Quote from: xtraelv on December 29, 2018, 08:27:22 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on December 29, 2018, 04:26:12 PM

I would go further to say that a spammer posting copy and paste off topic junk in a serious thread is less net negative that those that put up a semi convincing counter argument that is does not refute the correct and true statements of someone else but leads people (who are unable to understand the truth or evaluate correctly the presented evidence) to believe the correct statements/claims have been successfully refuted .... then those people are even more net negative and with too many of those examples should be again put on junior boards to work on their critical thinking and reasoning before ruining the main boards. These bots and parrots are just a general dilution and annoyance rather than some that actually mislead people into incorrect assumptions and far away from reaching consensus in an optimal way.

Let's be clear on what is trying to be achieved by any actions taken.

I say only net positive actions that have a strong case should taken or you are actually damaging the board and being net negative.

Taking lots of action that leads to no provable net gain is pointless.

The problem is determining what is "net positive" and what is "net negative" . Arbitrary or systematic censorship is not good. Merit provides some incentive to post quality material and while I am fortunate that people usually like my posts - it does have the effect of potentially creating an echo chamber where different opinions are rejected and agreeable opinions are rewarded. Theymos has so far done a good job of selecting merit sources with different skills and opinions.

Another issue is that if you allow rules to be arbitrary then they often end up being unfair and unevenly applied.

Quote from: cryptohunter on December 29, 2018, 04:26:12 PM

Cure the source of the issue. Make big changes else you will just keep tweaking and reporting forever.

Until you remove all financial incentive to post you will never get away from people trying to just post anything (mostly dilution and junk) to earn bucks they probably really need sadly.

I agree and I think a lot of people agree with that. You'll notice that I have never worn a paid signature. (My endorsement or opinion is not for sale)

There has been a lot of discussion around how to remove the incentives around posting.

But removing some of the things that people like about this site will affect both those that use the site as well as those that abuse it.

Reducing or eliminating the financial incentives to post is like you said - the key to solving the issue.

Post count no longer provides the single way to gain rank which was a good first step.

I have no issue with people receiving a reward for quality posts. The problem is poverty (and greed) . Poverty attracts people to financial rewards.

But banning poor people is not the answer either. Crypto is meant to be a revolution that improves freedom and accessibility. Some of the "poor people" have embraced this technology and are now very knowledgeable and positive contributors. Without financial incentives they may be forced to go elsewhere.

Not all incentivised posting is due to signature or bounty campaigns. Some of it is due to achieving high google search engine ranking.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087992.0 hilariousetc is discussing alternatives to permabans for plagiarism when there is reduced culpability.

Quote from: suchmoon on December 29, 2018, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: xtraelv on December 29, 2018, 10:43:16 AM

Newbies cannot post images.

Even if they could - why would they go through the trouble of memefying something if it's far easier to just quote/link it? The problem with plagiarizing dipshits is that they're too lazy to put effort in their posts so they spam the forum with copy-pasta.

Memes also would in a lot of cases not be considered for bounty / signature rewards unless it had some text to go with it. The text on the meme wouldn't count.

e.g.:

Quote

Posts that aren't in proper English, aren't constructive or under 100 characters will not be paid. Local boards are excluded from the "proper English" rule.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935179.0

There are somethings I agree with here (not all) and actually I am attempting to raise those points and find some clear ways to improve the entire issue of locating, recognising, reviewing/analysing and rewarding posts on some clear contributions made to finding the optimal solution or answers. However nobody except actmyname has wanted to contribute to such an important thread because I feel it will reveal that merit and indeed trust systems are quite dangerous.

There should be thorough investigation and analysis of every opinion before merit can be given. I see no point of opinions that are groundless and found to be provably incorrect having merit whilst opinions and statements to the contrary that are provably correct get less merit.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

However the dangers go beyond misleading those that do not or can not form the correct opinion from the evidence or cases provided and then just look at the merit scores of each post. Subjectivity opens the systems to corruption and control over other posters.

If you were able to keep only the net positive and clear out the net negatives (to junior boards to train there first) or even diluting net neutrals the board would thrive.