Still Under DDOS, but here is a status update anyway. The Tor network is breaking.
/d/Dread icon


238,199 subscribers

The official community for Dread announcements, discussion, and feedback. Come post any bugs!

Only posts relating to this site in this subdread allowed! Posts here are manually reviewed before public posting!

Quality Control for Dread Poll

by /u/footsteps · 1 votes · 2 months ago

There are way too many aspiring scammers and shitweasals on here.

Can't we just have a scheme of earned ranks with associated privileges for credibility?

this is how most secret societies and organised crime works at some level... just to encourage more commitment, quality, and better behaviour from dread members, because without it, the site is persistently missing an opportunity to raise standards and be a more genuine and effective meeting point for people with actual competence and genuine intentions to form genuine business relationships and networking. At the moment it's still endless shite...


Shall we have a system of earned ranks with associated privileges on Dread to filter out the scammers and amateurs?

Yes · 5 votes

No · 1 votes

Maybe · 2 votes

Comments (7)
/u/corqo · 1 votes · 2 months ago · Link

"Can't we just have a scheme of earned ranks with associated privileges for credibility?"

- I wouldn't recommend a rank system for the purpose of credibility as it will give some folks a false sense of trust to certain members, when in reality you shouldn't trust anyone on Dread and you should always operate on that basis. What I do find useful is that you can view users profiles on dread and see their score, recent posts, and get an idea of how long they have been a user. I think these features trump any sort of additional credibility meter/rank as if I come across a post of someone that I want to engage with where by doing so they would have some slight ability to fuck me over in some way, such as scamming, giving bad advice or etc. I would just view their profile, see how long they have been a member for, what their total score is, what their score is on their most recent posts, if they drastically changed their behavior or style of communicating in the last several weeks (which would be an indicator of a fed operating a previous members account).

If they have negative score -> red flag

if they recently changed the style of their messages where it sounds like a different person is posting as them -> red flag

if they previously showed good opsec in previous posts, but more recently are asking for things from users that would compromise opsec -> red flag, probably a fed on a compromised handle.

-> If their account was just created and is asking things of dread users that could de-anonymize them -> red flag (either a fed, informant, or complete newbie) which for any of those 3 options, you probably won't want to engage with them in any way that allows them any degree of power over you.

To summarize, I think the current dread features are sufficient for identifying if someone is credible, I don't think we need a ranking system to give naive users a false sense of trust/authority from certain users.

/u/footsteps OP · 1 votes · 2 months ago · Link

" users profiles on dread and see their score, recent posts, and get an idea of how long they have been a user. I think these features trump any sort of additional credibility"

that doesn't really work, hence the need for a new system that does actually work.

at a very basic level, people should not be able to access everything or post everywhere until they have established themselves with meaningful contributions - that's normal in all kinds of communities, and in fact already exists here in some ways.

the negative score means nothing. I used to have a much higher score, but it was reduced due to politics because I criticise Ukranian fascism. Stupid flares being put on my name without being requested to smear me, these are all examples of why the current system is failing, does not work, and needs reform. The endless junk posts on the front page prevent the site from developing any quality, and drive quality people away. Simply segregating the moronic kiddies posts from the serious contributors is a much needed feature. You seem to imagine that there isn't already a ranking system... there is, it's the mods... simply having longevity on the site or a high score guarantees nothing.... that should be self-evident.

/u/corqo · 1 votes · 2 months ago · Link

"that doesn't really work, hence the need for a new system that does actually work. "

How exactly does this not work? Sure it requires additional effort, but I don't really see how a rank would be any more accurate than the other measuring points that I mentioned. And I would argue the point that having a rank visible on the post will give a false sense of trust and authority to someone who could just be a compromised handle or was given the rank for an invalid reason, because the entire idea that a rank could be used to label members with a specific level of reputation and authority would be just as poorly moderated and controlled as the up vote/down vote system. Because if we put the argument aside that it would provide newbies with a false sense of authority in people that would reduce the urge to further validate the users profile., then you still have the issue of who decides who gets which rank. The subdread admins of a given subdread? well then you are faced with the same issue as you did with your issue with politics leading to downvotes for you. If the ranking system is global and Hug bunter is the sole decider of who is reputable and he manually assigns the ranks, then whenever a ranked person abuses his sense of authority it would reduce credibility in the authority which granted that member the rank. The third option is to have the community vote on which rank someone should get, which the you face the same issue with biases and politics leading it misleading ranks. In addition to all of these reasons, you also have the issue that it is both discouraging having members do their due diligence to review someone's profile for red flags and that as soon as a handle is compromised the user would still have its rank which they could abuse to artifically gain trust instead of the current system where you would review their posts and votes on their posts, creation date, and etc and have a much more accurate understanding of how much risk there is with interacting with that user.

Regarding your point that high score guarentees nothing and that should be self evident.

- I never said you should soley go off of any single one of these red flags that I mentioned in my above posts, but when you combine all of them together, you will have a much more accurate understanding of someones reputation and authority than a nametag rank could provide. And if someone has a ton of negative reputation, the first thing I do personally is look at their recent posts and look for the post that has negative votes on it, and then I can do my own personal evaluation if the person was wrongfully given that voting score, or if there was a good reason for it. Either way, I'm going to have a whole lot of more information to base my decision of whether to engage with the user than seeing their title says "Trusted" and just going off of that.

/u/footsteps OP · 1 votes · 2 months ago · Link

You've written an awful lot based on an assumption and a misunderstanding and a mischaracterisation of what I propose.

I didn't say that the rank has to be visible.

What I have consistently said is there needs to be some filtering of ephemeral accounts and some reward for proper engagement with the site through quality contributions. At the moment, the majority of contributions are shitposts and wannabe scam posts by brand new accounts, giving a false sense of activity on the site.

At a basic level, more of the site should be revealed to user accounts that are older, as they age. That's one basic filter that is easy to implement.

Another type of filter is to not display every part of the site without invitation, that also encourages better quality contribution.

What I am suggesting is that the site itself is layered like an onion, and "ranks" are more like "security clearance" than "badges" for self-aggrandisement.

What I am arguing for is psychological structures to build value (as in quality content, and better networking), because there is a dearth of it right now, and has been for ages.

"much more accurate" - no, not really.

/u/chillitomato · 1 votes · 2 months ago · Link

I would love to see that happen but I don't think earned ranks or some kind of trophies would be an easy way to go for (not scam) newbie accounts to go up, and as u know, the dw is full of shitheads too, not everyone is like u, some ppl will even sell dread accounts with high ranks if that happens imo.

/u/footsteps OP · 1 votes · 2 months ago · Link

If nobody knows the rank of an account, I guess that is one way of mitigating that risk, but I guess you can't avoid people selling old accounts, but if those accounts only get up the ladder without hitting snake, they are probably less likely to be sold, because they are more useful than new accounts and having to start all over again, and try to tell people what you did, and lose credibility.

/u/chillitomato · 1 votes · 2 months ago · Link

you're right about that part.