My apprach to this problem was initializing SMAS, if you want to contribute to that approach, feel free to contact me.)

I've PM'd them asking for their opinion on this proposed solution.

Agreed. This was just an example. I mean I would leave negative trust only to users (spammers or not) who behave untruthfully.

Blazed! please stop this, why you do this every time?

I could get behind this solution if signature campaign managers could agree on it. Doing this would also semi-invalidate SMAS, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

There'd be little point in this; it would be more effective to report the account and get it banned. Should the account not be banned, perhaps this would be a good way to continue.

I would suggest leaving neutral feedback starting with "Spammer" or whatever word we agree on, and ask signature managers to disallow users with that trust.

Helping to keep the SMAS list up to date and asking signature managers to use it can also help.

I would leave negative feedback to spammers only if they have untrustworthy behavior such as constantly copying and pasting content, as that can be seen as trying to defraud the signature campaign. But absolutely not to poor quality posters. Negative trust means "scammer" or "very untrustworthy"

That's the wrong link, dumbass. Would you care to at least select the text that hilariousandco wrote?

Here's the deal. People who I tag consistently post garbage. Will I say that the post hilariousandco was an amazing post? Fuck no.

It's bordering on irrelevant. The sarcasm was used to half-answer a question and poke fun at someone. But am I going to give him a negative trust for it? Not really.

The quality of his other posts counteracts that. However, in the case of all the spammers that I have tagged, the quality is the same: a big ol' lump of diarrhea.

That's not a shitpost. It's mockery.

We're talking about people's contributions to DT, not an escrow service. If we need someone's dick to suck about that, we can hop on yours (providing you can scooch over a bit).

---

The main question that I have to anyone that is opposed to tagging spammers, what solution to you propose instead? theymos is making decent first steps towards a solution, but it is nowhere near a fix to the issue right now.
Also, 'do nothing' isn't an answer. If I wanted to spend my time around illiterate morons I'd frequent the comment section of Minecraft videos on YouTube. I don't.

Also, don't give me that 'spam = pagerank' nonsense. Bitcointalk is the premier forum for 'discussion about Bitcoin', like it needs to be boosted up the rankings by artificial bullshit.

There is no such thing going on, *yet*.

LOL. Have you been blind? As ibminer said this had been a show of "good ol' boys club".

Like who, NastyFans? Watch out for the QS kool-aid, it can be damaging.

Which is absolutely not something that I'm doing. It's nice to see that you are actually up-to-date with the stuff when trying to undermine others.

---

Why did I get a sudden reminder of butter? Wait, that must be spelled differently.

I've protected far more BTC for users on this forum than you ever will and see little value in your harassing new users with negative feedback if their posts aren't of high enough quality for your liking.

I don't think any of us really care about the content as long as it isn't illegal or some sort of *libel/defamation*.

They are outdated and wrong, just like most of the policies of this forum. Do I need to remind people why legitimate people jumped ship? Read the prior sentence.

Remind me again how much time OgNasty has invested in fighting the scum of this forum, either by directly tagging them or *recruiting* DT2 members to do so? Oh right, from what I've seen, almost zero.

Nobody is doing that. I have a game that you might like to play. Guess the sender's nationality:

Thats is exactly my point, since DT members are entrusted with this kind of power, at least give credibility to your tagging. I don't have a problem with tagging as long as its well research and the reasons are clear as to why he/she had been tagged.

And not as if you have been running a vendetta against the 3rd world people in this forum.

(*for now I've got no problem with the feedback he left me, because thats his opinion and only his. BTW, I am not from the 3rd World Country he was talking about)

There is also another DT activity, that got my attention. Maybe you could also discuss this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.27279839
This was an auction with rules f.e., what is allowed to ask and what not. Breaking rules would end in red tag That may be ok so far (or not). (A member posted into his thread and got red tag.)
But to demand a high amount for removing red tag, seems strange to me and I didn't see any other DT1/2 member acting like him.
Have also a look on given trust 2017-12-29 by this DT member.