Quote from: actmyname on April 23, 2019, 07:47:46 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on April 23, 2019, 07:38:35 PM

some objectivity and accountability will return free speech to the board and ensure scammers can not brand honest members with a scam tag.

I disagree with the idea of giving out negatives for contrasting beliefs. I'm assuming that's what you're describing: am I correct?

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on April 23, 2019, 07:38:35 PM

the implications you mention are likely mitigated to a large extent with a couple of simple tweaks.

If you can elaborate on your ideas then I would be glad to discuss the ramifications and consequential effects of your tweaks. I enjoy playing devil's advocate in all cases and believe that no idea begins in its final state: it must be polished thoroughly.

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on April 23, 2019, 07:38:35 PM

rushing to judgement is at times potentially useful, but for the judgement to stand it must be accompanied by a strong case. Those failing to provide after a sensible time frame are removed from DT if they do not remove the red tag.

I can agree with that. Sometimes, potentially compromised accounts or incredibly likely scams (that have yet to be proven) should be given an initial block as to safeguard the general public from malicious entities.

We are against red trust (that sticks) being given for anything other than scamming or strongly intending to scam. Anything after that is a slippery slope. Account sales (when discovered) should perhaps be given a different tag " this account is not under the control of the original owner". This is sensible as it can be leveraged to gain trust.

Sorry, yes, the tweak was just allowing a temp red trust whilst further examination is conducted in the case of hacked accounts etc before they are locked down.

Our main concern is free speech, then the protection of innocent members from false charges and punishment, saving the greedy and stupid from themselves should be a lower concern. Still all that can be done to save them should be done without negatively impacting on the first two.

Universally adhered to standards and guidelines. No double standards which breed contempt and loathing of the corruption freely observable in the systems now.

We believe you had a similar discussion with cryptohunter on his thread of the year. We notice you do not accept the systems of control have any impact upon free speech. We do not think we can reach much common ground until you take another look at that part.

Decentralizing anything successfully in terms of governance is very complex, compounded by the anonymous nature of this forum,and far beyond the scope of 99.99% of this board to design. Far more concern should be given to preserving free speech than to prevent some spammers and low level scammers. One member that probably could have taken a good shot at it is sadly banned for a non scamming related issue.

Sensible guidelines for red trust that are at least under threat of being enforced should be enough to discourage flagrant abuse. Those that do continue must be blacklisted. Merit has its own powerful influence on free speech, it is the carrot to DT's stick. Putting those 2 together was ridiculous, as cryptohunter correctly recognized and stated before theymos for an unknown reason tied them together. He essentially seemed to create a system that is as easy as possible for a few members to collude and take total and complete control of free speech. Very strange.

I had previously thought that the long game may improve things. It will but not much. MAD between the main controlling factions will ensure fair treatment for them by other factions. But the general member with no connections and no WMD's will be as vulnerable as ever and far more likely to run fowl of one of the corrupt and selfish DT members as that number swells and pickings become slimmer at the top.

Scrap merit after snr and decouple it from trust. Provide clear guidelines for red trust and ensure they are universally upheld or blacklisting will start taking place, a couple of persons made examples of will get them in line. Pushing for merit to represent the real value of a post is likely impossible due to the sheer scale and the fact most peoples abilities to discern real value from specious dirt vary hugely and always meant merit was doomed to be a very low value metric. To try to build upon it as some kind of objective metric of high value was folly. Snitchmoon I believe said it best: good post or bad post are meaningless terms without criteria or definition. Merit is not meaningless it just has very low value. It can likely distinguish bot from human but that is probably all. It is misleading and dangerous when you start pairing it with financial value in the form of paid2post rates.

These are in part why the board is struggling to juggle upholding free speech, and stopping spammers and low level scammers. There is likely no magic fix but as it is now is as bad as things can get. When an observable liar and scammer can red trust an honest member because they say they will create a thread to examine their past and the rest of DT condone and sanction it. You know the board is fucked.

When the most disliked member in meta challenges the entire meta board to present one example of incorrect information they have presented and they all fail to present one instance then you know the board is fucked.

When the most disliked member in meta challenges the entire meta board to present any other clear agenda they have other than to bring some clear transparent rules to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all members, and they can not present anything. You know the board is fucked.

Pretty sad times for BTT. Although historically it is there for public examination, when those people who care to look back at some of the early believers in creating an end to end decentralized trust less arena.