Topic: Marketplace trust - page 6. (Read 82947 times)

I'm in absolute disagreement. Why should I have to sit through someone posting shit and getting rewarded for it, because someone who is too lazy to properly do their job decided that they should be allowed to do so? Why should the other people that disagree with this, just sit around and let it happen? Because someone being paid by a some ICO has ultimate authority?

Extremely poor English is not subjective. Anyone that is a speaker of any decent capacity of a language can tell good or bad interpretation of it. Empty, useless posts are also objectively bad. Rehashing the same empty words such as:
"$ 20,000 is a good price. I can not stand to observe the growth rate of bitcoin. Every price increase of $ 1000 can result in a drop of $ 2,000 in the future. I constantly catch myself thinking that I don't want bitcoin to go up. But it seems to me that bitcoin is already so dispersed that no one will stop until it will fall."
Cannot possibly be seen as a decent post by anyone. Any chimp with a typewriter can write drivel such as that, and these people deserve to be paid for such, because some lazy campaign manager says so?

Trust moderation doesn't exist, by design.

Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you cannot scam people. There are no 'trust instructions', there are guidelines. Guidelines that were written in a time where spam wasn't such a big of an issue. Guidelines that are just advice, not rules.

I can absolutely agree that tagging isn't the best way to do it, and I hope that these taggings will decrease as the merit system finds it's feet. However, when left with no other option, the worst one sometimes becomes the best.

The trust moderation is a shitshow. Nowhere in forum rules or even trust instructions is negative tagging related to post quality. It has nothing to do with trustability. Such taggings are abuse.

It is not upon anyone else but the project management to decide about the pay worthiness of a post. This has nothing to do with trust anymore but everything with destroying people's accounts just for subjective morbid reasons.

Most bounty campaign managers do nothing other than pay for this spam... that's if they even have a manager at all and most of the alt coin campaigns don't. They accept anyone and pay for anything and that's why the forum is such the shitshow that it is.


Some members have had enough of the wall-to-wall shitposts and decided to do something about it. I'm glad they did because this system was now meant to prevent people feeling the need to do that and using the feedback system to police poor posters will likely stop in favour of the merit system.

Just because a campaign manager can decide upon someone's post quality doesn't mean that they do. If campaign managers could be trusted to do their jobs then this forum wouldn't have had anywhere near as bad of a spam problem, however (in some cases) they cannot.

By the way an absolutely ridiculous reason again by The Pharmacist to destory your account: "This user doesn't know English and should not be paid to post on bitcointalk." As if the bounty manager of this user cannot decide upon that. Really disgusting behaviour again.

I guess you need to experience it to believe it. Unless you're one of the abusers. Then you know it, practise it and deny it.

"DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR POSTS"
I received negative trust for bad English. What's it? My opinion is abuse. Why are some members arrogated to themselves the right of moderation? I can see it becoming a mass phenomenon. Why there is no appeal mechanism?

The possibility to participate in bounty campaigns may be a privilage in the present forum situation, but not by definition. A privilage is a possibility for only a few. But participating in bounty campaigns is not a logical or ethical possibility for only a few. On top of that the privilage of participating in bounty campaigns (not being tagged with red trust points) is determined by a few privilaged. Thus privilage is built on privilage. And unfortunately those latter privilaged do not have a very ethical disposition, to word it carefully. That is the exact problem I'm adressing here and elsewhere.

No! How could you make a joke like that to our lord and savior satoshi nakamoto?!!!!11 It's not about freakin' fastfoodchain!!!!!!!1!!1!!11

It's better than this one:


It's called a joke, which was in response to a moronic question. You shitposters need to get a sense of humour.

Your trust score literally does not change how you post or what you post. If you are referring to signature campaigns, then you have to realize that they are a privilege, not a right.

And red trust regarding spam shouldn't affect anything that you do on the forum apart from that. You can still remain an active participant in discussions. You can still frequent the Marketplace and Bitcoin Discussion sections.

Then if the trust system is all about subjectivity it should stay like that and not result in objective scores that exclude people from using the forum to the full. Either you use a subjective rating (no rules no consequences) or an objective rating (rules with consequences), but not a subjective rating with objective results (in the case of a few chosen ones)!

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. The trust system cannot be "anchored in clear rules, equalized for all", because it is as it sounds "trust"; you cannot force someone to trust you, and you cannot control those that do not trust you. You're not going to get someone removed from DT by disagreeing with their ratings, because in all feasibility those ratings are at least partly the reason they are on DT to begin with; these people will only be removed if those that put them there feel they are no longer, trustworthy. The Trust system will not be removed, because that would cause chaos unless it is simultaneously replaced by something better or at least equally bad.

Your reasoning for Lauda not being tagged by actmyname is weak.
Do you believe Lauda is a shitposting spammer? They do their job better than you do yours and yours is much easier.

Lauda was not tagged by actmyname for being a shitposting spammer, because they are not a shitposting spammer. There is no fear or exploitation, you are digging. Instead of flailing like a toddler during a tantrum, analyse yourself and get your rating removed. This is an option in front of you, improve your posting quality; do not be angry that your terrible posting quality is not satisfactory.

They are not judging you simply on the quality of your posts, if I were to take a guess at their reasoning or justification I would probably arrive at the fact that you guys are maliciously posting in this manner in an attempt to farm signature campaign income. This is not how the forum is intended to be used and therefore they feel you are abusing the forum, tearing it to pieces, lowering it's value and making it impossible to find a post worth reading. You are putting obstacles in the way of everyone else enjoying the forum as it is intended to be enjoyed for your own financial gain. You are willing to harm everyone else, while not reading threads, ignoring rules and guidelines, posting disingenuous questions and everything else that comes along with it simply to make a quick, unsustainable, buck.

I agree with these ratings, if you at least followed the guidelines and rules you wouldn't receive these ratings. The quality of the post is not necessarily the problem, it is (among other things) the intention behind it, the frequency and how it affects the experience of other users.


I was unaware that BTC Risked counted as an additional rating until I reread theymos' post about trust just last night; I've got to agree, because it was obviously intended that the greater the amount scammed/risked the greater the trust-factor. It doesn't do us very much good if the threshold is such that it will not commonly be reached, and in such a way that it will be insignificantly incremental. At the point where this would be activated the additional trust rating would be irrelevant.

Ah, I just bumped into another trust system abuser: actmyname.

Just look here where he spoiled Notin2's profile only because in a thread where forum rankings are discussed Notin2 mentioned he was waiting to get promoted to Sr Member. It's really ridiculous to spoil a member's profile like that.

But like I stated above: Trust system abuse is epidemic. And it should therefore be anchored in clear principal rules, equalized for all, or otherwise be fully removed.

It's just one small example of abuse of the trust system by members like The Pharmacist and Lauda. However forum wide the abuse is epidemic.

you actmyname, loser !!
Another example of abuse of power.

Racist? The fuck?

Way to go and push everything into a completely ridiculous territory. It's completely detrimental to whatever argument you try to propose.

You can't report it. Certain forum members with a faul nature have been installed with extra trust powers which they abuse. It's a mystery why the opinion of members like The Pharmacist or Lauda, both equipped with very faul mouths and natures, would lead to red trust points while the opinions of the myriads of other members lead to no consequences. I don't like spam posts, but I dislike calling members "Filipino shitposter" even more. It's disrespectful. But what would The Pharmacist or Lauda know about human values like 'respect'? 'Not much' would be the answer when you look at their behaviour in this forum.

Thanks