Topic: Negative trust for bad posting. - page 2. (Read 807 times)

Even though it's annoying, it's your right or decision, giving negative trust to the member concerned, I think? for that man who is full of spaciousness and humility?
Of course there will be many people who contradict this statement.
even though emotions approach, hate others, can destroy yourself.

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.

2. Keeping anger and revenge makes you stressed throughout life.

3. Don't let yourself feel negative feelings and thoughts.

Once you hate and harbor anger to others, that's where you plant the seeds of negative thoughts and feelings for many things. You will still think of bad treatment, anger and guilt.

This user has been archived.
Leandrojavier7

I think account selling should be banned - it is on most forums. Despite the fact that I have four accounts here, I think that members should only have one, or perhaps two if they want one to use with insecure connections. I'd be happy for them to be merged if such a restriction were to be implemented.

A new user wanting to buy Bitcoin may want an account to bypass the signature and image posting restrictions. I sometimes wonder if it would be better to make buyers of accounts declare their purchase, rather than red tagging them. This would act in a similar fashion to the copper membership. It would also give some value to accounts that are used as security for loans. Loans are another thing that should be discouraged, but I can understand that some people may need them as a temporary measure.

There's no reason why anyone would have to buy a bitcointalk account in order to trade bitcoin.  Jet Cash, you've been here long enough to have read all of the explanations as to why account dealing is toxic to the forum and thus why those who engage in buying or selling of accounts get tagged.  If you don't agree with that, don't tag 'em.  Me, I'll still be happy to.  There are exceptions, of course, and I don't think every single account seller is an evil person or even has bad intentions necessarily, but this is one of the issues where the forum rules haven't caught up to community standards--just like scamming, which isn't tolerated either.

Edit:
I agree with this completely, but like I said it's a case of the forum rules not reflecting what's acceptable practice here, which is why DT members have stepped in.  I've got nothing against alt accounts per se as long as you're the one who created them from the start.  The problem with buying an account is that the account's reputation/rank/merit history/etc. doesn't reflect anything the new owner did and that new owner could easily try to deceive someone when asking for a loan, trying to buy bitcoin, selling something, and probably a lot of other things.  If someone got their hands on an account with green trust, it'd be very easy to scam someone. 

Anyway, we're probably on the same side of the issue so I don't feel like writing a huge essay condemning account sales.  I've done that before, and I'm sure you've probably read a few of my rants.  Theymos isn't likely to prohibit account sales anytime soon, so tagging members engaged in that activity is really the only thing that can be done to discourage the practice.

I did red tag the poster, and I removed the tag based on the community comments in this thread. I didn't use the comment "trade with extreme caution", as I didn't think the posting behaviour had anything to do with trading.

This business about full quotes of opening posts is really quite extraordinary. We have legendaries and other long term members who do it, and this is despite the fact that many members try to discourage it. Don't they realise that it makes them look ill educated and desperate to provide content, or is it just laziness? I really do just skip over theses posts, and I can't be bothered to hunt for the replies. Is this what the posters want? Maybe they are just embarrassed by the inadequacy of their reply.

I agree that the big quotes looks very annoying and I also saw a thread explaining how to use ~snip for newbies here. But this is totally a moderators issue and a DT or any normal user here should not be concerned of it and that's not what trust system should be used for.

---

I personally think this is a good approach by a DT member and it could help more members work in the same way and try to give some space for new users to join and adapt to this place. By this I don't mean just don't tag newbies some of the are truly a big issue.

He just did, or I might say he didn't actually?
I also noticed that post after mine, and reported it immediately, but it seems it hasnt been deleted yet. And then it follows the post of JC where he tagged the user.

I came to check the tagged for it wasnt appearing on my face, I even check my trust settings and it seems fine. So I think JC didnt tagged that user in the first place, he just said that as a warning I think?
At first I also think that it was some kind of mistake and I patiently wait for the user to edit his post but seem that it is a work of a bot.

Leave them neutral feedback, report them to moderator and please read this post and join discussion.

They should be always tagged, I remember one case where moderators didn't ban accounts even evidence was provided in many ways https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28915532.
But yes, in 99% cases users will be banned and this is to warn others before moderators do their job.

The trust system was never about forum rules as the forum explicitly refuses to moderate scams or trust feedback.

Merits - post quality
Staff - rule enforcement
Trust system - trust and reputation

If we can avoid overlap with our usage of these systems I think we'll be fine. Let's not send positive trust for good posts or negative trust for spam. Let's not report shitty posts (unless they break forum rules) or scams to the moderators. Let's send merits based on the contents of the post and not the user's reputation etc.

It could be accidental how long was it there for? I've seen users hit post to quickly after quoting and not writing anything and the coming back to edit it when they realise.

Repeat offenses could require a neutral tag though if it persists or maybe a negative if it continues beyond then...

I would not say you are too much of a purist but you the type that want things done the right way.
But this is a forum and just like most forum it's bounded by rules and regulations and once a user is within the jurisdiction of the laws of the forum irrespective of if the user committed an act which from a moral, intellectual or other wise perspective is wrong so long as its not against the forum rules then it can't be called an offense.
But the fact is once one engages in activities that are not right like buying of account but are not against the forum rules there is a high chance of the user going against other forum rules.

Maybe I'm too much of a purist.

I think that the merit system should be used solely to encourage good posting and beneficial forum behaviour. However, many merit awarders just think of it a a ranking tool, and their decisions seem to be based on whether they want to help a member to improve his ranking.

The trust system has now become a reputation monitoring tool. For example, if a new member buys an account because he want to trade in Bitcoin, then he will probably get a red tag, and this is despite the fact that he has not breached any of the forum rules. He may be as pure as driven snow, and not intending to defraud anybody. However his purchase of an account has turned his reputation into yellow snow.

IIRC, theymos has asked people not to leave negative  trust feedback for shitposting. I think people should tag only with valid reason.

Generally speaking, if something violates forum rules then it should be reported to moderators and the trust system should not be used. Don't take their jobs away

Having said that, I have neg-trusted some egregious spammers that e.g. distribute malware. This is against the rules and mods will likely nuke them but in the few minutes or hours until that's done it's worth putting the red tag on.

This also creates some gray areas, e.g. extreme trolling. It's against the rules but one is unlikely to get banned for that (makes me wonder what happened to our favorite troll but I digress) and some users consider such behavior untrustworthy so there are some red tags flying around for that now.

Some of those gray areas could be mitigated via merits perhaps. Spammers and trolls won't be getting many of those.

Definitely just report posts/threads/whatever like that to the mods.  Funny you did this on the anniversary of the merit system, because tagging shitposters was exactly what was being done right up until January 2018.  DT members aren't doing that anymore, and it's generally been accepted that it's not a good use of the trust system and that nobody should be tagging morons for their low-quality posts.

Happy anniversary to the merit system!

Thanks for all the replies and comments. I've removed the red trust as a result.

I'll leave this thread open for comments as an indication of my displeasure with the practice. I would also like to thank the mod who deleted the subject post.

Just report them, and/or instead of leaving him negative trust just send him a friendly PM warning instead. It takes the same amount of effort.

This can be consider as abuse of the trust system. I know your intentions were clear but getting a red tag can discourage user from forum. Instead a pm directing user to rules of forum will be great and reporting post as others have suggested.

Once you believe that the user is posting poorly in an abusive manner that would deem their conduct untrustworthy, it would be fair to leave them trust (neutral, or negative depending on circumstance) at that point. Everyone makes honest mistakes and there are legitimately new users finding this forum daily.

Leaving negative trust for one bad post is over the top, in my opinion.

Side-Note: the post has been deleted.

I've always thought of the trust system as a measure of a persons trading integrity,but recently it has started to be used for other purposes, and I think those are more related to reputation.  Example are merit abuse, account buying and selling, and signature spamming. I'm still trying to get a feel for the place when the line should be drawn in the current forum environment.

Hopefully this thread will highlight a bad posting habit, and if a few members read it and take note, then it will have been a success.

Breaking the forum rules does not make you untrustworthy, the feedback-trust is designed for that. Reporting should be enough, Mods are the one to take care of such things.