Post
Topic
Board Reputation
Merits 15 from 10 users
Topic OP
Should we hand out neutral/neg tags like candy?(open but might be future edits)
by
yahoo62278
on 09/07/2023, 01:24:50 UTC
⭐ Merited by LoyceV (6) ,Igebotz (1) ,jokers10 (1) ,deadsea33 (1) ,Cantsay (1) ,CYBER_COWBOY (1) ,julerz12 (1) ,DireWolfM14 (1) ,FatFork (1) ,DdmrDdmr (1)
The title is a bit misleading but i'm curious as to everyone's feelings on the issue of accusing people before having proof and handing out a neutral tag while looking for or asking for evidence?

We see topics all the time where users complain about a tag they have received. Sometimes it's a negative and most times it's a neutral, but at what point should we tag a user? Obviously, if they scammed it's a no brainer tag em and bag em. What if it's a circumstantial case? What if I think theymos is satoshi and has been lying to us all along(not the case just not calling out any members)?

In the recent month or so, Jollygood has been called out, Timelord has been called out, hugeblack, and many others. You can just look on the 1st 1-2 pages of this board and see multiple threads of complaints against certain users. Some are complaints about tags, some are complaints about trolls, alt accounts, etc.

Not all of these have started with a user being tagged or asking users to ~ a user, but most IMO could be considered defamation and libelous. I know most are looking out for the community, but should we keep this shoot 1st ask questions later attitude or she we require users to have more proof before tagging anyone? Where is the line? Sad thing is most times the community is correct and some of these people deserve what they end up with, but just because we think something is it really ok to go after someone before we have the proper proof? Should we tag before a discussion? Case by case?

Everyone is obviously in control of their own trust list and are able to tag at will, but if you do not have enough proof and are looking for opinions IMO best tohave a discussion in a thread and see what the community digs up before tagging.

Just curious what some of you have to say. Examples below

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5459078.0 Deadsea tagged with neutral before there is proof

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5458318.0 rby accused although wasn't tagged for a decent amount of time

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5459010.0 timelord a troll

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456889.0 good thread from Cyber Cowboy touching on this subject a little

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5458785.0 neutral from jolly

Most of the time, there ends up being proof that someone did something and deserves what comes to them. Not disputing that at all. What about those who end up with a tag from a stubborn member who refuses to remove the tag? What if that person was innocent but someone stubborn disagrees? It's such a process to get someone removed from DT and help right away doesn't really feel like an option for someone who was wrongfully accused or tagged.

My own statement and i'm not sure if that's really how we should go about it.
Quote
Giving someone a neutral tag is not necessarily abusing DT power. He has not harmed your profile and has likely not hindered you from making money if you did apply to a sig campaign and got accepted. Do I agree with his tag? No, I wouldn't leave 1 like it even if I had the same thoughts about you, but he is him and I am me.