Topic: I want a way to demerit posts. (Read 1331 times)

In the present system their are many option to take action against shit post. You can ignore the person or you can report to moderator for delete the post also you can give feedback on his post history. So overall from all this above actions you could encourage good posters. Implementation of demerit post cause many problem and people can abuse this system too like people did with trust system. So their is no need to demerit if all others option are available for stop shit post. Reporting is one of the best things to make this forum clean. So we need to encourage reporting bad post and we need to think about how to encourage reporting.

Totally agree with your points.

This is not for reports as such though. This is for individuals taking independent action where they feel essentially compelled?
I guess though yes could be a result of a report hmmm well if it went that way board wide which I would not support then your priority rating system could be applied to the reports.

I though this is for mods that independly locate something they want to take action on but cant delete or ban?
I think only allow it in the tech boards anyway where it is more precise and more critical.

But yeah if I have misunderstood the scope and it was for the entire board and via reports then I totally agree with you.
I think that would be a bad idea. Keep it to tech boards is my opinion right now. Highly skilled and trained time tested reliable experts only. I support anything that assists locating the truth.

When creating systems that revolve around staff/moderation the main issue is that of time. Already, with reports, you have a massive timesink for moderators and certain types of reports are more important to deal with than misinformation (i.e. direct harm to users).

Reports that are about a single post or a few consecutive posts are much more easily dealt with than something that would require logical analysis. Certain discussions also have multiple branching paths of misinformation or incorrect statements which would require more work. On and on the queue will develop, where you no longer have moderators anymore.

They've become lawyers with paperwork stacked to the skies.

That's not sensible.

The only posts that should be dismissed or tainted before the reader has a chance to fairly analyse them personally are posts that have been conclusively debunked.

We must keep in mind the goal is always providing and assisting discovery of the truth.

Trolls aka those refusing to relent on posting conclusively debunked information as truths should be removed.

If you can not conclusively debunk a post then it must remain untainted in anyway from admin as long it is on topic and relevant.

How I envision it working is

OP
Post 2 - 50 continuously on topic and progressing in the correct and optimal direction
Post 51 - new bogus (later conclusively debunked) information is injected.
Post 52- 100  infected and reliant on bogus information
Post 101 - conclusively debunks post 51 and therefore all up to post 100 that were poisoned

New reader starts thread only has time to read up to post 99 leaves thread misinformed?

If a very concerned mod wanted to he could select the link ( to post 101) that debunks post 11...then go to post 11 click demerit copy the link from post 101 to the field and press submit. Then the post can have a demeritted by GM symbol in the header and you click that to go straight to the debunking.
This can be done for as many posts as you like that are debunked by post 101

If you are the OP then you could update that with a guide for readers to navigate around conclusively debunked nonsense.

I dont like it being a popularity thing or even based on if previously they have made bogus points. The exact post being demeritted must be conclusively and publicly debunked.

If it is ever abused then those abusing lose access to the feature.

If a demerrit is ever appealed and won. Then they lose the feature. It is not to be used willy nilly.
Conclusively debunked is likely easier to demonstrate where you may be dealing with results and answers not " opinions"

Find me a system that I can't exploit, and I'll tell you who's doing it instead.

---

It sucks when both limitations and additions add more vulnerabilities that can be taken advantage of, though there's certainly one simple way that users can adopt to mitigate the impact of fledgling troll discussion which is to remove their platform by way of simply not responding.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that even if some users abstain from adding fuel to the fire, you'll have the huge number of generic posts piling up from bounty-sig users. If a user spreading misinformation/borderline-spam is left alone then the best-case scenario is that they get a bump every 24 hours. Trouble comes when you have multiple entities with the same line of thinking that post in each other's threads, or if the same individual uses multiple accounts.

After all, we should recall all about those fake conversations in the Altcoin sections and how horrendous they were before the bump update. As far as I'm concerned, our front-line defense against such users is merely the moderation team and active reporters, though the impact is definitely a fraction of the output that "bad" users provide.

---

Have we simply adopted the same marketplace "carpe diem" approach, then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

there is never a good way to fight trolls and those spreading misinformation. the problem with all the methods you can think of (including "demerit") is the negative side effects of them. we have an expression that goes "dry and wet [firewood] burn together" that is suitable here (ie. tarred with the same brush). the real question is how much negative side effects can be expect and does it overpower the positive sides? i'd say the negativity of it is bigger.

you know that some day someone is going to abuse it some place in the forum. these things are opinion based and you can never blame someone for meriting or demeriting a post. we will see in speculation board someone writes a good analysis of price rise but is demerited by someone who has placed a lot of shorts. we will see in technical boards posts being demerited just because someone doesn't like the content.

Once upon a time a user's Ignore button would be highlighted if a high enough percentage of users meeting specific criteria Ignored them, most trolls were very easy to spot, unfortunately afaik for performance reasons the feature had to be disabled.

We could also have a system similar to HN where some posts could be greyed out but since that's more intrusive I'd prefer the criteria to be strict.

The problem with all of the arguments advocating this type of system here is you are only examining the intents of it, and totally ignoring the unintended consequences of it being implemented. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The proposal seeks to basically enable readers who are unable to invest the time or that do not have the capacity to independently verify/ confirm the post contains accurate/credible information.

So yes a filter to assist members locating the truth or rather identifying specious arguments and misleading incorrect garbage would be useful.

I don't see a problem giving time tested and well known developers / experts such a feature for the tech boards. Where they only use a feature like this to denote a post they have clearly and conclusively debunked as incorrect garbage.

I don't think it would be fitting for other areas of forum.

I do think there should be a ban of 7days and doubling each time it happens when members wilfully and knowingly promulgate false and incorrect information that has been conclusively debunked. Or if members are deliberately trying to cast doubt or outright label independently verifiable conclusive proof as trolling or lies. These types of specious defensive posts are dangerously misleading.

End of the day free speech should only really be supported with an aim to reaching the truth.
Once your "speech" has been debunked as false then continuing to exercise your free speech in the same way is simply telling lies and feeding others misinformation. This is the forums definition of trolling actually, and that is very sensible. It nicely strikes a balance between free speech and the dilution of the truth to a point where the forum is useless.

The only problem here is that in some areas of discussion there may be only a handful of people with the capacity and training  to actually know if a post has been conclusively debunked. So yes, for the tech boards the proposed feature does have a sensible usecase.

I'm not as bothered about the format as much as some here. So long as the post contains on topic relevant and valuable new points that have not been mentioned previously on the thread, then whether they are in perfect precise and efficient English is not so much of a concern for me.

There are a set of posts that belong to a space that resides within "not removable via reports" and "horrible to read". These posts come in various forms, involving ever-so-slight trolling, padded posts resting on the precipice of spam, regurgitated posts, and blatantly wrong information.

It is highly improbable that you have not encountered at least one of these posts. If you've ever read a post and immediately thought afterwards, "this post says nothing in so many words," then you share in the suffering. Reports take time to bake and it isn't that feasible to report the thousands of posts of spam (but borderline forum spam) every day nor is it feasible for moderators to go through all the reports.* I would like a system that can dissuade users from such posts though I share the same concerns of abuse once the ability for such restrictions arises.

---

Example half-assed post for reference, in relation to the thread.


Real stream of consciousness bullshit right there. (don't forget to do some extra padding with spacing between each sentence!)

Or by the time somebody effectively counters the damage has already been done. Misinformation and misinformation campaigns are a difficult problem. I agree with the suggestion but restrictions need to be carefully constructed in order to avoid  abusive behaviour.

Some examples, not that the activity requirement has any correlation with likelihood of accurate information.

The worst thing about that broken line of thinking is that flooding open venues with garbage is the most effective and in the running for the most common way to censor things online today.  Because everyone is connected to everyone else simply saying "you can't post this information" mostly doesn't work, often it achieves the opposite effect. At best you can limit its reach to the general public-- but it isn't like the general public, in the broad sense, is using forums like this one in the first place.  Instead, the most effective way to suppress ideas and information today is to flood any venue where people would discuss it with trollling/nonsense/counter-"facts", racist rants, nonsense conspiracy theories, etc.   When joe blow sees all the noise he just throws up his arms and decides that the truth is unknowable.  Make everything a jumbled mess of accusations and make every participant look like a violent idiot. Burn out anyone who tries to keep the facts straight with unending walls of cheaply generated nonsense.

I think virtually everyone in this thread is reading far too narrowly into what I was discussing.  When someone posts low effort garbage, often it gets no effective counter (or takes a long time to get one).   Most high quality contributors have things they'd rather be doing with their time then wrestling in the mud with brain damaged pigs and their piglets.  They click these threads and go NOPE and close them.

Is there a way to capture their "nope" and turn it into something that makes the forum a more valuable a resource?

Is there a way to make long term contributors, such as myself, feel more empowered and proud of their community and less demoralized by people who would virtually shit all over the figurative walls-- without demanding they take on a big burdensome cleanup duty on their own?

Ah yes, it wouldn't be right to have us challenging the classic misconception that "mUh fReEdUmZ oF sPeEch" means anyone is free to spout abject lunacy in a space that's used by many individuals and that any attempts to restrict such behaviour is apparently tantamount to fascism.  How terrible a thought.   

I did. Any iteration of this idea is retarded and will cause horrible unintended consequences. I suggest when people say things that you don't like you find a way to cope with it or use the existing systems instead of obsessing over new an improved ways to control the speech of others.

Try reading the full topic before overreacting.  It has since been clarified by gmaxwell that they simply meant having a way to mark a post as nonsense.  They're not proposing deducting merits from users:

This is a HORRRIBLE idea. I can not overstate this enough. Merit and the trust system are already heavily abused to the point of their being almost totally counterproductive. Adding negative merits will turn this place into just another retarded fucking echo chamber like every other site. All that will happen is people will only say what is popular, and everything else will either be punished, or silenced. This place will then proceed to completely turn into a cesspool instead of just mostly a cesspool. This MUST NOT happen under any circumstances.

This isn't going to work the way you think it will.
This is actually good thinking.
So you were on a right track earlier in the thread that you'd linked to, and which made you angry.
This guy is on the right track to the solution.

Basically, any one-dimensional solution isn't going to work in the social practice; it doesn't matter whether you call it merit, karma, reputation or something similar. It will always be vulnerable to the abuse, whether you call it "merit cycling", "karma farming", "circle jerking", "mutual admiration society" or something similar.

What could work is adding another dimension to the "merit value". It is hard for me to come up with a good name in English, but for sake of this thread lets use the word "funniness". The funniness can be both intentional and unintentional. It really won't matter in the grand scheme of things. Even now some people do give merit while posting a disclaimer that it made them laugh.

I've seen such systems working quite well on other forums that do support plugin architectures. I know this one theoretically does, but it wasn't kept up to date with the official code base, so they won't simplify implementation. I will not post links to those forums because of they aren't in English and to avoid doxing myself.

For the people like gmaxwell with mathematical mind the argument is simple: avoid attempting to order people linearly like the Real numbers. For each two real X & Y numbers exactly one is true X < Y , X = Y or X > Y. At least switch to the Complex numbers, where there are only two choices: either X = Y or it doesn't.

For the people preferring more humanistic approach I recommend familiarizing themselves with the philosophical thinking of Herbert Marcuse that he published in his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man . This book is from 1964 so it will not contain anything related to the modern social media. But it does contain lots of very useful thought about the things that are discussed in this thread. Even where Marcuse is wrong, the passage of time and social experience gained until now will make those places obvious.

They have to both care and have the intelligence to understand the source of it.  If the motivation behind the stupid posts is that they're intentionally trying to manipulate people, troll, or because they're just dumb as a box of rocks... it's not likely to work.

And, of course, other posters know this-- so in a lot of cases people just don't bother to issue the well deserved ridicule even where the source might be responsive to it.  Instead they get responses with more confused people.

I think if we could always reliably and consistently tell who was irredeemably stupid, manipulating, or trolling then it wouldn't be a big deal-- removing their posts would be sufficient. But there is a huge grey area where we can't tell.

I've wondered if some of these are machine generated. GP2-Large tweaked for a particular subject can do some impressive writing, especially with a bit of manual fixups. If they're not yet-- they probably will be soon.

The idea that online communities can deal with junk content by just letting all readers figure it out on their own has been a bad idea for a long time, but it's on the verge of getting significantly worse.  It isn't that readers can't be trusted to sort out junk from not junk without help, by in large they can-- but it is a massive waste of their time. Unless you want to optimize for a community of spammers, idiots, and other persons whos time is utterly worthless you need to do something.

Merit is an example of something. But it's one-sided.

Right. Apparently I screwed up by using the word "demerit" in my post. Removing merits is not something I consider particularly useful.

  I was going to reply yesterday and decided to wait until today.
I would like to say all posts given merit prior to 2019 should be off limits for a year.

Also if you do give demerit power just how much power to demerit is given
 5 points 10 points 25 points?

Do we allow an entire drop to the next level?

In my case 1309 merits would be needed to drop me to Hero.

Everyone is getting too caught up on the idea that this would remove merit. I would consider it more like a newbie flag, but rather than being placed on a person it would be on a post. If the post was filled with false/misleading information then it should show up as tinted/slightly red if whomever(s) can activate this button/option use it. I'm just throwing ideas out there but this is why this is being discussed.
Drop the idea that this removes merit from someone's post/account and lets discuss a way to stop misleading comments from parting newbies and their money. A LOT of people don't read whole threads or do any of their own research, those that do should be able to protect a little better.

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.

Well, you wanted a button to stab somebody in the face over the internet!
Now, enjoy getting brain damage from interacting with the wrong user on a forum!

Karma!


At least one of us is going to learn it the hard way! 

Let us discuss this one step at a time in a civilised manner

1. You have gone here

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53999975

And missed in the OP all of the quotes from lauda stating he was there at launch and he can confirm there  was no premine of dark coin?

I see several quotes there from lauda stating he was on the launch and could say that no premine took place
I see 5 occasions he lies there was no premine and it is not a scam? You don't see those?
You can not see these quotes from lauda ?

These are while he was mining and holding darkcoin. Yes he sings a different tune years later when he has dumped his bags



You seem to be only seeing the quote years later after he dumped his bags admitting it was a premined scam.

You surely don't think I would conflate lauda telling the truth with you suggestion to demerit false and deliberately malicous information. To promote or protect scams ??

Please take time to read all of the quotes. Maybe you skipped to the Giant sized quote and assumed that was the only quote of his.

The others are right above.  I can not see how any of this is off topic
Please explain?

Can you show me where you assume I am trolling.
I am not intending to troll.  Point it out specifically and perhaps I can explain more clearly.

Now that you explain your proposal more clearly I see more merit

Yes all legends would be far better than 1000 earned merits.

When you said demerit I took that to mean exactly that.

It is good to know you are not pals with liars and scammers pushing pre mined garbage under false premises.

Beyond a series of friendly and thoughtful interactions on the forum in threads over the years I don't know Lauda.  They are certainly not my pal.

I'd not heard of them shilling scamcoins (or if I had, I forgot) so I followed your links. All I found was a twisty maze of you linking to yourself. Where you did finally link to Lauda it was a post where *they* were calling dash a instamined shitcoin. Quite shockingly your description of lauda's activity there states, "This a direct lie from lauda to deliberately scam investors into buying into a project under the false premise there was no instamine!!." -- yet it's the exact opposite of what was there! If they did elsewhere, I can't find it in any of your links.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Now, I have no idea if there isn't merit somewhere behind your complaint-- as I mentioned, I only know Lauda from interactions in threads here and there where they always seemed consistently reasonable to me.  But if there is substance you've done an absolutely terrible job communicating it to anyone, particularly considering what a huge diversion your (apparent) grudge is here.  And I say this as someone that both agrees that darkcoin/dash is a scam and has been consistent about that for as long as I've known about it.

I intentionally didn't rise to your trolling previously. And I regret now that your continued attempts to derail this thread mean that I have to. Please lets not discuss it here. If there is some reason you think I should personally give a shit about the subject, hit me up in PM.

So congrats for being the most "on topic" post of all in the thread:   Right now you in this very thread you are providing a great example of low quality thread diverting posts that I wish there was some action to take against short of deleting them and/or getting you banned from the forum.
No you are unwittingly providing the example by being one and bringing your largely opaque grudge match (legit or not, I can't tell) here and wasting my time with it.

I suggested 1000 because it's the merit level needed to be legendary (ignoring the freebee legacy merits), I don't have a strong opinion on the mechanism other than it should be reserved for long tenured members in good standing.


You've read too much into the word "demerit"-- I don't mean removing merit. My thinking was more along the lines of a separate kind of negative merit that might, e.g. change the post color and/or prevent the post from bumping the thread, or otherwise clearly indicate that it's considered bullshit by one or more people whom most users consider worth listening to.

I'm thinking of Reddit's downvote system which should work well against these kind of posts. It won't affect any Merits given our prior but then people will choose if they'd want to open/ read something that has been buried.



Imagine having ranked up but then you get deranked because someone or a few have some beef against you. Would be confusing for Campaign Managers.

Perhaps then some strict detailed guidelines for permitted flow could be useful if enforced consistently.
I mean removing merit would do little to solve the issue you seem to be having with some members constantly derailing your threads with blatant stupidity for their fav pet unrelated subject. . Removing their merit seems fruitless how would this help prevent it? Perhaps they dont care about merit? Why not delete their post as off topic and irrelevant if it actually is?

Or are you allowing suchmoon off topic post to derail you off on to a tangent?

Let me help drag this back on topic.

Demeriting incorrect,  false and malicious bullshit that is used at times for shilling scams as you specifically said. That's the topic right?

Like the example I provided here where a pal of yours deliberately spreads Incorrect false and malicious lies to shill his bags of scam coins?

I am simply asking for clarity. These are specifically the types of false and malicious shilling posts you want to stab people in the face for correct?

Or is the face stabbing criteria different for different members?

Strange how this seems like a refusal to engage on directly on topic posts but indulge some more of topic comments by suchmoon.

Permitted flow should be thrashed out and detailed specifically and transparently for all members.
If people claim direct examples of the specifically detailed behaviour being discussed in the OP is off topic garbage to be ignored then that is rather funny. No wonder there is so much confusion .
A merit from foxpup is pretty much a warning sign. He has stated previously his opinions are not based on reason.

There is a feast awaiting the demerit vampires with foxpups handouts.

So that I  get exactly what you are requesting GM


In the example ( that I provided)  where lauda ( darkcoin bag holder) turns up to a thread discussing the proven premine of dark coin and starts posting he was on the launch and could confirm there was no premine. Posting false and malicious shilling crap to push his scam coins he was holding.

He continues to claim for many post for many months even though it was documented ( later the devs offer compensation for the premine and lauda confirms it was premined scam)

Then another member merits his bogus, false and malicious shilling lies.

Do you want to stab in the face

A / lauda
B / the person giving laudas malicious false shilling lies merit?
C/ all of the above


Please investigate and clarify so we can continue with the strictly on topic and relevant discussion.

Or am I unwittingly going off topic and derailing this thread by proving exactly examples of what you mention and ask for clarity and confirmation.

With the 1000 earned merits suggestion. Can you detail why this is in your mind the specific and most appropriate requirement for demeritting powers?

Don't be afraid to just be honest GM

Just say : yes laudas malicious incorrect and false lies are specifically the kinds of posts where I want to stab them In the face, I would also like to stab in the face those giving merit to those posts if that is what you feel like also.

What is hard about this ?

Then say 1000 merits is a good requirement to engage demerit powers because....Xxx

No hard math though I dont understand all that numbers and wiggles lines stuff.  Just straightforward explanation in simple terms.

Please don't feel I wish to derail or even dispute the need for demerit powers.

Why does everyone here wish to avoid discussing the core points in their OP once you introduce some specific on topic and relevant examples?  Is it because they wish their " suggestions or wishes"  are only directed at some members and not all members equally?

Should we support this as a community?


@PN7

This is about removing merit not the post entirely right?
You would not hide or remove their post ?

Allowing a single person, or group of people remove (or hide) content they determine to be false is specifically the type of censorship the forum wants to avoid. If gmaxwell says something is false, I would probably agree with him nearly all the time if I were to look at the facts. There are times in which gmaxwell is wrong, and these times probably at least partially overlap in which I would also incorrectly agree with him.


Who gets to decide someone is "in the know"? What if one, or some of these people turn out to be a bad apple?

If there is a person alleging wrongdoing that has his post hidden, it could possibly end up covering up actual wrongdoing. What you describe would change the response to someone alleging wrongdoing from saying "provide evidence" to "[hide post]"

Bitcoin general discussion, I'd assume, is where the forum where the most users without a technical understanding of bitcoin gather. I don't think they understand the merit system or any other forum mechanics to begin with so I'm not sure how useful a demerit system would be as the content is still there. If we're talking about maliciously dishonest content, a trust rating would be appropriate. But trust ratings don't show up in general discussion so that wouldn't solve the issue either.

 
I'd say a better solution, at least for starters, would be to have trust scores show up in more sub forums where users posting blatantly dishonest content should be tagged. It'd probably be more noticeable with less acquainted forum users than a demerit system.

Ignore hardly works. I have some people on ignore, I don't mean that the feature itself doesn't ignore posters/posts-- it does.

For the kind of poster where just hiding their post is enough you can just have your Mark 1.0 meat computer ignore it for you. The people you need a feature for are the ones that you can't just move your eyes past their posts--the ones who continually derail almost every thread they walk into, who take each thread as an opportunity to derail it onto their pet offtopic subject, etc.  In these cases most of the effect ignore has is handicapping your ability to push things back on topic with a quick response to the thread pulling back in that direction.

I mostly use ignore as a way to flag people as "I've already concluded this person is reliably an idiot, don't be surprised when the hidden content is stupid.", and end up reading their posts anyways.

You could perhaps imagine a situation where enough forum members coordinated to ignore a poster that ignore would actually work but even then hapless newbies would keep wandering in and getting sucked into the stupid or debating the stupid.

Another way to look at it is that right now low quality posts have only a few ways of handling them: Ignore them and hope they don't keep doing damage, try to rebuff them at depth which sometimes is a waste of time and just fuels the stupid (and also bumps the thread!),  have a mod delete them, have a mod move them off to someplace else where they're more on topic (or a cesspool that everyone sane ignores), go get the user flagged or banned... etc.   Other than the first two, these are all pretty drastic measures.

Moreover they're just not very satisfying nothing like a face stab button.


Regardless, thanks for the discussion and for listening to me vent.

My time spent is mainly in Collectibles and we often times have people come in and provide completely false information about coins/specifications/sales etc... rather than have to light these people up and tell them they are wrong which causes bad blood resulting in them less willing to revisit the community it would be nice to be able to just have a few of the "in the know" members be able to have an option to effectively hide this information or make it less visible in the eyes of new collectors/newbies coming into the space. The majority of the time the person with the false information rages and is unwilling to admit they were wrong which causes great friction and furthered confrontation.
A button such as others suggested that after being pressed 5x or so could hide their false comment and no more harm done, the affected would realize and seek out advice/the truth I would hope.

I don't see something like this working in Meta/Reputation, the Collectibles board and the more Technical Boards/Discussions would greatly benefit from this sort of thing.
Demerit may be the wrong word as this wouldn't be removing merit from a post, but rather hiding/forcing you to click "show comment" (possibly with a header explanation) to see what was deemed false. Tough thing to sort out but I do believe it would be a quality of life improvement for certain boards if not abused. This shouldn't be happening multiple times a day either so the burden on Mods/Staff to make sure it is being used correctly would not be very burdensome unless it is being abused.

For the reader and myself can you define specifically the trolling you are referring to and how this relates specifically to the demerit feature being suggested.

Your post is confusing without details. If it was just empty meaningless words you can not stand behind with specific examples then just run away.

Demerit is something many sensible members have called for previously.

The problem is it will only compound the damage of merit if it is not conducted in an objectively valuable and meaningful way.

I dont expect you to understand.


I would expect he is referring to posts that can be independently and objectively debunked as false conclusively.
In the tech boards I assume that could be far easier to establish.

Your post is of course true for the scenario you present.
Sometimes the most optimal and valuable solution or answer only reveals itself after much debate.

I often wonder if you allow incorrect posts to retain merit by reasoning their incorrect assumptions or speculations induced or created the need for counter arguments that in themselves lead more quickly to the optimal solutions...then demerit is going to be much harder.

I feel only those that were on the correct path ( when fully established) should have merit personally. I know that is harsh but of people dont fully understand the concept then merit can be a useful marker for correct and optimal information. It will also save people leaving the thread at any point before the end being mislead.

Then entire thing is tricky but if there is an objective effort to remove merit from conclusively debunked garbage it could improve things for sure.  Of course picking the correct people will be super important.

I don't like the idea of punishing unpopular ideas, even if they are nonsense.

One feature of merit is once merit is given, it cannot be removed. The same would presumably apply to demerit. This might result in someone presenting what appears to be a bad idea, but once more details are given, or more information is presented, it is in fact a good idea. This idea might attract some demerit when it appears bad, and someone reading the thread months after the fact might promptly ignore the post after seeing the demerit present. You could argue the opposite could also happen, but this is less common.

If you think a post or idea is bad, you can say "this is awful, wtf"

To demerit is it the only solution, I believe there is a ban to user who is not honest in BCT forum. Merit is a life time gift and I believe if this action is introduced to the forum definitely wrong people will use it for the act of wickedness if they get little offended in their emotions, and best way they will want to cool down is to demerit for no reason or any little mistake.

Given how we still haven't figured out the use of "ignore" feature on noisome trolls I wouldn't put too much hope on being entrusted with a "demerit" feature.

Edit: shpeling.

Seems a lot of off topic speculation.

So you didnt ditch your years old avatar for the money you say? But rather just because you like bicycles. I see.
Okay Hugeblackwoman (his proven racist trolling sig spamming alt who got busted being too greedy)I mean you have 1000s of merits ( from your pals) and zero original thought provoking valuable posts and no achievements ( except your biggest achievement that you stated since joining  was getting into chipmixer)  i want you to have the power to decide the true objective value of peoples posts.

Did you actually reply on the correct thread ? Your reply seems to directly address points made on the greed or need thread?


Merit vampires can go around draining merits from idiots posting debunked and incorrect tripe. If they existed and did their job you would stand to lose the equivalent of around 12 pints.

What if they were forced to drain their own bogus merits first? But then they wouldn't qualify hmmmm

Actually I have a great idea. This is merit worthy.

To become a merit vampire you need to assess your own merits and delete any merits given to your posts for valueless crap.
If after you claim to have completed this task a valueless crap post of yours still has some  merit then you are banned from DT merit source, wearing a sig and of course being a merit vampire.

I would support that for sure.

Lol, what are you blabbering about?  The fact that I'm wearing Foxpup's avatar doesn't mean I'm doing anything that I wasn't doing prior to me adopting his avatar.  I don't even know what "merit cycling" means--I happen to like my current avatar because I enjoy bicycles. 

And I'm confused as to your vampire reference, but the truth is I don't really care to hear an explanation.  You're an established troll using a new account and the same old gripes and the results are going to continue to be the same: the vast majority of members are going to tune you right out.

Try debunking my points you slobbering imbecile.
You are one of the idiots that should be nowhere near having demerit or merit powers you corrupt piece of shit.

You are reading them.

So yes demerit will be a good idea if implemented objectively and correctly no just given over to the same idiots giving each other tons of merit for producing incorrect crap with negative value.

Got it now?

Could  not agree more! We’ve got a great use case example in Reddit which proves this could be very effective. Obviously with Theymos running r/bitcoin he’s well aware of how helpful this could be for the forum. I try and always search for stuff on both Btalk and Reddit before asking everyone, but there’s no question most people will spend more time “making sure” of their posts before pressing submit on Reddit because of downvotes on your score as well as the potential for posting “time outs”.

I think it should be one demerit per user per post, same as Reddit. This in my mind could be used to help stop not only shit posts, but drama as well. Now for TOAA , wouldn’t mean a damn thing, but for non-super trolls who care about their accounts standing it would. I honestly see very little abuse of this on Reddit. 

omg... I think I lost a few IQ points attempting to make sense of that thread... jeebus... the level of ignorance on display there was mind boggling!


You owe me a new keyboard... and a cup of tea! hahaha... funniest thing I've read all week! And I totally sympathise... this is indeed what we need! I'm sure anyone that has ever worked tech support can relate:



Maybe "tags" that could be applied to a post to give an indication that it's just plain bullshit? Only issue I see is that unless it's available to all, we'll run into the "censorship" issue... and potential for abuse.

Nobody is reading your crap...but yeah, keep wasting your time derailing every discussion...

Lol please stop ... the very fact we are noticing merit is given and earned for posting misleading or incorrect crap does not mean we should then say it is a reliable metric to rely on to demonstrate the critical reasoning powers of those we need to employ to ensure merit is only attributed to objectively valuable posts lol

Let's send the merit cycling fools like pharmacist and tman to merit vampire in the tech boards haha

No. These people must be hand selected to have demonstrated specific skillset and critical reasoning in certain areas. They must be able to present robust and conclusive arguments for any merit removal.

Lol at using earned merits as a marker for removing poorly applied merits. The very idea is quite silly.
I suspect GM is not noticing how much merit is handed to people for posting totally bogus crap everywhere and specifically in meta board.  It is not just a problem in the tech boards.   It is probably less of a worry where math can be applied to produce conclusive debunking in many instances.

Everywhere else it is impossible to work with any kind of logic or reason. The meta board is like the twilight zone as correctly noted by a very sensible member.

Merit was a cancer and will remain so. If it is terminal we are yet to find out. 
Bring back noob jail and delete the pile of junk. It creates endless insoluble problems that are more dangerous than some spammers and bots that would never have made it out of noob jail in the first place.

Could be a very useful function if we customize such a tool properly. There's a lot of malicious content posted, that's true and much of it is also misleading readers. The Trust flags are only visible on top of a topic, if someone posts misleading content somewhere forther down the topic, no warning would be visible.  
I made a quick visualisation and it's looking interesting:



For scam topics or obviously misleading content a demerit could actually be somewhat useful in my opinion.

If deMerit is introduced I would only grant users with let's say more than 500 earned Merit the right to distribute deMerit. Above 500 earned Merit every 10 earned Meit will result in getting 1 sdeMerit.
For example:
- an user with 554 earned Merit would have 5 sdeMerit
- an user with 702 earned Merit would have  20 sdeMerit
...

There will be no deMerit sources, deMerit is only generated from earned Merit.
If someone's post is getting 1 deMerit, the Merit score of that user would be decreased by 1 point.

We could also argue that lower ranks can use deMerit but only 1 sdeMerit for every 50 earned Merit or similar.

---

Personally, I would like it much more to have it as a community tool. Bitcointalk is decentralized.  

---

deMerit would also be visible directly under the post like Merit is highlighting good posts.
That way people would be warned against malicious content.

Yes you probably mean cases where deliberate lies are told about premines to shill scamcoins

Like this example by one of your pals lauda


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lauda-scammer-extortionist-nullius-twat-double-standards-cheater-5231720

1000 merits? What does that prove? The only members here with 1000 earned merits are people like the greedy gaming and manipulative scum bags like lauda and his friends?

Reducing any bogus meaning merit is meant to have is probably far more important than your proposal

Respectfully of course. I have not seen any kind of deliberate wrong doing in your specific case.
I oppose any further privileges or weight attributed to cycled merit.

I think you are getting frustrated and worried over something largely unimportant in the tech forums.  0.001% of the forum understands any of that to any kind of level that needs to considered seriously so who cares what the mildly technically proficient think they know. The normal folks dont understand and the super egg heads know it is incorrect.

I'm more worried about malicious scammers and manipulative scum crushing the communities free speech than some semi knowledgable tech people garnering bogus support from other semi technical people who's opinions can be debunked even if they dont notice or understand they are wrong.

No more bogus " only those with x meaningless merits" privileges. Sure egg heads that can objectively debunk arguments and present them on the demerit explanation event page. Nò way to every merit cycling scumbag here.

I feel though you do need merit vampires. They must be able to present objectively robust reasons for demerits and if they fail  they are removed from merit source and merit vampire for good.

Merit needs to denote only  valuable and correct information. If it is not valuable with regard reaching the optimal solution or answer posed in the OP It must not receive merit.

Let's face it merit is a complete disaster from an objective pov if full context is considered.

Stabbing them in the mother fucking face is perhaps a little too much but they should not be getting rewarded for promugating and misleading others intentionally or just because others are stupid enough nor to realize they are being fed shit

Bring on merit vampires. I'd say start with All legends and heros.  If their actions do not stand up to objective scrutiny they are out for good

I like the idea but fuck off to 1000 cycled merit holders only. These are some of the most corrupt here..

Perhaps GM can confirm that lying and misleading others deliberately about premines of a scams they are shilling is just the sort of scumbag he wants to smash their face in over the internet ?

The lying scam pusher lauda loves kissing GM ass.

Can you confirm this is the kind of lying malicious scumbag you want to punch in the face GM?

Or this is just for certain people?  

Earned merits = high percent of cycled pal credits all in each others top 20 fans and recipients all including each other of DT all feeding at the trough of chipmixer fortunejack et al

I am shocked that such an intelligent person would support the merit system In its current form

Perhaps now you start to realize it is annoying to see conclusively debunked and incorrect spew getting heaps of support via meaningless merit?

No offence to you personally. I dont understand your work but far smarter men than I assure me it is to be congratulated and appreciated.

I dont support 1000 earned merits at all.

I mean the fact you are correctly annoyed to see merits given freely to bogus and incorrect even malicious posts seems to suggest it is not sensible to rely on earned merits for shit.

The fact suchmoon merits this is hilarious. He said that without strict criteria to measure against the terms good poster and bad poster are meaningless? Now supports a meaningless metric of 1000 .meaningless points being the foundation for membership to the meaningless club to remove meaningless or malicous merits ??

That's a good idea.

It's a nice idea. The forum is working hard to see that they are no bad contents. But this new button can it be in such a way that the merit giver can get back their merit after they are back to their senses.

I like the idea in principle but it would be horrifically abused by all the people nursing grudges out there.

The only viable solution is the existing one - if you're shit your merit score will never get above a shit one. Maybe there should be a flashing 'ha ha' next to merit scores that haven't budged since its inception.

Then drama queens would start complaining about censorship, dictatorship and biased moderation on the forum (more than they already do). We don't need that, we don't want that.

Altough the idea is not bad in principle, restricting it to a certain rank, or group of people wouldn't be wise. The idea of X smerit= Y -smerit is the most sensible I've heard so far in this matter; and maybe another round of sweeping the airdropped merits of profiles that have not earnt a single merit in 2 years, and are active posters (not to discriminate the old stablished members that left the forum and may come back one day) could be considered

Edit: Giving it some more tought, I'd say that only posts that have already been merited could be demerited, and it can't get more demerits than the total ammount of merits. It will prevent a misleading post getting merited, but will be harder to use as some kind of retaliatory tool (or at least I want to think that)

Demerit will not solve anything, a newbie with zero merits or -1000 merits will still be able to post crap if it fits his agenda.

Probably a flag system like we have right now for scammers and only for the serious boards would be more appropriate as it will warn readers the moment they see the topic that it was flagged by multiple members as misleading or having a clickbait title or presenting false information. Of course, it should not be available for topics in meta or reputation as we all know how it will end.

But, it won't stop guys that do this intentionally, they will simply claim they are oppressed, censored,  that the Illuminati have taken over bitcoin and bitcointalk...and so on...

Perhaps instead of these requirements, the demerit function could be restricted to moderators of the board, requiring only one press of a button. Just like how the reporting system can be used by anyone but only mods can actually delete posts. Newbies would start complaining about bias or "keeping them down" if legendaries were allowed to do this.


This reminds me of the way Stack Overflow implements downvotes that remove reputation. That's another possibility. But it would have to be restricted to people with say 1000 earned merit, and staff I guess.

Make it cost 2 smerit to remove 1, and don't allow merit sources to participate. 

This would be nice to have but there would be abuse in so many ways that we can't even imagine, and/or incessant whining about imaginary abuse, regardless of how well it's implemented.

Granted we get some that with the current positive-merit-only system too, but negativity tends to amplify emotions a lot more. Demerit would be endless food for trolls too.

I have mixed feelings for this. For this to work fine, there should be tight restrictions to hopefully prevent people from abusing this feature. There are times where people get into a heated argument, and we wouldn't want people to use the demerit feature on those instances.

P.S. Jeebus I could already imagine the threads.

*user A demerits user B*

*user B immediately creates topic* Re: "HiGh RaNk MeMbErS dOn'T wAnT lOw RaNkS tO eArN mEriT".

I know theymos had mentioned that making a demerit system would be fairly easier ^[1], but I definitely don't think it would be a good idea to do so. People will use it just like the negative trust option, i.e. for retaliation.

You see, people are very careful towards meriting people, same as for giving positive trust. But when it comes to giving out negative trust, half the people if I am being decent enough, just give negative ratings just because they can. I am not pointing names, but we all know the trust system has been used for everything except for what it is implied for. It would only be a matter of time where people will start getting deranked left and right, if the demerit system becomes a thing.

---

^[1]

Big LOL, as I've had that same feeling about more posts than I can count over the years.  Usually if someone writes something that is so patently idiotic that it convinces me I will never want to waste another nanosecond reading another serving of tripe by the same author, I hit the ignore button so fast my fingers produce little sonic booms.

But this idea has been brought up before and has been either ignored or rejected by Theymos.  In fact, I seem to recall someone calling for a demerit function shortly after the introduction of the merit system.  So as much as I sympathize with your frustration and support your suggestion, I'd keep my expectations low if I were you.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but we would have to make sure that the new "button" would not be misused by several users to troll or to slur the creator of a thread. There is so much drama/war going on in the forum, we shouldn't implement a feature which would make it even worse. If the new "button" would become a way to dislike certain opinions or users, the feature would clearly harm more than it would help to prevent FUD or scams.

That's why some restrictions would definitely be needed, e.g.:

- 1000 earned Merits
- 1000 activity
- positive trust score (or only DT1 members?)
- the "button" has to be pressed 5 times
- maybe a "counter-button", if the "wtf-button" was pressed falsely

Nevertheless it can be said that the feature could certainly be useful if implemented correctly.

LoyceV's deMerit source application. I kind of agree with you about the minor punishment on bad posters or merit abusers but theymos does not care too much about merit abuses at small levels. He stepped in and demerited sometimes. In more than 2 years, there are some demerited posts on the forum but I don't think theymos will make a demerit button or demerit sources.

There are a fair number of posts on BCT where the poster is confused to the point of being infuriating or even being maliciously dishonest, trying to manipulate markets or shill altcoins, or whatever. 

The threads fill with other confused people while sensible people just shy away. For example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-developers-changed-blocks-data-now-plenty-people-have-stalled-transacts-5223659

What we really need is a button that stabs someone in their motherfucking face over the internet.

But failing that, a "this is awful wtf"  button that e.g. can only be pressed by users who have recieved over (say) 1000 merit and which only shows something on the post when it's been pressed at least three times, would at least be a start.