Topic: DefaultTrust (DT) Network - DT1/2 Members (Read 1813 times)

Perhaps you're not seeing my point.

Suppose there is a thread with 50 pre-existing replies to it. The thread asks the question, "Where can I purchase bitcoin?". If someone states a well-known place to purchase bitcoin, what is the likelihood that it has not yet been mentioned in the other 50 replies? Not very high. So what would be the point of trying to argue that a post (regardless of the quality) contributes to the thread? It simply does not. There is no discussion.

Perhaps if the post has exceptional quality it can be justified but let's face it: those were general and vague remarks (which are probably repeated if you look at posts preceding it) are the 50+'th post.

Selection bias. Most of the users that I've tagged are in signature campaigns. Why? Because they post more. And by posting more (or feeling forced to post more, for monetary incentives) means that there's generally more spam. You're free to help me find spammers, signature or not. Send me a PM and I will take a look.

I looked at about 2 months worth of his posts around that time frame and for the most part, just see regular stuff being posted. Frankly, a lot of his stuff had a hell of a lot more value than a lot of other people I see posting. But perhaps I don't understand this whole thing. i.e. you can post whatever you want even if it's completely worthless as long as you aren't part of a sig campaign. But if you are, then we'll apply some arbitrary standard to you that will vary from person to person who has this power over you.

First off, that's an old rating.

Secondly, I'm not taking it off. Do you know why? Go ahead and look through those two-liner tiny posts after the most recent two (which are way longer than his regular posts). If you need a link, here: https://archive.is/5lkD1

If you're simply repeating what someone said 2 pages ago, what's the point? Why even bother? You're not contributing to anything. And you certainly shouldn't treat signature campaigns like a job.

---

Will it really change that much, though? Once someone is at that mark of going up a rank who's to say they'll sustain a high post quality? Furthermore, how about the currently existing members that already have enough merit to get to those numbers easily?

(Such an amount would be susceptible to merit farming, where users could collude to send each other merit. Not much, maybe 1-2.)

I would personally put the number at halfway between the thresholds. That way it's less susceptible to abuse.

Didn't know people were allowed to use Trust to rate people for their posts. Until I read this post.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-account-destroyed-2819050

I looked at that guys posts and I don't see this "in the case of all the spammers that I have tagged, the quality is the same: a big ol' lump of diarrhea.". All I see is just a typical user having a variety of discussions with people.

With the introduction of "Merit" system, I think there is no need for tagging spammers anymore. Campaigns will thereby implement a minimum requirement of merit points needed, apart from their respective ranks to be able to join.

Campaign managers can start with these numbers:

Rank	Required merit points to join a campaign
Jr Member	5 (There's no point accepting Jr. Members though)
Member	15
Full Member	105
Sr. Member	255
Hero Member	505
Legendary	1005

Lets us not accuse each other and stick to the topic of thread.I have openly expressed my willingness to extend full co-operation to fight spam

It seems theymos just crashed this whole discussion with the newly introduced merit system.
I'd say we wait for what the full announcement about that is.
There is the announcement thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-new-rank-requirements-2818350

---

Discussion thread for reference:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-is-the-function-of-the-merit-score-2818066

Ok, giving my 2 cents here now.

Do I agree with all these spammers accounts being tagged? Yes, but not in the capacity it has become. We tried a less aggressive response with the SMAS list and it did nothing. Users were still allowed to join other campaigns from managers who didn't give a damn about SMAS list. Users themselves didn't care about being put on SMAS list or getting a neutral tag as it didn't stand out.

Now all the sudden The Pharmacist and Actmyname are made DT and boom over 1000 tags(real numbers) stand out. Now these guys care cause the tag can be seen by all and they are kicked from campaigns. We are also seeing a billion threads made against these 2 guys from users wanting feedback removed.

I can see where people have a problem with the tags as neg rep is meant to stop scammers.

So, what is or could be the solution?

Just leaving a neutral will not deter them from spamming. There needs to be a more aggressive way other then a neutral because the users just wont care. If it doesn't stand out then they're gonna keep doing it.

I see these "copper member" tags and such. Why can't we create a committee(if anyone even wants to be on it) and hand out spammer tags in that space? It's still basically SMAS but with a tag that's seen by all. This would keep their trust clean but still have a tag in top left corner of the users posts. Manager's can decide whether to allow those users in a campaign or not. Or to only allow xx amount of those users in campaigns. Hell we could also devalue those accounts a little and offer lower rates. Losing money is a big motivator to these users that are getting tagged.

Just some of my thoughts. I can be on board with whatever system is put in place. I just feel whatever is done it needs to be done across the board. EVERYONE needs to be on board. Something else that needs to be looked at is there needs to be requirements to become a campaign manager. I know it's supposed to be a freelancer thing but too many irresponsible or incompetent users doing the job now and contributing to the problem

The "best" campaign manager allows spammers in his campaigns 

I believe we should not treat a spammer and a scammer alike.I am in favour of "neutral feedback with the label "Spammer"as proposed by EcuaMobi.If spammers are given negative feedback,we will soon have dearth of signature participants.I dont mean to say,we should allow spammers but we can have some warning system in place.That said,I express my willingness to accept the unanimous decision on this and am ready to follow SMAS guidelines for all my campaigns if that helps

Using my best judgement with the information I currently have, there is no hard evidence or proof of this happening now. I have fears of it growing into this issue. If anything like that is happening now, I'd guess it's on a small scale. It seems obvious there are at least like-minded thoughts that exists with a group of DT members, but that doesn't necessarily prove a "club" exists. I'll admit part of my fears stemmed from the fact that this like-minded group appeared to be originating from one DT member, then I saw the comment about a sanctioning by "upper-level DT members", so I've been curious where this comes from and wanted to see who else may support it.


From an advertisers perspective, I assume a lot of them do not care about the post quality, it's just getting their advertisement shown as many times in as many places as possible. They know that red flagged users on this forum are not seen as trusted and carry a high chance of having their advertisement ignored or seen as a scam, so it more aggressively eliminates a piece of their audience.

Leaving neutral feedback probably will not solve anything, those managers will probably just allow the accounts with neutral because they are not going to eliminate as many viewers as a red account, and I find it unlikely that most of the campaign managers would take the time to look through to see neutral feedbacks.

Again, I can't say I'm opposed to the idea of DT tagging spammers assuming admins/mods can't handle it and need help, but I do feel like there is a higher potential for abuse and too many blurred lines on what could be considered a quality post. Some are obvious, others will be controversial
...the potential for racketeering comes to mind.



**And no, this thread was not intended to be a Lauda or The Pharmacist reputation thread.  

Sure thing. I'm not interested in derailing this thread with personal insults. But his/her/its remark needed to be addressed.

Completely happy to move the "discussion" into a thread seperately.....if Lauda wants to take on someone who's not afraid of the Legendary tag.

Expected response from Lauda: "You couldn't handle me, honey"....or some such trash.

Can you two lovebirds take this to a dedicated reputation thread?

Ohhh, we're editing back in more insults, are we? Awesome!!!!

Updated quote:


"That doesn't go well with intelligence". Would you mind explaining, from your lofty perch of arrogance, WHAT the fuck that ridiculous statement means?

You know what? Don't bother - you post enough meaningless drivel that I actually don't care. Your post history proves that. As does your lack of response when you're called out on it.

And nope, I don't want to turn the discussion to gender. That has nothing to do with it. You are well aware of this, but want to deflect from the battering you're taking at the moment in terms of your image. And trust me, it's a battering. You're looking more and more stupid with every word you type. By all means, continue, I'll just make some popcorn.

Y'know, I've met people like you before. People who think they see more deeply than others, people who think that they have some sort of intellectual advantage.

You don't.

And the irony is, you're too stupid to realise how transparent you are. We see it, and you think we don't.

Let's look at the current situation....

You, and other DT2s, are running about tagging people as scammers because they don't write stuff you want to read.

EDIT THE SECOND: Except some of the others are salvaging a little respect, by engaging in intelligent discussion and talking solutions. YOU on the other hand, have come out all guns blazing, with your little book of insults. Not very clever ones, either, but I realise that you can't see that from your perspective.

And yet, YOUR post history is nothing but concentrated hostility, aggression, and abuse. I'd say that's every bit as valid for a scammer tag.

Oh wait, you got one already, for your lovely little extortion attempt...

Yep, you're a card. I'd prefer to be a "cute leftist", than a downright scumsucker like you, Lauda. You're a bottom-feeder, and I think deep down you know it. It's what drives your aggression.

You're a cute leftist. Unfortunately, that doesn't go well with intelligence. Are you trying to turn this thread into a*insertOver100Genders* discussion?

I had to read that several times in order to believe my own eyes.

You're a fucking horrific excuse for a human being. Truly disgusting. Scum.

Remove your comment, regain a tiny bit of dignity, and I'll remove this quote. You might still be able to salvage some sort of goodwill.

Correct. Let the person that got jailed for insulting a gender-switching-degenerate^[2] tell you how this world, created by said leftist bullshit, is very nice. Idiota.

Blazed did nothing wrong. We need more active DT members rather than more dormant-pretend-heroes.

Using SMAS should be default[1] + your own blacklist (if you're that *advanced* with your campaigns).

---

[1] If you don't, you're just needlessly wasting man-hours.
[2] For those that are confused by this: I'm not calling stingers that (why would I?). Read the news every once in a while.

Not every campaign manager who happens on the forum is good at finding spammers or has the ability to hire posters who post spam free.So SMAS is one of the easiest ways they can do it.You can't tell them to not manage a campaign because they're incapable of doing so but encourage them to use SMAS list as it would help recruiting deserving posters and keep the junk away.

You dont have to, but it's an easy way to pre-select applicants and even the laziest campaigns could contribute towards fighting the problem with that.

I think SMAS has two main aspects I would suggest to carry on into any future projects attempting to solve the same/similar things.
It's a joint venture (even though the group is rather small right now), and it's easy to utilize (open SMAS thread, check if user is on collective list, done).

Thats along the lines of what I wanted to say in my first post.
Giving negative feedback for spammers forces even those campaigns that don't care about the spam problem to stop rewarding shitposters as the "no negative feedback" rule is probably the most basic rule for campaigns right now.

That's not ideal, but it's a "solution" right now. If we want to change it, we should work towards building something better.

I think that this would be mostly useless. The majority of the spam comes out of the altcoin bounty campaigns, and usually those "managers" just decide to pretty much accept everyone (without negative trust), without caring about quality. They could use SMAS, they could actually vet people, but they don't. I think that's the reason some decided to apply negative trust, as those bounties (usually) don't allow negative trusted users.

I don't really have a stance for whether spammers deserve negative trust, as I could argue easily for both, but I think leaving negative trust for managers/services who run campaigns that produce a lot of spam might be a better first step, as it encourages the managers/services to actually try.


One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign.

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.

Now actmyname starting to realize that the decision he made to tagged bunch of accounts was not fair as he considered shifting the from negative to neutral trust which he made some guidelines himself that if not followed based on his evaluation,he will again red tagged certain accounts.

Why not just focus on what Theymos said " Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts." because his words are final, don't make your own judgement which would eventually lead you in making a decision which is against the rules.

The best solution to do IMO is just to put a rating in neutral trust as that is fair, we want to be fair here, as this forum is for everyone who wants to learn.

Fair enough on the "rampage" comment if it's to do with megathreads - I admit I only scanned. I can edit or remove the comment if you wish. I'm not here to score cheap points.

I like that you are being so open-minded on this - regardless of whatever you infer from my posts, I want you to know I respect this.

Your idea of bulk PMing is excellent. May I suggest that the PM list be shared with the mods also? That way they can filter the ones you have to tag by banning as many as possible before they get loose - if they don't improve, of course. 2 weeks seems more than reasonable - very fair.

Great reply. Thank you

Which rampages? Are you talking about the bulk ratings in which I go to a spam megathread and tag prominent users there?

---

I have already stated that the negative trust will be removed when a week's worth of quality posting occurs.

There is one option that I have which could work: to instill a neutral trust feedback that prompts users to improve their post quality (and to PM them in bulk about it the day of). If they do not improve the quality within 2 weeks a negative tag will be placed upon them. How do you feel about that?

OgNasty just posted this. He is top of the foodchain in regards to DT. It's all good now. 

The issue is that the whole damn thing is based on opinions.

The Pharmacist has a boner for people he feels don't speak English to his standard. This does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Lauda has no time for people she feels don't see as deeply as her. I'm not entirely sure on what map the direction she's looking can be found, but that's my issue. This also does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

You know, I get that all these people are trying to protect the foremost forum for a subject they care deeply about. And they're working with broken tools. Theymos probably never realised this forum would grow like it has, but there you go - yay, crypto

The practices that are happening at the moment are exclusionary. This is not good. The forum was founded for people to discuss crypto, and this includes the clueless, the stupid, the slow, the rude, the arrogant and the just plain weird.

Warn the abusers. Ban the persistent. Trust tag the scammers.

If they're not scamming, leave the trust button alone. It's not what it's for.

I'll accept that there is not communication between most DT members, my communication to other DT members has been minimal, but the potential to abuse seems higher when DT members can mark an account negative for post quality, which I think would open an environment for the controlling of what content is deemed "ok" by DT members.

The quote I posted in OP, which hints that there is some sort sanctioning by "upper level" DT members to tag shitposters was a little surprising considering I was under the impression, like you were, that not a lot of communication happens between DT members.


This is what I was alluding to in my OP, this type of feedback goes against the guidelines set by theymos... and IMO the racist tone on some of the feedback isn't helpful to a forum that has plenty of non-native english speakers and is a discussion board for a worldwide cryptocurrency. I'm sure there are reasons for the guidelines in 2013 but that is part of the reason for this thread, to establish where other DT members may stand, and maybe Blazed will get a response back from theymos on whether his guidelines are any different today.

I disagree also and who are the one who's abusing it? Did you check his reputation history there's tons of account tagged for unethical judgement made by him.

I disagree actmyname has not abused anything as far as i can see. There are others that have though.

Their will be no end of discussion here until this man stop his early judgement https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017 all need due process as I seen this as abusive act. Old DT member didn't do that one since they know how to scale things.

This sums it up perfectly. Great points about scammers and some person speaking in poor English being grouped together.




Vod is absolutely Fair in his feedbacks. If you get a Neg from Vod rest assured he did his research and you deserved it.

Edit: The person you are referring to leaving feedback based on Race is The Pharmacist.



Finally From the Man Himself. Shouldn't this just end the Discussion right here? He's the Boss.

Fuck. That. Styling.

You must be really mad. But why are you concerned about a concurrent feedback? There's the previous one about your trust farming. You should address your concerns there, rather than at this recent one. Unless... you admit that it's true and you deserve the negative trust?

Members of DT bastard like lauda usually only give red trust, even he does not reply to my post here, if you are a member of DT you should be wise do not just give red trust, even you accuse me of spreading lies (even your own suggest me to find address donation VOD) so I can donate VOD (is not that a bribe?) I do not do what you suggest, because I know it should not be done, you yourself ever say that, now you try to protect yourself by not answering my comments here and just put a red paint on me, why yesterday you did not spill your red paint on someone who has plagiarized my design?, LMAO! you are a very unbelievable demon. the only member of DT who does not have a healthy brain is you, you are like a hungry pig.

DT-members are very divided in their views, look for example at the red trust some of them have given to other DT-members recently.
On the one hand it just looks bad that the most trusted people on this forum can't seem to agree, but on the other hand it shows it's not a "good old boys club" that protects eachother.

I had the same thought yesterday, this could combat it:


Back to my own opinion: I appreciate the worst spammers getting tagged, but I wouldn't tag them by myself. I highly appreciate SMAS, and I made my own blacklist to safe me time if I run a campaign again.

What exactly is that will? A cleaner and safer Bitcointalk? Damn that Lauda..

I disagree with your though's since I think Lauda is doing great for imposing his will here although he made something wrong from the past but he is not so abusive regarding for putting some bad trust on anyone on just one blink of an eye. Those new DT members are the one who's doing some shit right now and for their early days of becoming a DT they abuse it well and they doesn't separate those scam tags and shit tags.

Feel pity for those people who simply live a simple life here and wrecked by those jackals.

People get quite and goes to long sleep after getting a DT position ( Most Usually) , only one member that i have ever seen popping out even in bad conditions is Lauda. Only one thing i appreciated about hilariousandco is supporting Lauda, he is a true Member here.

Recently DT system is Just a cleaning crew as mentioned by Ibminer or at least going in that direction. But i still believe in DT system as they have potential to ward of scams.

Yes I know about it, DT members work volunteers.

---

But to my confusion, lauda has commented on my thread but he did not spill red ink, he suggested me to see the donation address of VOD, you can see his comments here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.27304343, Lauda says she does not have a donation address like that. dear lauda, if you want to get paid for your work pour red ink, then just say, you do not need to be hypocritical over all your attitude. DT members have give the red trust on me has assumed I was a bribe, but he instead advised me to bribe members of DT for my wishes to can be granted. Is not that a subtle crime committed by DT members like lauda?

Not likely if you're a Buyer/Seller. The Red Marking can easily discourage potential customer whom I think is too busy/lazy to read all the feedbacks.

I disagree. The whole point of the feedback, even now, is that you read what it is about. Certain negative feedback can be safely ignored if you want to deal with someone.

Forum not furom

---

I have a neutral feed back from Yahoo campaign manager, Recently it was mentioned by Jamal another campaign manager, He got tagged himself after rejecting me for having that feed back was it karma or a random accident?
A good campaign manager should see and care for the neutral feed back.

That's fair, being a DT requires you to be professional and set some standards based on the forum rules, what actmyname did was that he is painting red for most accounts here in the forum whom he think are abusing the forum doing some shitposting for money. I may not be fluent in speaking English but I believe I can contribute to the forum as my worlds are understandable. I want to call the attention of actmyname to please review the accounts you tagged so you will not be called by some members that you were abusing trust.

Actually, based on the definition of negative rating as per forum guideline it means "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." which I think I does not fit to the rating he gave, in fact in my experience, I have  successful transaction with "minerjones" ,"hilariousandco ", and "AT101ET", these people are trustworthy and I don't think they will transact with me if I am a scammer or untrustworthy.

Lastly, let us be objective, please think twice before making a decision as it's your reputation is at risk here since you are a DT and maybe some would think those who choose you to as DT has low standard which in overall will affect the forum's reputation. You should be focus more on people who are scamming than focusing on shitposters as your definition with your own judgment, let the staff do their job as they have the appropriate power to do so.

I  think that you are being bias here because you are wearing signature and you are also making money from it, so how can we expect that you are not making it for your self interest to minimize the competition.

Very true, It's so hard to why those one end up on those since scamming is I think the main reason why DT network has been build on. Neutral trust is indeed the besy solution for that since It's so hard to build those account and those shitty one sided minded guys just  red tag it and ruined those guys up.

Shit posting can be corrected, But scamming will not so they should have different criteria.


And this current issue is sort of abuse.

Actually, this was one of the things I was thinking about after the addition to DefaultTrust. A sort of 'dilution' in terms of the impact of red trust. Though I agree to a certain point that tagging should be reserved for scammers (and particularly bad spammers) I believe that there has to be something to properly act as a deterrent to spam.

Perhaps we should discuss this and come to a compromise.

Perhaps, but a neutral feedback is going to be overlooked far more than a negative one.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

I agree.  I only tag accounts as shitposters if it is obvious to even the brain dead fool.  All one or less liners, no contribution to the post.

To date, I have left negative feedback for 61 shitposters, and most, if not all, have never complained about it.

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

People are normally added by merit. Not only that but DefaultTrust members have to be active and have made contributions towards the trust system, for example leaving trust on accounts. It's also beneficial that the DefaultTrust members have unique trust lists and aren't just listing the same people.

You don't get on the DefaultTrust by agreeing with existing members on it. We've had many disagreements in the past and for certain not everyone on the list agrees with the current situation going on with the negatives for spammers. I will say though, generally the members which are on the list are rational when leaving trust.

Try finding trustworthy members willing to put in the work to moderate those sections for every single local language out there. It's simply not possible. There is a section for people who speak a language which hasn't got a dedicated board though and if there are enough activity of that language theymos normally tries and finds a moderator suitable for it and make it a dedicated board.

The forum does not have automatic measures to place negative trust.

People PM me and ask for help. I need to investigate and make a conclusion.

I call that work, even though I am not being paid.  Some of these investigations can take a while.    :/

I am aware you're not staff. I am also aware you don't get paid.....

....well, except by benefiting from promoting discussing cryptocurrency, which is what this board was set up to do, right?

I mean, had it remained unheard of, there'd be a few less arrogant millionaires here, hmm?

The recent surge in popularity is going to bring new members. Many of them are going to be from countries that do not have English as their first language. And surprise, surprise, you do NOT have a child board for every language. NOR is it OK of you to expect people to not ask newbie questions until they "go learn english".

And what work are you talking about? I am not trying to do work here?

But wait how does actmyname enter on DT network? Does he/she do any good contribution on this furom? Or he became DT Just for the fact that he his turn coat, sticking, praising, agree what DT says and make his name beautiful his his sponsor.

That is exactly the problem.  People think DT members are staff.  We don't get paid.  We are under no obligation to do your work. 

So where did the 80% number come from? No logical sense to that either. I have extrapolated shit from shit. Not hiding it. Go back to the source, though.

Where do you get your "usually" from, by the way? It's your opinion?

In that case, it's no more valid that my opinion that you're full of shit.

Good point there ibminer these furom will look crap if chosen member will abuse the system.

Certain abuse will continue if this issue will not address by same as you since (no good ol'' boys club) has one sided mind and they doesn' t listen to any explanation unless the one who explain are guys who have benifits the same them.

This is exactly the problem.

You sit there with your title of Legendary member - legendary for what? Posting shite for a long time?

And then you lie back and allow this forum to turn into a fucking despotic bro-fest?

Cretin.

There is not really much communication between Default Trust people that I am aware of (no good ol' boys club). I have reached out the Theymos to get his opinion regarding negative trust and shit posting. This forum has become pretty much useless with the mindless posting for pay that happens. I do not think campaigns will start adding negative trusted users, but eventually they will probably stop advertising here since it is all garbage posts and good users will keep leaving.

Personally, I won't be leaving negative feedback for low post quality, but I can understand why some feel the need to. Low post quality is definitely a big problem for the forum, but it's just not what the trust system was intended for. In my opinion, negative trust should only be left for people you feel are actually untrustworthy- scammers or would-be-scammers. I try to be fairly reserved with my ratings as well, since they carry more weight than your average feedback. Being unable to speak coherent English doesn't meet this standard in my eyes, although I would consider leaving neutral feedback if signature campaigns took note of it. Overall though, I don't have a problem with others in DT who feel stronger towards it and leave full negative ratings.

DT members are basically just users of this community that are trusted by theymos or the various DT1 members. They are not held to any different set of rules or requirements because they are not admins or mods of this forum, they do not get paid, and they really do not have any obligation to respond to you at all. Your chances of being responded to are reduced quite a bit when you are red from negative feedback by other DT members.


This did cross my mind... they certainly could remove their 'no red trust' rule but with the current conditions I'd foresee campaign managers being fearful of doing this because then they would then be running poorly managed campaigns that encourage or support spammers, which I assume would justify this same type of feedback being left on their own accounts, damaging their own reputation. It might be more likely that campaign managers themselves start excluding specific DT members from their own trust view to de-validate the red from those members, which may result in some of the outcomes you mentioned... but I assume would still lead to DT members tagging the managers.



I guess I'd like to know who is neutral to it and who supports it then... if the majority of DT1 members are neutral to it given the current circumstances of post quality, this is good information I'd like to have.


I'm mainly trying to evaluate my own guidelines/criteria for leaving feedback but I'm fine hearing from A), B), and certainly C) in your list... although I'll likely not react to most of the B) group.
And what's wrong with libertarianism??  

I repeat my suggestion:  Keep  censorships about post quality away from feedback system as it was considered by theymos.

 

Those numbers are a clearly an assumption.Over hypothetical as I call it.The said 20 accounts are always free to ask the DT members and get the feedback revised if at all it is unfair according to the community standards.

Depends on the consequences.Let's not get too technical.I would beat you to it.

Who Am I to judge ?  

I concur.

How did you get this number?

"80 of them think the feedback isn't fair because they can't participate in signature campaigns anymore" ≠ 20 of them were unfairly tagged. There isn't even any logical sense in your statement.

Selection bias. The loudest ones will complain. And they're usually shitposters.

Fun Fact for you, friend: This means that 20 out of 100 are tagged unfairly.

I work in engineering and mathematical modelling, and I can tell you that a 20% fail rate is UNACCEPTABLE.

He's abusing it. And you only need to look at the top 20 topics on the Meta board to have proof.

Whilst I don't really do it, I have no problem with it.

That would be true if the user leaving the rating had something to gain from it. E.g., I don't see how The Pharmacist would benefit from tagging random shitposters. Therefore, I find it unlikely that your fear would become true unless he/she went on a ego rampage but that wouldn't last long (easily noticed, easily fixed).

I wouldn't label people who are neutral to it and support it in the same group. I, e.g., support it whilst I believe Blazed and hilariousandco (if I've read his recent post correctly) just *don't mind it given the current situation*.

This is somewhat pointless if all you're going to get is: a) Mostly positives from people who are fed up with the shitposting. b) Mostly negatives from the users that are shitposting and/or have been tagged for other peoples. c) A few, rare, libertarian bs negatives.

That's generally a bad idea due to bias and prejudice that would build up over time.

Fun Fact : Out of 100 people tagged by The Pharmacist,80 of them think the feedback isn't fair because they 'can't participate in signature campaigns anymore'. Honestly,if one is on the forum just to participate in the signature campaigns,they shouldn't be here.

I admit The Pharmacist is a bit harsh on them but everyone has their level of tolerance right ? Also majority of the feedback he had given was before getting added to the DT.Now if that feedback really bothered why didn't the spammers make a scene about him then ? Because they knew the untrusted feedback wouldn't stop them from participating in the signature campaigns.

Lately another account actmyname got added to the DT list who I believe is also involved in tagging such accounts.Meanwhile I truly support the 'fights against the spammers' but forming a group of DT accounts to attack particular 'type' of members is not encouraging.

Wow amazing! Thank you very much ibminer


This is what I want from DT members, can behave fairly on all members in the forum. I know lauda nobody pays to give me a red trust, but why can not he give his red ink to someone who is obviously plagiarized my design. Do you hate me?

My thoughts on this are here.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/who-is-policing-this-guy-please-the-pharmacist-default-trustjoke-2806313

It's out of hand.

Even I have customers that some of them have green trusts but they can not help solve my problems, I do not ask them to help but if what you say is true, I'm sure they have helped me. So basically I'm just prejudiced if they're afraid of getting a red trust if they help me, because I have a red trust on my profile.

Is that a joke? I think no.

Im not talking about green trust or red trust. Im just saying that your friends will obviously prioritize you over some other bunch of random guy in bitcointalk 

Wether you like or not, its the truth

I feel as if it will only be a matter of time before a number of campaigns will simply adapt to this and remove the "No red trust" rule, which will ultimately result in a lot of time being wasted and leaving the trust system even more broken/misused then it is right now.

Don't get me wrong though, I see and understand why this is happening, and wouldn't necessarily say that i am against it, however it just doesn't seem like a feasible solution in the long run to me.

Are you serious? feedback positive / green trust or whatever it's called can be played with a friendship relationship? If so I have spoken true.

Because there is another system apart from the DT system.

'FRIEND' system, as long as you are friend with any of them then they will prioritize you.   

---

How I missed shorena the lone DT warrior in a time like this 

I do not believe with DT account, so far I know in this forum is strictly prohibited to copy / paste and I have often seen accounts that do copy / paste post or anything in this forum will be banned or just get red trust from DT account. But you can see my thread here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wta-about-the-stealing-of-signature-designs-2642277, respectable lauda which consider himself a god who always thinks he is always right, even not issued a red ink on people who have obviously plagiarized my design. Why do members of DT not respond quickly to complaints from users who have a red trust like me? Even lauda can quickly give me a red trust because of the proof I have given https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dear-monbux-2482301, I really can not accept the attitude of a DT account like that,  think of himself as god but actually he is a demon.

I'm conflicted and need a reality check. I believe I'm more reserved in my approach with feedback than say Lauda or The Pharmacist, and I don't really believe theymos had intended DT to act as a cleanup crew for sig spammers on the forum, but that seems to be where this is heading, and I can't say I'm entirely against it because mods and admins have shown they do not, or cannot, get involved on a large scale with the shitposting/sig spamming.

Even though I feel like this type of work should be handled by admins & mods (and I believe they are trying), the constant crap content and one/two-liners in a lot of the larger boards certainly effects the community, and one community-based way to fight back may be the DT system, especially if signature campaign managers are using it as a guide on who can join their campaigns. However, the potential for abusing this and/or the DT system turning into a sort of "good ol' boys club" would be my fear.


I'll assume Blazed is included in the comment above but I'm curious which other members may be supporting this, or at least how many support the leaving of feedback based on just the quality of a users post(s)?

I've always seen the rating of accounts based on the quality of their posts as going against the general guidelines set by theymos for the DT system, so I've always had reservations about going down this path and usually try to find more than just the quality of the post as a reason to leave feedback. It would be easier if I didn't have to do this, but I've always made it a personal responsibility.

I'm interested in hearing other opinions & thoughts on this.
If you are not comfortable posting publicly for whatever reason, PM is fine with me.