Topic: Do you think we need a guideline for DT members from theymos? (Read 1122 times)

I'm torn on that last point.  There are certainly users on this board who I feel deserve their untrusted rating due to the manner in which they make their posts.  It's not appropriate to give someone negative trust if you disagree with a valid point they've made, but if they make repeated deceptive, dishonest or manipulative points, there should be a warning tied to their account in case some impressionable newbies take their words at face value.  There's a big problem in the world right now with misinformation.  Deliberately spreading misinformation can be construed as untrustworthy behaviour.  If someone feels the appropriate response to that would be best presented in the form of negative trust, it should be up to the individual. 

Is anyone seeing the pattern yet of how subjective these rules are and how much confusion it creates even among the ones enforcing the rules? What chance do the noobs have?

I'm torn on that last point.  There are certainly users on this board who I feel deserve their untrusted rating due to the manner in which they make their posts.  It's not appropriate to give someone negative trust if you disagree with a valid point they've made, but if they make repeated deceptive, dishonest or manipulative points, there should be a warning tied to their account in case some impressionable newbies take their words at face value.  There's a big problem in the world right now with misinformation.  Deliberately spreading misinformation can be construed as untrustworthy behaviour.  If someone feels the appropriate response to that would be best presented in the form of negative trust, it should be up to the individual.  

Theymos posted something that could act as guidelines:

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

If the "gaming" takes the form of strategically sending a lot of merit, creating sockuppets, and stuff like that, then no. That sort of gaming might get me to blacklist people, in fact. But if it looks more like politics, then that's OK, and that's what H8bussesNbicycles's thread looks like to me.

Hey my friend i think you misunderstand the meaning of "legal" actually. Do you think this "legal" words only used for USA president donald trump . Lol. I think other users already got my point without you.

By the way i know what rules we got here from our moderators but our DTs are discussing here how  to stop those shitposters. I think you got my point now

forum atmosphere will be much better for us.

Us? Who are you by the way? Donald Trump

If you want to take legal actions against someone for posting in an online forum then this forum might be in North Korea.

You can see that there is already a new implement from Cyrus (one of this forum admin) to report post history of some person so it will make some changes no need for legal actions.

The private board would be nice but very difficult to maintain since the DT list is going to be dynamic.

Obviously closed door discussions about trust between DT members would be a foolish implementation counter to the goals this system is attempting to achieve.  However, it doesn't surprise me that this is the direction some new DT1 members would want to pursue, as that sort of collusion is how many of them made it on the list in the first place.

I know about it. But it is not limited to DT members. So not really relevant to the topic, is it?

We have a private board already.  Just become a donator and you'll get access.

What does all this have to do with merit sources

The private board would be nice but very difficult to maintain since the DT list is going to be dynamic.

I think that a private chat room for DT1s and merit sources would be a great idea. We could then work out policies, and resolve difficulties in private. I created one, but it wasn't really used, so I have deleted it. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a private board here in Bitcoin Talk. Then we could get away fro the bitching and criticism, and work on some positive solutions.

Yeah absolutely its a possible way to solve this kind of issue. Otherwise day by day its getting complicated here on the forum to take legal actions against shitposters. Reporting to moderators could be a solution here in current situation untill theymos implement some new rules and regulations for shitposters.

Prevention is better than cure. I wish after implementing some final disincentives  forum atmosphere will be much better for us.   

Not that it has much to do with DT. It would be nice if theymos could implement some disincentives for shitposters but for now this needs to be deal with by reporting to moderators and there are many users doing just that.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. ~20k new users get registered every month and ~5k become active (create posts). Few of those may end up in technical discussions. The vast majority are useless bounty-hunting shitposting dregs. You only need to open Patrol to see what's going on.

Not that it has much to do with DT. It would be nice if theymos could implement some disincentives for shitposters but for now this needs to be deal with by reporting to moderators and there are many users doing just that.

But some other sections on the forum like Bitcoin Technical Support,  Development & Technical Discussion even meta have much of the newbies contributing in effective way. This proves that also majority of them come here to learn crypto or trade crypto.

You're wasting your time here TBH. It is clear that certain users are butthurt that the majority consensus has voted to avoid having anything to do with them (because of obvious reasons). Also, JusticeForYou is almost undoubtedly a compromised account pushing this false narrative.