I vote that we create pink trust for crypto hunters. 
I see... people presenting facts that prove wrongdoing by DT members get pink trust.
Topic: Negative trust for bad posting. (Read 853 times)
I see... people presenting facts that prove wrongdoing by DT members get pink trust.
I vote that we create pink trust for crypto hunters.
Something wrong with this picture.
DT is shown
1. evidence of another DT lying in black and white = no action
2. evidence of another DT abusing the trust system= no action
3. evidence of another DT deviously creating sock puppets to racist troll for btc dust = praise for that person
4. someone makes a post that is annoying = gives red trust?
okay
DT is shown
1. evidence of another DT lying in black and white = no action
2. evidence of another DT abusing the trust system= no action
3. evidence of another DT deviously creating sock puppets to racist troll for btc dust = praise for that person
4. someone makes a post that is annoying = gives red trust?
okay
Once again, thank to everybody for their replies and constructive comments. The sharper amongst you will have realised that my negative trust, and the starting of this thread, was intended to make posters aware of the damage they do to their images by the misuse of quotes. Red trust is an extreme penalty, but it does draw attention to the damage that the lazy use of quoting does to the boards.
Hopefully the lazy and inconsiderate posters will become aware of the other penalties that result from their actions.
- Their post may be skipped as readers may not have time to hunt for their replies.
- The full quotation is probably an indication of a lack of substance in the reply
- Full quotes are often used by those with extremely limited command of English.
- The member shows a lack of consideration for other members.
- The member may be placed on ignore by those who prefer to read quality posts.
- Bounty managers may become aware that excessive quoting may reduce the number of signature impressions for the poster.
Totally agree with you.These are the exact reason IMO, As a member of this forum i beleive its not a place to share meaningless topic. Every single member of the forum wants to learn something new everyday. Basically red trust will remind them to think before posting again.Hopefully the lazy and inconsiderate posters will become aware of the other penalties that result from their actions.
- Their post may be skipped as readers may not have time to hunt for their replies.
- The full quotation is probably an indication of a lack of substance in the reply
- Full quotes are often used by those with extremely limited command of English.
- The member shows a lack of consideration for other members.
- The member may be placed on ignore by those who prefer to read quality posts.
- Bounty managers may become aware that excessive quoting may reduce the number of signature impressions for the poster.
Hopefully the lazy and inconsiderate posters will become aware of the other penalties that result from their actions.
Most are aware of the consequences but are only interested in fulfilling their post counts if they have can wear a signature. The few correctable ones would takes down notes and make adjustments.
The sharper amongst you will have realised that my negative trust, and the starting of this thread, was intended to make posters aware of the damage they do...
I think almost everyone got the idea, it was just wrong to red tag the user. Attention can be drawn using other means. The message has been passed now, surely
Once again, thank to everybody for their replies and constructive comments. The sharper amongst you will have realised that my negative trust, and the starting of this thread, was intended to make posters aware of the damage they do to their images by the misuse of quotes. Red trust is an extreme penalty, but it does draw attention to the damage that the lazy use of quoting does to the boards.
Hopefully the lazy and inconsiderate posters will become aware of the other penalties that result from their actions.
- Their post may be skipped as readers may not have time to hunt for their replies.
- The full quotation is probably an indication of a lack of substance in the reply
- Full quotes are often used by those with extremely limited command of English.
- The member shows a lack of consideration for other members.
- The member may be placed on ignore by those who prefer to read quality posts.
- Bounty managers may become aware that excessive quoting may reduce the number of signature impressions for the poster.
Hopefully the lazy and inconsiderate posters will become aware of the other penalties that result from their actions.
- Their post may be skipped as readers may not have time to hunt for their replies.
- The full quotation is probably an indication of a lack of substance in the reply
- Full quotes are often used by those with extremely limited command of English.
- The member shows a lack of consideration for other members.
- The member may be placed on ignore by those who prefer to read quality posts.
- Bounty managers may become aware that excessive quoting may reduce the number of signature impressions for the poster.
Jet Cash,
I agree that those types of posts degrade the forum. Yes, negative trust is too extreme, I'm glad you took it back.
I'm in the group that thinks trust ratings should be tied to direct trade experiences.
Trust points should be use for following violation cases:I agree that those types of posts degrade the forum. Yes, negative trust is too extreme, I'm glad you took it back.
I'm in the group that thinks trust ratings should be tied to direct trade experiences.
- Scamming efforts: including accounts of scam projects, or users try scamming others with trades, and so on.
- Exchanging trust points in order to build up pseudo-trusted accounts.
there are only a few DT members, not much resources to be used here, when we have a clear rule that says for example
(DT users you are not allowed to tag someone for anything that is not related to trade and scam)
then when and if someone get's tagged for using the word lemon, that DT member will be in deep shit, but now, we have no rules, so everyone can tag everyone for every reason on planet earth, and when they try to appeal, what rules/law will the community use to judge ? it's like going to the court whereby the judge does not have any law or rules to use and his judgment might very well depend on what was his breakfast.
Jet Cash,
I agree that those types of posts degrade the forum. Yes, negative trust is too extreme, I'm glad you took it back.
I'm in the group that thinks trust ratings should be tied to direct trade experiences.
I agree that those types of posts degrade the forum. Yes, negative trust is too extreme, I'm glad you took it back.
I'm in the group that thinks trust ratings should be tied to direct trade experiences.
Well it is more work for the mods, and unless the guy gets an explanation, then he won't know what he did wrng, and may even start a thread on the Meta board.
Hopefully this action may serve as a warning to other newbies. I can always remove it if he contacts me, or if people think it is not a good thing for me to do.
Hopefully this action may serve as a warning to other newbies. I can always remove it if he contacts me, or if people think it is not a good thing for me to do.
Report to moderators and/or send a PM to the user explaining what they did wrong. I think it's not a good thing for you to do
we can argue about this forever, but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only (a person who is a scammer, likely scammer or trustworthy).
True but you know bitcointalk forum is bigger than we think and it's not possible to check whether the feedback is for a trade or not. A lot of resources will be needed just to maintain if there are any rules for leaving feedback. It will be like recovering accounts, in fact, it will be more worst than it. That's why I think the current system is okay. No fixed rule but some limitation like one is what JC has mentioned here.Except the system is supposed to be designed to help noobs not get ripped off right? They already are put in a situation of having to check if ratings are for trade or not. You don't think this ambiguity is confusing and might lead to people getting ripped off as a result of the need to blanket every pet peeve with a negative rating? Having a rule doesn't require a lot of resources, in fact it will require less because there will not be as much disagreement over which ratings are acceptable, ending most disputes before they even happen because either it falls within the rules or it doesn't. The only time mediation would be needed of any kind, community or otherwise, is if they are not providing evidence to support their rating.
People who were posting pointless posts for too longer may turned their way of style when they really understand why we are in this forum,in the mean while time ruining someone's reputation is not acceptable.That is upto mods to decide what they want to do when people posting pointless posts for too longer don't take their powers JC. 
we can argue about this forever, but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only (a person who is a scammer, likely scammer or trustworthy).
True but you know bitcointalk forum is bigger than we think and it's not possible to check whether the feedback is for a trade or not. A lot of resources will be needed just to maintain if there are any rules for leaving feedback. It will be like recovering accounts, in fact, it will be more worst than it. That's why I think the current system is okay. No fixed rule but some limitation like one is what JC has mentioned here. but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only
I tend to agree with this, but it seems that the new system is trying to combine reputation with trust.
Insubstantial or low quality posts are not related to trust. I get that we're still finding our way with the new DT system, but some of this stuff is fairly self-explanatory:
Breaking forum rules = report to mod
Dishonest conduct = trust
If you want to give them some pointers on their posting habits, a private message would be best. They're more likely to see it that way.
Agree. They are two different concepts, and should not be misused.Breaking forum rules = report to mod
Dishonest conduct = trust
If you want to give them some pointers on their posting habits, a private message would be best. They're more likely to see it that way.
Or, I think that neutral trust with a warning message attached is enough.
Negative trust is a misuse.
This is a perfect example of the noise that is introduced into the trust system that makes it impossible for the people it was designed to protect, to tell who they can trust with funds. I know you are trying to help Jet Cash, but all this ends up doing is drowning out real con artists in the cacophony of negative ratings over nothing giving them cover, while creating endless conflict over what ratings are ok.
I didn't use the comment "trade with extreme caution", as I didn't think the posting behaviour had anything to do with trading.
if you are on DT then even an "empty"negative feedback will give that user "trade with extreme caution" on his profile. that user could be a legit and honest person who honors his deals and your feedback could have been the end of his business journey on this forum.
we can argue about this forever, but trust system should be based on TRADE related stuff only (a person who is a scammer, likely scammer or trustworthy).
a person who plans to do business with that user doesn't care if his posts are bad.
as suggested by others, a report to moderators is all about it.
* it's good to see people seek opinions and sometimes accepting them when it comes to trust system.
There is. Its Lauda...
Oops,... Witch are also humans don't you think?
Nah they're angry cats
.I'd still suggest a neutral tag even if just to help the mods for reference.
I must say, as a "newbie" i find this discussion very informative 
Thanks for the info shared
Thanks for the info shared
There are several reasons why, even though it's annoying, you have to be willing to force yourself to forgive others.
1. No human lives without error.
1. No human lives without error.
There is. Its Lauda...
Oops,... Witch are also humans don't you think?
Jump to: