Quote from: Lorenzo on May 11, 2015, 03:08:46 PM

Quote from: Pentax on May 05, 2015, 02:46:29 PM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on May 04, 2015, 11:10:16 PM

So in conclusion, what is ok and not ok is dictated by the community.

Yeah, it should work that way, although I can think of some instances where it doesn't. We have a hardware vendor on this forum that abuses the self moderation privileges to the point where they are running a bot to cover up the the truth about their ongoing scams by using this bot to censor users.

The community effected by this company has raised holy hell about it and gotten nowhere. They continue to run this bot after scamming millions out of people on false promises and are now using this bot on a new self-moderated thread to try to sell a new product.

I like the fact that the forum doesn't restrict activity very much and in principle agree with this laissez faire approach, although I do wonder how things are resolved at times and whether it's a whim, a rule, or the opinion of the community that ultimately decides.

I don't see why a non-self-moderated thread can't be created so that the discussion can take place there. Do a search for 'uncensored thread site:bitcointalk.org' on Google and you'll see many examples of this happening when people got fed up with having their posts deleted from the official self-moderated thread and decided to start their own.

I'm pretty sure that "official" threads are not really a thing. There are self-moderated thread and there are non-self-moderated threads. I don't think one type is any more official than another however non-self-moderated threads are certainly less suspicious (to me, and I think to others) if you want to actually see debate take place. In this sense, I agree with you that while self-moderation can be abused, there's a natural solution (one I've used myself), ie, start your own thread.

Quote

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 08, 2015, 04:48:06 PM

Nevertheless, I think going down the rabbit-hole of ridiculing Steamingoff for his blockheaded use of language distracts from the serious point this thread makes: ie, it's okay to purchase a trusted account, and it's okay for trusted members to farm/sell/buy accounts, but somehow it's not okay to purchase trust directly. I really have a hard time seeing how the latter is any more problematic for the trust system than the former.

If someone sold an account which another person had left positive trust on, that sale is beyond the control of the person who gave the trust so it doesn't impact the value of that person's trust ratings. If it is accepted that accounts can be bought or sold, then whether or not an account happens to have existing trust is secondary. Any justification for restrictions that try to prevent the sale of trusted accounts can also be carried over to the argument that all account trading should be banned.

Indeed, and this is basically what Shorena argues above. That because we can buy-and-sell accounts then of course we can buy-and-sell trusted accounts. But I hope it's become quite clear that this makes the trust system effectively a system in which we can buy and sell trust. I think that's what the OP was driving at, and I think it's a well-reasoned point. I'm not sure how/why buying and selling trust isn't just as "okay" as buying and selling accounts. As far as I can tell, it's effectively the same thing.

@Shorena in re whether or not default trust accounts are bought and sold. You may be right that it doesn't happen often, but how would we really know? I don't understand what you mean about "there'd be no incentive", it seems to me that if you have a default trust account and you have a buyer willing to pay a lot for it, the incentive is there, whether or not the two people reach a deal is some sort of empirical matter.