Quote from: Lauda on January 26, 2018, 06:17:10 AM

Quote from: EcuaMobi on January 25, 2018, 10:41:01 PM

Quote from: Blazed on January 24, 2018, 03:41:55 PM

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

Honestly I think you were.

Disagreed. Just while it might not be the best solution to label both scammers and spammers under the same color, that's what the description of the rating is for. Given the situation, it was decent.

Sure, the description is important, and so is the reference. It's to explain why you think the user is a scammer or very untrustworthy.

Negative means:

Quote

You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

We shouldn't use it for whatever else just because we explain so on the description.

Edit: The same way we shouldn't leave negative trust because someone edited a post of ours with a "FTFY", even if we explain so in the description of the rating
(Lauda will get this Tongue

)

Quote from: Lauda on January 26, 2018, 06:17:10 AM

Quote from: EcuaMobi on January 25, 2018, 10:41:01 PM

Quote from: theymos on January 25, 2018, 10:17:03 PM

That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.

Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Here we go, another bad idea. Instead of tackling the problem at its roots, let's develop another complex system.

Strongly disagreed. We do need a solution, developing another system is an option. Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers. We can't just give up, can we?
And because we can't/shouldn't leave negative trust to spammers then we need new ideas.

Quote from: johnleo on January 26, 2018, 08:11:06 AM

Sorry I don't usual to rate my own post, beside that a post could be useful for newbie but shit for legendary

It doesn't matter whom it's useful to, as long as it's well thought, well written, with valid arguments: constructive. Even if you disagree or you already knew the posted information.

Quote from: johnleo on January 26, 2018, 08:11:06 AM

But I can tell you one advice that I had made in this link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2374807.msg24227168#msg24227168. My advice was worth $1000 because I got 780 R for 5 days.

It does say something about the quality of your posts when the very best one is:

Quote from: johnleo on November 08, 2017, 11:11:18 AM

I think this is cool, we can collect a few R token in 5 days. The token already in the market with a good price. I will participate.

How long did it take to research and write it?

Quote from: johnleo on January 26, 2018, 08:11:06 AM

You, I mean for Blazed because I think he is one of the most powerfull people here.

Only theymos can make changes to the forum