...and some people are pissed off, but i see no real cussing

I did delete a few posts where people were calling someone dickhead and fucktwat, to be fair 😂

Question to Christian: Earlier someone proposed that there should be a 'need more evidence' button in addition to 'Yes' and 'No' buttons where you confirm or dispute a rank. Do you see that it is possibly to add such a button or will this site crash and burn if you do so?

Fucktwat is a world class insult though in all fairness.

I did delete a few posts where people were calling someone dickhead and fucktwat, to be fair 😂

The wall is a much better place for that already 🙂

Question to Christian: Earlier someone proposed that there should be a 'need more evidence' button in addition to 'Yes' and 'No' buttons where you confirm or dispute a rank. Do you see that it is possibly to add such a button or will this site crash and burn if you do so?

I have three main reasons why I think direct downvotes are still often useful in a quite early stage. *Marker for differentiating well deserving upvotees from can't-ever-botherers in the Need votes list. Some of the members with still no evidence but positive scores, I have clicked a dozen times hopeing there's something there to verify and I'm sure the same goes for many others. There's only so much time you wish to spend helping people you don't know get verified. Every minute that is wasted on can't-ever-botherers takes one minute away from well deserving upvotees. So putting a profile in the negative can be a marker helping more of the others get verified and lessening a bit of frustration for those willing to spend time verifying strangers. A need-more-evidence-score' visible in the Need votes list (and pushing them to a place further down the list) is actually a quite good idea. Perhaps also sorting them not totally random but placing those profiles neither verified nor edited further and further down the Need votes list. *Incentive, which for most is only there until they are verified. Then many become c an't-ever-botherers because really, why ever bother when clearly accepted by the community as a whole`already? Also, a downvote (even from evil me) seems to make others more hesitant with placing an upvote, which slows down the process and further increases chances of them putting up good evidence. Really wouldn't be necessary to downvote for this reason if there were only a more widespread culture on Beltchecker not to upvote without evidence. On the other hand, I've seen a lot getting stuck on the half way mark for ages, getting a bit annoyed of a downvote but adapting and then finding themselves both getting my upvote and the rest needed for verification very quickly. With need-more-info-points, the bar for verification could perhaps be raised by 50% of those points or something? Something like that would make it a better alternative to downvoting in lack of evidence. *Avoiding verifications which become carved in stone. There are so many more members holding of their vote when seeing an unverified profile with a downvote than there are members who actually revoke their upvote or downvote when a profile is shown to contain false information, no matter how solid the evidence is. Remco is a good case here - I don't think anyone has put forth any arguments that he actually was promoted to BB in 1996 or was a BB level practitioner at the time (he himself has earlier spoken against it) while you just need to go to his FB page to see clear evidence from as late as this year contradicting his new claims. But the vote-and-forget mechanics of the site are strong and it doesn't look like there's a chance that the verification will be turned. He actually did a quite clever thing that made it even more difficult to stop early, by only entering a no-degree BB at first, which really made him look humble and amass thousands of upvote points. No one (not even me) really gave any more thought to the stated year (1996) - why be the least suspicious with a legend liike Remco claiming a no degree BB? Only he then suddenly used the thousands of upvote points to claim a 6:th degree.time-served BB (same degree as Draculino, who was the one who really promoted him to BB in 2007, has today). So that was really a clever and succesful exploit of a weakness in the voting mechanics of Beltchecker.

Also, a downvote (even from evil me) seems to make others more hesitant with placing an upvote, which slows down the process and further increases chances of them putting up good evidence.

Why do you think the wall is better? I don't feel right disputing a black belt ever unless I really think they are fake. I'm not going to write on their wall asking them for details, I'm just going to not vote and move on... but if I had the option to just 'vote' that their profile needs more evidence, I would use that a lot. Plus they would have x number of people who think they should upload some more evidence vs 1 person they have never met disputing their rank. It is easy to see how it comes off as disrespectful.

Not speaking for Christian, but using the wall does allow for specific criteria requests or explanations of why you feel there's not enough evidence. Whereas a 'Insufficient evidence' button really doesn't help the person understand what's missing. Of course if there's really no evidence excepting something like a picture on a podium for a no gi tournament or a class group photo, then an 'Insufficient Evidence' button might be acceptable.

I think instead of just giving people pause upon seeing a lone dispute, they would be more likely to join in and vote for more evidence without actually disputing and THAT would go a lot further in encouraging someone to upload more. Right now it is easy to dismiss you as a troll, but it would be much more difficult to ignore a handful of votes that more evidence is needed before verifying. I think the counter arguments that have been made are MUCH stronger than any of your arguments. Disputing someone new to the site just leaves them with a bad taste and is much more likely to either start a fight or run them off from the site. Moreover - if you run off a blackbelt because they now view this site as just a bunch of keyboard warrior trolls, you may have also ran off anyone else under them. No matter how many times you type 'I'm not disputing your rank' you actually did hit dispute and that feels disrespectful if they aren't a fake BB. There is a big difference in disputing if they are a black belt vs asking for evidence of dates between certain events.

Not speaking for Christian, but using the wall does allow for specific criteria requests or explanations of why you feel there's not enough evidence. Whereas a 'Insufficient evidence' button really doesn't help the person understand what's missing. Of course if there's really no evidence excepting something like a picture on a podium for a no gi tournament or a class group photo, then an 'Insufficient Evidence' button might be acceptable.

But you can write novels after pressing the verify or dispute buttons. The same applies to 'need more evidence' button.

But you can write novels after pressing the verify or dispute buttons. The same applies to 'need more evidence' button.

Should perhaps be placed among the votes, but with a special marking. Questions on the wall can be deleted, unlike vote comments, which can make for poorer transparency and an easy way out when critical questions are asked..

I still don't think getting your belt and evidence of it checked should come as much of a surprise on Beltchecker, but I think we both would like to see how a request-more-evidene-point-system would play out. My impression is that the Creator(s) launched Beltchecker with a philosophy along the lines of pandeism (the theological idea of a god creating the world and it's mechanics but then leaving it to it's fate without further interference). So my idea of having more-evidence-needed-points raise the points bar to verification might not be compatible. But more-evidence-needed-points which don't interfere at all with the core vote mechanics might still be a possibility.

That you can easily go about it slightly differently and then no one would have a problem. Write on someone's wall. Send them a message. Give them a week to get use to the site and how it works. How difficult is that dude?

So in Johan defense I have seen where he has done exactly what you stated. What then? people still had a problem. He shared on posts AFTER the problem went public where he sent messages, wall posts and had back and forth with the individual. Now do i agree fully with every downvote? 100% NOT. I use my up vote to help negate that disagreement.

Questions on the wall can be deleted, unlike vote comments.

You can easily change your vote comments. I do it all the time whenever I discover a typo or sth similar in my comments

the problem is there will always be voting disputes on an open voting system. we all should know this because we are smart enough to know what this site is. Wouldn't it be great if a person could go to the one disputing them and have a private conversation and come to an agreement? this is what the civilized world can do. rise above the petty name callings and show your maturity. show the community how a well-rounded, mentally tough blackbelt handles business. make an example for everyone else to follow. (we are all way better than this forum thread)

Not speaking for Christian, but using the wall does allow for specific criteria requests or explanations of why you feel there's not enough evidence. Whereas a 'Insufficient evidence' button really doesn't help the person understand what's missing. Of course if there's really no evidence excepting something like a picture on a podium for a no gi tournament or a class group photo, then an 'Insufficient Evidence' button might be acceptable. Actually, I rather like the idea of an Insufficient Evidence button COMBINED with an explanation on the wall.

The wall is a much better place for that already 🙂

For what it's worth, I asked Draculino about Remco. This is what he said.