Topic: Remove the ability to self-moderate within the marketplace (Read 391 times)

@philipma1957
You are another example of someone using it right.  If this would ever happen you would not be affected.

Senior, Hero, & Legendary would keep self-moderation in the decided upon marketplace sections. All other sections would remain the same.  We may want to extend this to Full Members as well because of the merit system.

If possible we could then have this benefit disabled if someone's trust is negative, regardless of the user group.

-------------

I will close this and open a new thread in Meta, as suggested, using everyone's concerns and suggestions to make a better proposal.

Here is the problem with removing self modded threads.  Honest sellers get fucked.

Now obviously I self mod  and I sell a lot of gear and I do right by  my buyers.

But I self mod most all my threads as people tend to shit on them.

I also quote the shit and leave it be on all my self mods except for my sale threads.

As  when I self a gpu for 20 usd above list and a moron shits on the offer I give which is 200 lower then any one any where I am deleting that shit head.

but if you look at my major information threads I quote the delete and say why I did it.



below is a sales thread I had to delete someone.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/soldevga-hybrid-1070-ti-gpus-for-sale-2816327

My opening topic always had "new users" on #4.  I apologize that #3 did not include it initially.  I figured you were at least intelligent enough to know we were not talking about the experienced users that know how to use the systems that are already in place.  

Again you are just an asshole.  Hanging your arguments on words like "sometimes".  Did you think I meant no one on the entire forum ever looks at scam accusations/trust?

Why don't you just leave the thread? ..or will the ignore stop you from viewing it? What we are doing now is the spam you hate so much.


Tyranny, funny..

Seeing as we already have solutions stated to keep self-mods for certain user groups, I am not sure who this "us" is.  Right now we have something that is comparable to the current PM system limits, etc.  Benefits the higher your rank is..

How many times are you going to say the same thing? Holy piss man..


How many different ways and times are you going to say the same thing while ignoring solutions you yourself suggested to keep self mods for probably the only people that use them correctly.

I believe the entire world knows you are against this idea.


I FUCKING SAID: " I should not have even brought up my personal feelings about leaving negatives."  IT HAD NO GOD DAMN BEARING ANYWAY.  I MADE THIS BECAUSE I WAS TRIED OF MY POSTS BEING DELETED ON SCAMMERS THREADS, NOT BECAUSE I WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE TRUST SYSTEM.

PEOPLE OVER LOOK THE TRUST SYSTEM, DID NOT SAY DONT FUCKING USE IT, SAID THAT IT IN THE FIRST FUCKING POST.  TRUST AND SELF-MOD REGULATIONS WILL BE USED SIDE BY SIDE.  

YOU CANNOT LET ANYTHING GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM BAFFLED BY YOU, GO AWAY!


I MADE A POST!  IT WAS THEN HANDLED BY MULTIPLE USERS!  UNLESS I AM PROTECTED FROM FAKE TRUST, I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO LEAVE NEGATIVES.  I AM NOT A FUCKING MOD.

THIS THREAD WAS MADE TO HELP PEOPLE, I GET ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM IT.  SUCK IT.


Someone who repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over, pisses me off, yes.  Emotional wreck..lol


Sure make a change to edit the self-mod status, I don't give a shit, as long as the self-mod ability is a benefit of certain user groups.  That is more of an upgrade, nothing to do with scam prevention.

Sure, ralle14 already suggested this, having negative trust removes your right to self-mod threads, sounds good for almost everything, but again self-mod needs to be a benefit for certain user groups starting out.

You never specified, which has been one of my more significant points our entire exchange; you must be precise with your language or nobody is going to know what you are trying to say. Most of your frustration with me seems to be about me trying to more precisely nail down what we're talking about and figuring out what you mean by your words.

You did not originally say "sometimes" and you did not originally say "potential victims", which changes the entire statement as I'm sure you can acknowledge. Obviously I can agree to this, but this isn't what you originally said. I'd also like to move past this semantically driven ad-hominem parade, but if you are truly sick of trying to figure this out I would encourage you to tap the ignore button.


It certainly means that if the cost is tyranny, unfair regulation and treatment as though we are all criminals of this crime you are trying to solve. You cannot put the price of negligence on the rest of us. It sounds like the answer to this problem would be optional education for uninformed users (already there), not privilege revocation from those abiding by fine principals. If someone signs a bad contract, because they skipped Section 4 Paragraph 6, this is not the fault of the judge for enforcing the contract, nor the townspeople for watching it happen; you are seemingly trying to blame the judge and the townspeople instead of the negligent participant.


This mentality is assuming that we are all malicious, rather than innocent until proven guilty. You are treating all of us as if we are guilty, punishing us by revoking the right that should only be taken away from the guilty. There is a better way to sort this out than removing self-moderation and punishing all for the crimes of a few. I disagree with this, and do not think you should hope for implementation on an idea that would be so divisive. By your logic, we could remove 98% of scams simply by removing the Goods and Currency Exchange section altogether and this should be worth it, too.


Right, but you are asking others to stop Self-moderation, because it conflicts with the personal choice you have made. You have made a personal choice to not use the trust system as intended and are trying to replace it with posting in their thread which is nullified by the ability to self-moderate. Your personal choice should not influence the way the form works, your personal choices on the forum should be influenced by how the forum works. In this manner, it certainly does matter in relation to the removal of self-moderation and I'm baffled that you do not see the connection. If you used the trust system as intended then there would be no need for this suggestion. You're free to make personal choices, so long as they don't interfere with the personal choices of others, which you are trying to do right now.


Then you are inconsistent with your logic at the very least; you continually talk about how we should use multiple ways of going after scammers and then choose to ignore the methods already in place that work perfectly well. This was not a smart decision, because now you gave no warning where most people look for red-flags before dealing with the user(s) and actively decided not to warn potential victims. You made this horrid decision in order to "save your reputation", based on your trust-settings that nobody else uses or sees and it was all at the expense of other users. This is selfish and cowardly, there just is no way around it and I already told you to stop bringing up the situation because it does not make you look good in any sense.


Words have definitions and it is important to choose the right words. Otherwise you will get frustrated when nobody understands you and you have said something you never intended to. I don't care how you set-up my trust as long as you don't use it as an excuse to take away my privilege of self-moderation. Everything I have said is either related to the topic, brought up by you or specifically for clarification on something related to the topic. It is not my fault you are an emotional wreck when somebody disagrees with you.


I got something, maybe it might be helpful if we add the option to make a thread already in progress a self-moderated thread. For example, clicking the edit, additional options and then toggling self-moderation on or off for a thread already created. Also, the idea of DT members being able to negatively rate a user and remove their self-moderation abilities, is this something that might work as a compromise as well?

@bill gator
You are such a self righteous asshole and it kills me to respond to your merry go round bullshit.  

1)
Threads posted in scam accusation and negative trust sometimes go unseen.
In regard to being unseen, I am ONLY referring to:
**new users and any other victim that may have not done enough due diligence**

Why the hell would you think I was talking about experienced/DT users. -.-

I never said I didn't believe: that stickys/guidelines were being overlooked, that users were using an improper format in the scam section, that DT users were taking the appropriate action.  The self-mod removal is separate and something that can be done along side all of that.

Is this negligence on the victims? YES, however, that does not mean we cannot try to make it even more fool proof.

You think trust sticks out more than posting in threads?  Great, I hope so, why not add something else to it.

2)
Your single downside about the removal of self-mod is the spam.  OK!, I AGREE IT IS A DOWNSIDE, NEVER SAID IT WASNT.  I said, I do not personally use self-mod, however, I see that a select few others do.  I also personally believe stopping even one scam outweighs the ability of the self-mod and that this spam is part of a much bigger underlying problem.

We have different opinions about it, yes, it was acknowledged posts ago..lol

Compromises to this were limited sections and specific user groups being exempt.  ALL OF WHICH WERE NOTED IN THE MAIN THREAD AS SOON AS THEY WERE SUGGESTED.

3)
I personally do not like leaving negatives because of the potential repercussions and instead choose to just post on their threads.  This is a god damn personal choice I have made.  If you do not like it, fine, so fucking what.  It does not matter in relation to the removal of self-moderation.  I have never asked others to stop leaving negative trust were it is due.

The example I kept referring to was this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/richg-fraud-and-trust-abuse-1927424

I found fraudulent GCs being sold and then found multiple accounts were purchased.  The users nachius, RichG, and one other(I forget) ganged up on me in an attempt to ruin my rep after being called out.  At that time they were still being investigated and did not have the red trust they eventually got.  My decision was to remove my trust in exchange for the removal of all of theirs.  It was the smart business move at the time.  I STILL made a thread in scam accusations which lead to further investigation.

I really do not care what you think about it, it has no bearing on this thread and I should not have even brought up my personal feelings about leaving negatives.

4)
Screw what words you feel are appropriate
Screw what you think about how I setup my trust
Screw your logic about nothing relating to the original topic
Screw you getting me so god damn off topic

-----

Post #12 was the last time anything worthwhile was posted.  All of your posts and my posts after that are garbage.

If you have something credible and new that relates to the topic go ahead and post it.  If not, we can hop back on the bullshit merry go round.

I'm not your errand boy. I've already pointed out multiple people using it in the sections you've proposed to ban it in for beneficial purposes you still don't think exist. You are the one making the claim that self-moderation is only used for malicious purposes, that is a truth claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Find the high-ranking members abusing self-moderation to scam or your claim is invalid. I have already shown that members use this for good and reasonable purposes, but you have yet to even show me one example of the opposite.

If I need to explain why "need" is unfitting for our purposes of discussing privileges on an internet forum, then you have a poor grasp of language. "Need" is to require something essential, this is not required and it is not essential, so it does not fit the definition of "need". That didn't take 5-pages, did it? Do you disagree, is this an essential requirement that we have been unable to survive without?

I didn't say the majority of scammers don't operate within the marketplace, so again your poor grasp of language fails you.  In response to:

(The things you bold/emphasize make reading your posts hilarious)

Essentially your claim is that after removing Services from your 3 section self-moderation ban-proposal we would still tackle 98% of scammers, presumably in the other 2 sections remaining in your proposal (Goods and Currency Exchange), I said :


If you want to have a discussion you have to actually respond to the things I am saying, not the things you wish I was saying. You cannot straw-man an argument and expect anything meaningful to come out of it. You did not say the marketplace is where most scammers roam, you said in the 2-remaining sections of your proposal is where they roam. Language matters, words have definitions, claims must be precise or they're wrong and you are speaking nonsense.


Yes, exactly. Self-moderation is exactly for something like this. You have made a thread, and even though I am trying to have a reasonable discussion about the flaws of your proposal and how to improve it so it is feasible, you should have the option to exclude me from the conversation. It's nice to have you admit that there is utility to self-moderation, after all. You're free to think I'm a joke, I encourage it, because taking yourself too seriously leads to a horrible sense of humor. Thinking I'm a joke doesn't make your idea any better, though, and it certainly doesn't refute anything I have said.


Then stop saying things that are contradictory to what you have already conceded. You were wrong, take it like a man and move on. Instead of trying to have a flame-war and pretend like you were right all along by twisting my words and ignoring every credible argument.


This is not a counter-argument and it does not make your suggestion anymore valid. Criticisms, compromises and comments should not be seen as a waste of time unless you are omnipotent. I'm trying to elevate your suggestion, but at this point I doubt anybody will even want to discuss this with you. The same criticisms will exist when you have this conversation with anyone else, but feel free to continue acting as though there is no legitimate concerns about your proposal. Consider your idea, killed by your own emotions, childishness and refusal to think logically, not even the mountain of refutation against it.

Since you have so much time on your hands, I will give you a few tasks: 1) go find the significant amount of users that are using self-mods in those sections, 2) Write a 5 page paper, double spaced, with an explanation on why "need" is unfitting for our purposes(APA or MLA, whichever is preferred)

Where do the majority of scammers operate if not within the marketplace?


If you haven't noticed, I already believe you are a joke.  I am afraid your epeen will not get any bigger here in this thread.  If only I made this thread self-modded..am I right? ..haha


Awesome, I will expect you to stand behind that last bit.  


You have a large epeen.  You are superior to all.  Will not be wasting anymore time with you.  

As I said posts ago..  You made your points/arguments clear already and offered a suggestion.  Both have already beed noted in this thread and acknowledged.

Not "Maybe" and not a "handful". It is definitely a very significant amount of users that are using self-mods for a good purpose. I've already explained why the word "need" is unfitting for our purposes, yet you continue to use it without an explanation. 98% of scammers do not come from and operate within Goods & Currency Exchange exclusively so the plan is flawed even after a "compromise".


Hilarious; encouraging me to let scammers do whatever they want. I can't believe you honestly see this as a joke, while trying to make a forum altering suggestion. You are a joke at this point, and please do not explain your situation again, because it makes you look pathetic. Hiding from someone that has scammed you and not even giving them a trust rating only allows them to scam someone else, so good job.

The difference between me thinking you are wrong and you thinking I am wrong is that I am actually trying to give some evidence and logic to justify my claim, while you are using smiley's, insults, feelings and lies. You are acting pedantic beyond what is tolerable.


Very cute, the prevalence of your emoticon usage is telling me enough, you do not take this forum seriously, you don't care about anybody else's experience and you are not interested in having a serious conversation about what you have suggested. Feel free to have a downward spiral of a conversation with somebody else at this point, because you're just trying to devolve this into nonsense and ad-hominems.


Careful you don't fall off that pedestal, you might get a taste of reality. You do not see more scamming than me. You are, again, talking out of your ass. You have no idea what I see and pretending like you do just shows another arrogant personality flaw of yours that shouldn't be involved in the conversation. These are not facts, these are your feelings, which are irreverent and incorrect.

It's very strange that you see more scams, yet have not started a scam accusation thread in the past year and have not given a negative trust rating ever. The one scam accusation you created a year ago, wasn't even about anyone being scammed, it was saying that someone avoided your question and then gave you a negative feedback. This tells me you are either lying about seeing more scams, or you are simply doing nothing about it, which is worse in my opinion. From where I'm standing, you are claiming to be a great scam-buster and at the same time talking about giving into them, pick one.


Discussions != arguments. If you weren't open to suggestions, comments or compromises then I have no clue why you opened a thread. You're just declaring changes that must be made without amendment, but that isn't how things work around here. Normally people talk about the flaws in their opinions/ideas and work to make them better. If you are unwilling to do this, which you clearly are, then you shouldn't have even bothered making a suggestion. We aren't all going to think your bad idea is good.

You've edited OP to remove Services from your proposal and include my suggestion about Sr.+ exclusion from this revocation of self-moderation. I don't understand why you have to also add your subjective emotion as if it is relevant or persuasive. We are discussing what is beneficial or detrimental to the health of the forum and can do so even if you do not like me. I am indifferent to you, but I do not like your idea for the aforementioned reasons.


Still waiting for an edit on this; because we've clearly discussed the downsides and reasons not to remove it. We have also discussed the value when trying to legitimately buy/sell or offer something. These two statements have been debunked already, as have half of your other listed premises. In case you're wondering which half, I meant these:

3) Threads posted in the scam accusation section go unseen
4) New users are unaware of the trust system

Both wrong, or at the least flawed as we've concluded in this very thread.


OP will most likely disagree with you, because of their trust-settings. I'm going to assume you mean a trust score below 0, as determined by DT1/2 members, or do you think newbies/scammers should be able to affect your trust score like OP? I would agree, if a DT1/2 member negatively rates you, then that may be a good criteria for whether or not you can use self-moderation.

Thread reported. Hoping this would be moved to meta and for other members to see because not everyone browse the marketplace. I want to hear what would others say about this suggestion.

If threads posted in the scam accusation go unseen and people want to grab the attention of DT members sending them a pm would be the best way. I slightly agree with the suggestion to disable self moderation on some of the boards in the marketplace to fight against scammers. Another way I think that would make it harder is when users have a trust score below 0 they lose the option to make a self moderated thread.

Please don't put words in my mouth...lol   flippant is right..


I proposed removing self-mods in 3 sections of the marketplace.  Maybe a handful of people are using self mods and actually need them.    We could even remove services from that list and still tackle where the 98% of scammers roam.


I think you are wrong too..  


Bend the knee and join me, or refuse, and die  

Not going to explain this for the 3rd time..lol


I am a goof ball  


I buy and sell a lot more than you.  I see a lot more scamming than you.  These are facts I have noticed on my high pedestal.

This was never meant to be an argument, but I just really do not like you. There was never meant to be compromises, but yes having Hero members(maybe Sr.) and above excluded from this rule is a good suggestion.

I'm making the point that when you're asking "Why can't we have that? The other forum has it." you are making a silly argument, because that is no reason to assume it is a good idea. It is an argument that holds no weight, it's the cliche "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Nobody said they are perfect, so I don't know why you are putting words in my mouth and having a fit. You obviously must learn from mistakes; self-moderation is not a mistake and serves a very necessary purpose you seem to be flippant about.


Exactly, there is no reason to make this problem worse and give regular users no tools to fight against this in their own threads. Everyone has a right to defend themselves in their own home.


I am claiming you are wrong about a few things; removing self-moderation, how to deal with scammers, spammers, extortionists and what most user's see as reasonable trust settings.


This is an example of one of the things I am claiming you are wrong about; you bend the knee to someone threatening you with red-trust, simply because you are afraid of red-trust from someone that you should have settings on to ignore.


The only thing this helps me understand is that you have set your trust settings to a point where you do not see it the same way as anybody else. You have your settings exactly calibrated for abuse in the most blatant way possible (that I described earlier). If you are giving everyone's rating equal weight and you are terrified of a red-mark then you are trapping yourself in a corner with anybody that has malicious intent. You are creating a scenario where you can only be the victim of the trust system. Change your settings, stop being so squeamish about red-marks from irrelevant scammers, or understand that you are asking for this kind of scenario to repeat itself.

Everyone does not have different settings, most people, almost all people leave it to the default (for good reason).


You say that I think I am perfect and then get on your pedestal about your long-standing tradition in the goods section as if it matters. This does not make your argument anymore valid and this does not refute anything I have said. I have not heard a good argument for why self-moderation should be removed. Nor have you contended with you idea that maybe we restrict self-moderation to higher ranking members, which I thought to be a fair compromise with your idea.

When you seek to improve something you look at ALL examples, even if they are flawed and/or different. Nothing is black and white. Apparently you are perfect and do not believe in learning from mistakes.  ..blinders to anything that you feel is not on your level..

This forum is already spam ridden and has thousands and thousands of alts.  You can thank signature campaigns?, or maybe the buying/selling of accounts?..who knows..problems for another thread..

I don't even know what you are claiming I am wrong about..lol?  I made a thread in scam accusations about certain individuals and they eventually got their just desserts.  Why did I have to have my account go red(showing negatives in my trusted feedback) and possibly affect a sale while some fraudster DT users were being dealt with?  Just because you think negative feedback from a scammer is a badge of honor doesn't mean I do.

Did I say anything about my trust being affected currently? no..

I currently see my trust as: 110: -0 / +13, everyone has different settings

I hope this helps you understand -.-

-----

Anyway..

You have one thread that you self mod and that was just created a few days ago. For some reason you are defending something tooth and nail that you have used for like half a month.  I am active in the goods section and see multiple scammers every single day taking advantage of the self moderation.  If you feel that you need it so badly, fine, you have made your point clear.  Thanks for your thoughts..

You haven't experienced any issues, besides the one issue that self-moderation would help you eliminate. That sounds like you should start using the self-moderation to your benefit, instead of complaining about it. Spam is to be expected, which is why we have self-moderation to deal with it. I don't want/need "Free Bumps", I want a clean thread that stays on topic and is free of nonsense.


You do not look to flawed examples when seeking to improve yourself. You do not look to options with less to lose, with less need for security, with less members or with different technologies that are not feasible. Self-moderation should be eliminated so that we can turn this into a terrible spam-ridden forum like the other forums you hangout on, good plan.

Also, when you seek to improve something you look at that something yesterday and try to make it better today. You compare it to itself and seek to better it in that regard, not in comparison to something else that has too many variables to be fairly compared.

You're just wrong and I don't know why you are digging your heels in. It just looks naive, when you can easily go use the search function and figure out how wrong you really are. It's not about seeing eye to eye, it's about right and wrong. Feel free to stick to your incorrect thinking and your pathetic approach of bowing down to scammers and extortionists, to me this kind of thinking is a significant problem. You understand the trust system incorrectly, and I don't feel like explaining myself a second time. Having negatives on your account from known scammers should be a badge of honor, and it has no negative effects whatsoever on your trust rating, unless they are DT members; the people you dealt with were not DT members, and if they were you could get them removed for the situation you are describing.

If you are unwilling to see eye to eye on this, it is because you are being stubborn, logically flawed and operating with cognitive dissonance.

Your trust is: 20: -0 / +2

Michail1 and TheButterZone are the only DT members that have given you trust and are the only people affecting the trust rating people see publicly (unless they have changed their trust settings, most don't).

Everyone else's ratings do not affect whether you are green, red or yellow; I hope this helps you understand.

If we cannot post a sale/buy thread without being overrun with sales trashing and personal vendettas then there is either something wrong with us or something inherently wrong with the forum.  I have had an ongoing sale thread since 2016 and have not experienced any major issue besides some spam/shit posts which are just free bumps.  Spam is to be expected, this is the internet for god's sakes..

When you seek to improve something, in this case a forum, you look at other examples and build off of them.

As for the trust system, I understand that when 2-3 green Sr./Hero members left me negative rep my trust went to yellow/red.  It didn't matter that their accounts were purchased and would soon be negative. I would have to deal with it in my trusted feedback until other DT trust members gave them negative and I would forever have red negatives in my untrusted.  

I do not think we will ever see eye to eye here.

I would not say releasing personal information is great, but to each their own I suppose, you're entitled to your opinion. It should be the case that negative trusts, with reference links providing evidence is enough to deter anyone from dealing with someone. The less knowledgeable do not deserve to be scammed, I agree, but you must impose a tyranny in order to avoid it. The best way to avoid them being scammed is through education.

I would be open to the idea of only allowing members of a certain rank or merit having the ability to self-moderate. Although it would seem the have the same detriments I have already pointed out, the lower ranking members are those that are primarily abusing the self-moderation in the manner you point out. I would say that we may be in the minority of self-moderators that do not operate in a sketchy manner overall, but I would say that of higher ranking members this is pretty regular behavior; most high ranking members that utilize self-moderation are not the troublemakers. I'm talking general demographics here, not hard and fast rules, but my point remains.

The report button will not get the job done as well as self-moderation, and mods may not agree that it should be removed, so that leaves me to feel that the best place to distribute that power is to the thread-creator.

I really don't care what other forums do, at all, because that is not a justification for anything.

It doesn't sound like you understand the trust system and I would highly encourage you to read more thoroughly about the small details and mechanics of it. Your account cannot become "red/yellow" from any regular user on the forum, they can leave ratings, but they are not shown by default and therefore the rest of the forum sees you as neutral. You can only become "red/yellow" from those on your trust list, which by default are DT1/2 members. Unless you are describing a high-ranking DT member extortion ring, then I believe you are badly mistaken. If this were not the case, anybody could make mass amounts of accounts and abuse the system to oblivion. Never give into these kinds of "demands", because again I would count this as a personality flaw, not a flaw of the system. It makes you seem uninformed and weak. Document the evidence, report it and these members will receive their due; when you give in like this it only enables them to do more harm as you seem to have acknowledged.

The only actions that are available is to give negative trust and maybe release some personal information, which is great.  The scam accusation area is 110% needed, I was just trying to suggest another prevention method.


Yep I agree, you cannot fix stupidity, but even the less knowledgeable do not deserve to be scammed.


You guys certainly are not scammers, but you are the minority.

If we cannot post without being overrun with shit posts, spam, sales trashing, personal vendettas, etc. then we need something around here to change.  I of course see your side.  I see how it can be advantageous to self-mod, however, removing the things stated previously is left up to mods in every other forum on the internet.  We have a report button on each post for a reason?


I though mods did not get involved with removing trust, so I never wanted to risk my account being red/yellow. If it is an easy and painless process to remove fake trust, then I apologize for my ignorance.

I once caught a scammer/account buyer, left negative after posting in scam accusation, and then received negative from not only him but his "friends".  I had to completely give in to their demands and remove my negative trust, just to be green again.  They were shortly after caught scamming and just left probably never to be seen again.


Multiple warnings can not hurt.

Thanks Bill for reminding me of TBZ's thread as self-moderated. As I mentioned earlier, I have seen somewhere but forget about it.
Of course, Butter Zone will not mind about it. And of course, Butter Zone is one of the trusted members of our community.

Self-moderation is needed, now I remember a case of mine.
Once I offered a traffic selling service. Then someone posted that I'm reselling from fiverr or seoclerk, which was a pure SALES TRASHING.
But it was completely untrue because I was offering from my own source. But after that sales trash, I closed the thread immediately.
I closed it because I thought people will not believe me anymore when they will see that sales trash post, even no matter what I do to make them believe.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mystery-boxes-of-hate-2259744
TheButterZone Self-moderates every single thread I can find of theirs that they have started. They have a lot of people that spam nonsense in their thread, make false-claims, etc. It is simply their freedom that should be allotted to them; just as you should give a shopkeeper control over their domain. If you do not like how they do business, you do not bother every customer that walks in (unless you are looking for confrontation, unfortunate responses and are trying to ruin other people's day), you go an mark-up a formal complaint or get the community to agree they should be removed.

I gave an example of my Service thread being self-moderated, but for the sake of supporting your argument I went and grabbed TBZ post as an example. I hope they don't mind me using them as an example, but they fit the bill of "trusted" and I see no problem with them self-moderating their thread, do you?


Yes, but look at the reason we are never going to stop all of it. It will become self-evident that this is also why we should keep self-moderation the way it currently is. We cannot take away the freedoms and privileges of others, because there are those that abuse the freedoms and there are those uninformed by the dangers of those freedoms. Self-moderation is a net-positive for anybody using it for reasonable purposes and anybody who is abusing it already has means of being dealt with.

I can understand your point, this can be done with trust ratings if I am not wrong.
But if it is really needed to prevent scams and plays a vital role then self-moderation can only be available from a full or senior member if Theymos agrees with.


I've seen trusted members in service section to use self-moderation and I'm not 100% sure about the other two sections. I feel like I've seen self-moderated threads in those two boards, but can't remember actually.
There could be one main reason is to prevent spam in one's thread.


At the beginning of a trade, it is buyers duty to check if the seller is legit or not and most importantly buyers should always use an escrow. That's why the community always encourages for escrow, isn't it?
If someone gets scammed then there is nothing left to do by the mods or DT members except to leave negative trust. So cautious is better than getting f***ed.
Yes, mods move threads to their appropriate section but it is different than to look at potential scams/trades. Once again its buyer duty to check for it.


I agree 10000000000000000000%

No, they don't. Even when they aren't posted in the proper format they are read carefully and encouraged to write them in a more proper format to be more easily understood. If there is evidence there will be action.


New users are encouraged to read every sticky, guideline, unofficial rule and word of caution before engaging in a single post or transaction. We cannot force people to do anything, if they choose to act in an uninformed manner this cannot be our problem. There is no reason for you to be trading here without an understanding of the trust system.


I see plenty of downsides. I delete multiple spam-posts every single day from my self-moderated thread in the marketplace. There are plenty of signature spammers, activity farmers and people with personal vendettas that would happily ruin your marketplace thread if they could. Do you not see spam and resentful people running amok with no recourse as a downside or a reason?


I might suggest that being afraid to leave negative feedback to a scammer, because of their retaliation feedback is a personality flaw and not a flaw of the system. The first two lines of this quote contradict one another; you cannot be afraid to leave negative ranking and also genuinely believe that we should do everything possible to decrease scamming. Those two statements do not make sense together and I would ask you to reevaluate your position.

I have a Self-Moderated thread in Services : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/smerit-post-review-2819141 , I'd love for you to explain why I don't need self-moderation, even though I think "need" is a bad word for our purposes. We definitely would be better served to say something similarly to "benefit from", because you don't need to use the forum at all, so it's a silly word to use here.


I disagree with "A post within a scammers thread stating it is a scam is the first thing people are going to see.", I have posted damning evidence of scammers within their own threads many times (written in bold and red) and they go unnoticed. In my experience Trust ratings stick out much more to users than posts buried within their thread. Even if you are the 1st reply to the thread, you will not get read by as many people as the OP it is just that simple.

I disagree that there is no reason for members to use self-moderation, because there are many people that create threads with local-rules or that would easily fill up with endless pages of spam. Would my thread be better off if I allowed the 20+ replies that were only signature spam?