Quote from: igehhh on Today at 04:52:46 PM

Quote from: The Pharmacist on Today at 04:09:39 PM

Then there's that. And it all comes down to how the trust system should be used. You really shouldn't just give negative trust to a bounty hunter simply because that's what they're doing on the forum. I get that they're spammers (not just on bitcointalk, as you pointed out), but red trust should be reserved for truly untrustworthy members.

So, how would you classify a bounty hunter who uses alts to cheat? And taking more than he should? If that isn't an untrustworthy character, I'm not sure what is.

What do you propose we do about bounty cheaters, BTW? Because you believe tagging them isn't doing any good.

I'm confused here. Are you talking to me? Because if you are, I think you believe I don't think tagging bounty cheaters is a good idea--it is. I'm referring to the mass-tagging of all bounty hunters simply because they participate in bounties.

I was agreeing with your post, so I don't know where the miscommunication is.

Quote from: suchmoon on Today at 05:37:00 PM

problem is not just shitposters themselves but also presumably smart and rational users - some of them with e.g. ChipMixer signatures if that means anything - responding to those shitposts.

I think I've been guilty of this, but generally I don't reply to a shitpost unless it's to blast it for being idiotic or if there's actually something in it that's coherent and I want to respond to. Everybody's got their own notion of what constitutes a shitpost, but some of them are so generic and cookie-cutter that nobody could reply to them even if they wanted to. And sweet jeezus, going through a section like Bitcoin Discussion to report crapola posts is maddening. I've done it, and it takes a toll on you.