Topic: I want a way to demerit posts. - page 2. (Read 1318 times)

The " demerit posts " thing is maybe a good idea and on the other side not.
Guess it can be happened that this would be abused from some Users also .
To avoid this abuse a merit is deducted exactly as if you gave a good post a merit .

Before there comes a demerit button or option i would say just report the post to the moderators or just ignore the post and dont give a merit!
But i dont like " demerit post " idea and guess this makes it for new Users more complicated .
Just my 2 cents

You're misunderstanding here, it's not about the "persons" but it clear the "post". Even if this demerited system will been implemented in the future, only a few qualified user can use it and most of them know how to use it properly. I could agree with @gmaxwell about demerited system about that's case you provide, it's really make people confuse about it... Especially people who didn't expert on technical things.

Every good posts deserves a merit but it still depends if readers like the post or love it enough to give it a merit or more but demerit a post just because you don't like what the person wrote sounds unfair, just leave things as it is, make that person realize what you feel about his or her post then move on

If it's optional/opt-in then it could still work. Merit sources can switch to regular sort order if they want to see all posts.


Same with this. It could work just fine if it's opt-in. It would still display all the garbage to Google and whatnot, but users who are tired of the useless noise could save time by skipping it over.

Maybe even a demerit/bullshit feature could work this way: not shown publicly (somewhat like bump scores) but if a post accumulates a certain amount of that hidden demerit/bullshit score then opted-in users could see a warning that it is likely bullshit.

That must have been before I joined. If it was removed because it can easily be abused to target specific users, it might be possible again if the "ignore power" depends on earned Merit.

Although I'd like to see this implemented, I can think of several reasons why this is a bad idea. Merit sources for instance would overlook newly made good posts.

There used to be a feature where if a user was ignored by multiple users it would have a shading of yellow/orange depending on the amount of users ignoring them. It was removed.

I've seen public ridicule change the behaviour of certain people over the years. However, that takes a certain type of person to own up to what they're been doing, and have some emotional intelligence to change which unfortunately is quite rare.

Hence the reason I'd prefer to actually push for a optional feature of sorting posts by merit, instead of having a demerit option. A well thought out post refuting false claims, and incorrect facts will likely receive a bit of merit for calling out their bullshit. If we had the option to filter threads via merit earned within that thread I think that could be a solution we are looking for without adding in a demerit option. Abuse via this feature would be limited, and wouldn't have the consequences of a demerit feature.

By default, the thread should be displayed as chronological order, perhaps in certain sections such as the technical support section we could opt to sorting by merited posts as the default option, and think in these certain circumstances could be a more beneficial way of going about things. Its sort of like a solved button, but instead of relying on the OP to issue that, its a community wide effort to reward those that are combating misinformation on the forum, as well as providing worthy posts.

That is a feature that isn't available yet (so just an idea), right? I have never seen a brighter Ignore button here so I was wondering if it's a thing or just a suggestion.

---

Well, then I personally think this is the best solution rather than an easy-to-abuse demerit button. Even if we had some rules for it, they could only be subjective just like the term "burstposting" or "constructive posting" is - leading to more unnecessary arguments.

It just seems to me like it'd be an unnecessary additional stress on the mods and members of BTCTalk having to solve disputes about the upcoming demerit issues and abuses. As you say, it brings additional power to higher-ranked members and that isn't fair nor is it okay.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.  I had a feeling that was the case, so it's pretty much what I've been doing.  While I sometimes wish certain posts could be swept under the rug, it's probably not the best solution over the long term.  Much better to confront it head on and provide justification for why it's wrong so that other users can learn from it.

//EDIT:  Oh, and let's not forget ridicule.  Also an acceptable alternative to "demerits" or a "bullshit button".  Looks like we already have all the tools we need.  Just be sure to make good use of them.  

Merit already has a rather multifaceted appearance, being used in all sorts of ways, although I still believe that the general principle of interest/quality is the main (certainly not unique) case of usage. Opening up to counter merits by demeriting cannot escape being wrongly used and abused, likely surpassing in effect the abuse that may happen on the positive side of the reflection in the mirror (namely merit).

Really, the case scenario type in the OP calls for a separate unit of measure in any case, closer to a technical dislike feature that could be displayed in multiple ways (bullshit graphical image, thumbs down, caganer, or whatever). Since any post can be refuted further along the thread, that should probably be the first approach to follow. After all, it allows to convey the counterarguments, which constitute a natural approach.
 
There are though cases where the misinformation could lead to consequences, and refuting 2 pages down the thread seems far from optimal to warn the shallow reader. Here the technical dislike feature could play a role, but somehow allowing to jump to the counterarguments.

Obviously any similar feature would need to be very limited in terms of people entitled to use it, and perhaps would require a (controversial) cherry-picked delimited set members per board that could use it, based on technical knowledge on that specific board. This should perhaps have technicality fallacies at heart, and not subject to opinion based scoped which are part of a forum’s freedom of speech.

We already have newbie warning flags, which only need support from a single DT2 user (of which there are plenty), to display a similar such warning at the top of threads. I don't think a "bullshit warning" would necessarily be that different.

Not that I'm arguing for a demerit option (I'm not), just playing devil's advocate. A demerit button, despite all your caveats about carefully selecting a small number of users, would invariably be used at some point for differences of opinion. Just as I have never agreed with red tagging trolls or altcoin shills, using a demerit option for this reason would be inappropriate in my view. While I wouldn't necessarily object to it being used against posts which are flat out factually wrong (I mean, read the second post I linked to above - it is utterly meaningless), just like with scams, it would be impossible to enforce this fairly and impartially.

I actually reported the post I referred to above, not because it is wrong (now that would be censorship), but since the code is largely plagiarized (for example: https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/compute-sha256-hash-in-c-sharp/), and there is exactly zero chance a user with such a complete lack of understanding of what a hash even is could have written it, but the report has been left unhandled.

There isn't, other than to do what has already been said - correct their nonsense and don't merit them.

From a moderation perspective; we are not going to remove a post simply because its wrong, no matter how wrong a post is, removing it would be censorship, and just because the original thread is wrong, doesn't mean that there isn't going to be quality discussion in the thread. Of course, this will differ slightly from moderator to moderator, as some have more patience, and others simply think misinformation is does with intent, and therefore trolling.

However, moderators will generally remove anything which is complete garbage, but more from a low quality perspective than actually being factually incorrect. Therefore we aren't going to remove a post for spreading misinformation or being factually incorrect. The downside, and the beauty of freedom of speech is that a lot of people will have incomprehensible opinions about whatever subject that's being discussed. Sometimes this is so far gone, that its quite entertaining to think there's people as delusional as this. For example, someone makes a post talking about how Bitcoin is the same as Bitcoin cash, or even more bullshit that Satoshi is theymos' nan. We aren't necessarily going to remove it if they actually talk about why they think that is, I'll admit the theymos' nan scenario would likely be a little trollish, but if they gave some reasons why they think that it may not be removed for trolling.

Instead, what I would advise is to refute every single point of theirs that is incorrect, so your combating the large amount of misinformation being spread. I know most of this community does this, and there's only a small fraction of users that have these outlandish posts. If we were a WIKI dedicateed to Bitcoin, I'd probably expect it to adhere more alongside of being factually correct, but we are a forum, and a forum has varying degrees of factually correct discussions. I think some discussions which are factually incorrect can actually lead to good discussions. I've seen this a numerous amount of times within the technical support, and development sections of the forum.

That would apply to millions of posts, especially on the altcoin boards. It will be impossible to mark all BS, giving a false state of "not BS" to many unmarked BS posts.

I never got my deMerit button, but if gmaxwell gets one, I couldn't be happier!
I'm not even sure if I'd really want such a button, it comes with far too much power and will no doubt lead to heavy discussion. I currently can't think of many posts I'd like to deMerit. It's good to discuss the subject again though.

The Ignore button could get brighter when more users have the user on ignore. To avoid abuse, the "ignore power" could be linked to earned Merit (like bump power). It saves time reading if you can quickly determine which posts are probably not worth it.

This. I feel threatened, my posts from 2013-2015 would be golden buttons for the demerit function.

While I do also happen to find lots of completely crappy posts made by newbies, a demerit button does more bad than good in my opinion. One more misuse case for this button is if someone simply does not agree with my idea and beliefs thinking they're utter bullshit and uses the demerit button as a replacement of expressing his own thoughts opposing mine.

Sometimes silence and ignorance does more good than punishments. When I started being considered a shitposter & spammer on the forum and most of the higher-ranked members were ignoring my posts, that alone made me understand something must be wrong. I still feel the guilt over my first few spammy & crappy years on the forum, but the ignorance from members, signature campaign managers and basically everyone besides those contradicting my posts & calling out my bullshit made me change my attitude and behavior.

Nowadays, whenever I see a Newbie (or Full Member) posting crap I just skip their posts until I find a better one. If it's good enough, I'll merit it and after a while they'll understand what "quality" and "shit" posting is. The following might not be the best comparison (sorry but I really can't find a better one), but it works the same way we teach dogs to stop barking or sit. Once you give it treats for having a good behavior, it'll understand it's not okay to bark randomly so its attitude improves. If you start shouting or hitting a dog when their behavior is not the best, they'll only become more aggressive - in consequence, your violent actions become counterproductive.

Demeriting users could become counterproductive the same way. If I demerit 10 of your posts, you may start believing I have a problem with you and we may start a beef on the forum as if we don't have enough already between some of the users.

One idea I have is that we could have a "mark as nonsense" button which, after X amount of interactions from members with >1k merits, would automatically hide the post in threads. But this is turning, like you say, into censorship and I don't think it's the best path we can go for. I don't know if there is any way we can "punish" users for low posting quality without it turning into at least a semi-censorship button.

From a moderation perspective, what are the guidelines when reporting a post for being "technobabble"?  Those posts where it might appear to inexperienced users that the post is perhaps just beyond their understanding because it sounds quite technical, but to experienced users they can see it has absolutely no basis in fact.

Are such posts generally perceived by moderators as merely a difference of opinion?  Or are the posts removed if the reporter is recognised as being astute enough to be able to tell what the facts really are?

That's almost censorship via influencing users opinions before they've even read the thread though. I hate the idea of a demerit button also, but I can understand why users would want one. Even if this was implemented perfectly it would cause a lot of hassle, but I don't think  because it would cause a lot of arguments between users that it should be a deterrent of adding something to the forum. Usually, not always you try to do something for the greater benefit of the forum, but how much value would a demerit button provide to the community as a whole? Honestly, we would likely only be providing a little satisfaction towards the person who wants it de-merited rather than providing something of use to the community.  As for the candidates that wouldn't misuse a demerit, I actually personally think a lot of merit sources would be unsuitable for the job, and for those that are suggesting DefaultTrust have a say in it, then I would completely disagree with that. Merit sources have been selected for their ability to reward posts which have been deemed high enough quality by themselves, and their merit behaviour has been deemed at least satisfactory by theymos on review.To expand on the unsuitability of merit sources for demeriting, I actually think there's only a select few on this forum that wouldn't intentionally misuse it, and then might accidentally from time to time.  Its one thing meriting posts that you like, but we are human, and no matter how much there will always be bias among users, and no one is perfect that's for sure. We've seen the arguments between DefaultTrust, and we've seen the disagreements of certain merit source behaviour. The unfortunate truth is demerit could be a powerful tool.

Here's an example of demerit misuse, lets say that demerit was allowed to be used by anyone that has earned x amount of merit. Well, lets say that user wants to be in a signature campaign, and there's a minimum merit requirement, and the campaign is currently full. The malicious user could prawl through the participants, and go through their entire history, and find low quality posts, because lets admit we've all got low quality posts at some point in time. They could demerit these posts, and then lower that users merit enough for them to be potentially removed from the signature campaign. I understand this is a extreme example, and is unlikely to be done without being caught, but this can be applied to almost anything. The thing is, people are competitive by nature, and there's several statistics out there documenting users merit gain, and I can guarantee you competitiveness will influence certain users judgement, and cause them to demerit try to "beat" that users merit score.

These are just examples, and I'm probably missing another 100 things demerit could be used for with malicious intent. Its a can of worms, and if this was to ever be implemented those that can demerit need to be selected carefully, and there should probably only be a handful of them rather than the amount of merit sources we have.

I like merit. You find a post that you subjectively think is good quality, and you reward it which has some benefits possibly to the user that posted it. If you don't like it, you don't merit it, and it has no negative effect on the user that posted. If demerit was a thing, users could subjectively view these statistic threads (as an example) that are posted fairly regularly now as bad posts, and demerit it into oblivion. Although, some of the statistic threads may be a little tedious, they are usually of good quality.

Having said all of this, I do share Gmaxwell's, and others discontent about users getting away with such bad quality posts, and sometimes just purposely spreading misinformation, but I think its better to counter that within a post of your own, than potentially implement a system which could be misused outside of these poor quality posts that have been specifically mentioned.

I've been seeing quite a lot of "guide" and "summary" threads recently that this could be applied to. Not quite the same "maliciously dishonest" threads that gmaxwell is referring to, but just as incorrect. The users obviously have absolutely no idea what they are writing about, but create these threads for the sole reason (I suspect) as they see making such threads as being a potential way to farm merit. I don't know if there has been a genuine increase in the these kinds of threads recently, or if I've just been noticing them more, but they are frustrating to see nonetheless, and newbies who don't know any better are reading and replying to the nonsense and believing it to be true. A couple of the most recent examples:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/increasing-hashrate-and-decreasing-mining-difficulty-this-ways-5246484
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/generate-address-and-make-it-hash-5241509

Being able to put a warning at the top of those threads saying "This post is complete nonsense" would not necessarily be a bad thing. Having said that, given how petty some of the endless squabbles on the reputation board are, even among some of the most senior members on the forum, there is absolutely zero chance that such a feature wouldn't be misused.

Thankfully, there are often sensible members around to debunk any such nonsense (as is the case in the two threads linked above).

If something like this was ever implemented, I'd say definitely keep it separate to merit.  Maybe call it a "bullshit button".  But if the post in question really is that inane or outright stupid, then the best response is usually an articulate rebuttal.  It's helpful for others if they can see and understand why the offending post is wrong.  Or even report it to mods if it's sufficiently egregious.

Okay, thanks for your opinion.
I understand now that we are discussing different types of post. When you said malicous I mistook that for scamming people
I will not mention it again on this thread.

I think the proposal in the OP is sensible.

Indeed, your post is now clear. Pretty shitty. (Also still offtopic-- in the sense that what I think you want is a scammer flag for the user, not a "this particular post was crap"--)

See how quickly these people are to compound an over sight of GM because it suits their narrative.

On deeper analysis he will certainly notice what I have said is

1 true
2 explicitly and exactly the type of malicous false information he wants to demerit
3. Entirely on topic and relevant

Await and see.

If not there is certainly some kind of strange phenomenon here.

It is there in black and white several times

Yes years later after dumping his bags lauda admits yeah was a premined scam

That does not mean he was not promugating false information with malicous intent when he had bags of that scam coin

I know this is hard for you to grasp.

I had though GM would have been more fair but if he returns and still says he does not see the clear evidence of the exact behavior he describes in the OP then it appears I was wrong about GM too

I think I will delete those links and just put the quotes at the top.