Bitcoin Forum

I have been running my merit giveaway (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124376.0) thread for some time, but have unfortunately run out of sMerit, and have not earned enough merit to keep up with being able to process all the "applications" to receive merit. As such, I would like to apply to become a merit source.

I do have concerns about the merit system, primarily that I believe it will cause groupthink, and if made a merit source, I promise to do my best to stop that by awarding merit for objectively high quality posts of others, that a lot of effort was put into, is the 1st (or one of the 1st) correct answer to an inquiry (especially when there are multiple incorrect answers/nonsense posts preceding it, and/or demonstrate interest and/or knowledge in topics I believe those who are interested in Bitcoin are often interested in. I will do my best to make bitcointalk great again by awarding merit to those who put effort into posts, and who wish to contribute to the forum ecosystem, or are otherwise helpful. I have always put in a lot of effort into my work here, and although mistakes have been made, I have always done my best to provide good work product.

As of now, I believe I have sent merit to 130 profiles, and on average have given ~3 merit to each profile. Despite not being in a position of power, I have received the 98th most merit out of every forum profile.

Each of the below posts has at most 1 merit as of ~10 minutes before creating this thread (note that I may have sent merit on my thread in response to people submitting these posts to me in order to demonstrate their knowledge of one of various topics). Some quotes have been shortened.












[/list]

I think TF and Master-P should also apply. We need more scammer sources.

Its too bad I am not accused of scamming anyone.

Leave it for theymos to decide  .

For some reason I thought Quickseller was made a merit source back in September when Theymos tapped a bunch of members who hadn't applied.  Guess not.

As far as this goes:

....obviously QS is still in denial about whether "self-escrowing" is actually a legitimate thing (it's not) or a scam (it is).  Nowhere in the world where honest people dwell does anyone do this, which is why QS did not inform the victims when he was doing it and presumably hasn't done it since.  And it's not true that no one has accused him of scamming.  Lots of people have for the escrow shenanigans.

Despite that, I have mixed feelings about the merit source application.  I think QS knows what constitutes a good post and he might not use his sMerits for political reasons.  The only concern with him (and all potential merit sources) is trading/selling it.  With his spotty past, which includes account selling in addition to the escrow stuff, I just don't know.  But hey, it's not up to me.  Good luck, QS.

I won’t sell any merit, I don’t need to, if I was going to sell merit I would earn it myself, and have shown the ability to earn a lot of (in top 100), and have not sold any merit. I do believe that the forum selling merit would probably get the desired effect of improving post quality because people would be forced to pay to wear paid signatures and would have skin in the game when posting and would be risking losing what they paid if they post junk, but that is off topic here.

I won’t use merit for political reasons even though other sources have given merit for likely political reasons for posts that are not objectively high quality posts — they are just not as transparent as stingers was, but that is also off topic here.

I do wish for people who put in effort into their time and posts here to be rewarded and those that junk up the forum to not be. You can review my sent merit history (I have sent a lot, more than most people ) to see that I have a history of giving merit to objectivity high quality posts.

While he might know what a good post is, we don't know how many alts he has lined up to promote and to vote into DT. There should be no place among merit sources for known account farmers/traders, particularly ones so shameless like QS. Not up to me either though.


Forum already sells Copper memberships and those are getting banned for plagiarism and other shitpostery no different than other accounts. So no.

For someone who's a strong critic of the system and member who oversees the affairs of running that system which includes theymos himself (admin), moderators and merit sources. it's quite surprising seeing you applying to work for that system. It's just like Hillary applying for an office in the Trump's adminstration. I doubt you'll get what you want anyway goodluck on your application you truly need it (the GoodLuck).

AFAIR, there shouldn't be any - ve tags for Merit Sources (correct me if I'm wrong). Though QS has been also a good contributor in the past, despite of the accusations (maybe true ???) but who am I to judge. (I am a bit uneasy with this but I support his application) But considering the negativities it might have fail you buddy.

If you're lacking with sMerits just like I am right now, you can just use this thread as another way of giving Merits  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093271.0 LoyceV isn't selfish on his sMerits as long as it is a good one. I've been using that for quite a while now, and will be in this coming days)

GL mate.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, I am not corrupt and cannot be bought.

My goal is to contribute in a way that improves the system.

To those who are saying I will use my sMerit to my own alts, this is not only libelous but is illogical. I have demonstrated that I can earn merit with my own well thought out and insightful comments in my posts. There is no need for me to give merit to myself nor will I. I would request that anyone who has suggested this to either provide evidence of this implication or retract your statement.

I thought he was a source too.

Agreed. QuickSeller may be controversial, but he makes good posts and has a good understanding of many subjects. I haven't seen bad posts merited by QuickSeller, and since Merit isn't supposed to be a "+1 I agree", I think he can contribute to the forum by being a source.
He'll obviously be under heavy scrutiny anyway, so if he goes roque, it won't last long.

You make good points too :) I'm torn between sides, so I'll end with a "good luck theymos".

I don't think this is a requirement.

Obviously you are still generally dishonest.

Theymos would be turning his back on all his honest members if you were made a source.


Yet you have sold your account actions for satoshis in the past.  ??

And I would request that you publish a full list of all accounts that you've ever posted with on this forum and keep us updated when you acquire new ones.

You're a known liar, account farmer/trader/puppeteer, and scammer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020), so you shouldn't be surprised when these things are brought up in the context of asking to be trusted with a function that can be abused. We can keep an eye on you if you're appointed, but on the other hand - why bother scraping the bottom of the barrel when there are non-scammer applications still pending.

Giving merit services are indeed very risky and you probably already know what the risk is. I really appreciate your desire to help people by giving sMerit but not everyone thinks positively about the services you provide because sometimes many people think that giving sMerit is just to help people who have many accounts in this forum. So we have to be careful about things like that, sometimes our good intentions are only used by cunning people.

You acted as escrow for trades involving one of your Alt accounts (Panthers52).  You collected escrow fees while clearly not supplying escrow services.  That is theft by deception and makes you a scammer.

Edit to add link:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.680

There's nothing surprising. Use your head. He needs a stream of merit to get himself and his alts into DT.

You'd sell your own mother for some pocket change profit, just shush. ::)

Minerjones is rated the most trusted person on this site with the current DT structure and he allowed TMAN to manipulate an auction he was hosting on TMAN's behalf to actually run up the price on buyers.  Is QS's crime really worse?  TMAN is even a merit source now, so I honestly don't think QS is a less deserving candidate.  I do find it fascinating how some users are crucified while others are praised based not on their actions, but by those they choose to support regardless of who is in the wrong.

You praise QS not on his actions, but his words...

I don't praise him.  I treat him fairly.  You're blinded by your bias.

If you think, "TMAN is even a merit source now, so I honestly don't think QS is a less deserving candidate" is praise, you aren't aware of how lowly I think of TMAN.

QS is ridiculed and distrusted precisely because of his actions. I don't even know whom he really supports other than himself and his puppets. He is a top-notch propagandist though, I'll give him that.

I didn't say he wasn't crucified for his actions.  I gave an example of how SOME are crucified (for their actions) while others who have done other arguably worse actions are praised and rewarded as a result of who they support.  Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clear that up.  I made the above edit to my original post to make that more clear.

You treat his hypocrisy with complete blindness.  Trying to deceive like this brings down your credibility.

Stingers used to have -ve tag before the implementation of merit system (though stinger is removed for abusing the position.)
Daniel91 application was accepted when he has -ve tag from iluvbitcoin (Currently Iluvbitcoin is not in DT so Daniel91 do not have any -ve tag)

Very well said Vod.

If multiple people have though I was already a merit source, and there has not been controversy/concerns with the merits I have been giving out, I don't see any reason why anyone would have legitimate concerns with future merit I give out. I am in the top 25 in terms of recent merit given out.

Is that to say that you have no basis to backup your claim that I would give merit to my hypothetical alts? I will again demand a retraction.

Any fees collected in regards to what you are referring to was refunded....

Minerjones also backed out of many auctions after they closed under the guise the "real" seller backed out. He also has been at least one escrow of multiple transactions in which those he was supposed to be protecting were told they might not recover the entire amount he was supposed to be protecting (due to escrow incompetence) after one party scammed.

TMAN was also part of at least one extortion attempt that was unsuccessful, and who knows how many that has been successful.

Quickseller, you are a proven scammer.  Other's business practices are irrelevant to the conversation of whether you should be trusted as a merit source. 

You claimed I was a pedophile... retract that, call the police, or shut up hypocrite.

QS Isn't going to go around meriting posts that don't desetve it nor is he going to send 50 to a ton of people


He should be a merit source.

Is that to say you will not disclose your alts?

The basis for my claim is your history of suckpuppeting and lying. Good luck retracting that.

Quickseller be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0

suchmoon, Vod, & Lesbian Cow be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Tiz6INF7I

Your post lacks evidence, is libelous and was disproven in my previous response to you.

Further, it is difficult to take you seriously after you supported allowing someone back whose actions objectively harmed the community, for reasons that were none other than for selfish personal gain. Your first reaction to this person being removed from the community was suggesting something that would objectively harm both the forum and the bitcoin ecosystem. And your rationale for allowing him to come back were summed up as being he was still alive and he conducted business with you.

Thank you sir!

It seems you are unable to back up your suggestion. This makes me believe your prior statements (and others in this thread) were politically motivated, with the hope of gaining influence/power. On its face, your various stats may indicate you are a helpful forum member, however to anyone who is paying close attention, you are a toxic person, and should be avoided.

This is an example of a post being given merit for political reasons by a merit source.

edit: I have a long history of finding those who make "objectively high quality posts" that extend well before the merit system as I advertised my own business via a signature campaign (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905914.0) that I ran personally, and those that participated generally ended up making objectively good posts during the specific duration the campaign was running.

And to be realistic, QS has gotta be one of the most security/private orientated person on this fourm,

I can't see him actually managing that many alts, because signature campaigns aren't paying that much in btc. There are users in the collectible subfourm. That have ADMITTED to using 20+alts at one time just to farm signature campaigns but stopped because the signature campaigns don't pay a lot in btc. I'm not going to name any names.

You think QS has the time to log into a VPN, just to make a post that will net him like 10 cents? And than log out and do it 20 different times. Come on. And than use 20 different wallets to receive the bitcoins because he would never let his alts be linked together from bitcoin addresses posted since he is amazing at analxiying blockchain transactions

His posts are quality regardless he wouldn't need to give himself merit on his alts because his posts actually earn merit

 

Yes, that was exactly what he was stealing during his escrow shenanigans.

I think Quickseller is worthy of becoming a merit source.

He basically has grasp of all things going around here and is surfing on the forum more than we could imagine if seen.

He could actually find a lot of merit worthy posts in this hunt which most of the current merit sources rarely notice on average.

And as there are already some cases of theymos undoing merit transactions and removing merit source power from abusing individual we should probably give him a chance I think. ???

You mean second chance.  I'd say no - he still is claiming he never scammed anybody.  :/

He's already shown in this thread he responds well to posts that stroke his ego, while ignoring other posts completely.

It's completely logical that he would use his merit source to rank up alts for profit.

If he had that in mind I'm sure he would had done it quietly with the 400+ merits he has earned. If I'm not mistaking you need to have earned just 10merits to be eligible to vote that means with his 400+ earned merits he would had done that long ago and don't forget current DT members and other forum members have the power to prevent him from been eligible to be a DT member by detrusting him (if that's you fear).. It'll be kinda fun watching how the politics will play out if he's finally appointed a source because with him on board there'll always be some disagreement (drama).

 ::)

Very few criminals will do something only one time. The overwhelming majority of criminals are repeat offenders. A successful extortion will, by definition be kept private. 

Even though I see that QS has started claiming I of all persons am an unproductive member I will support his merit source application.  The reason being the merit merry go round colluding DT group do NOT want him in DT.  

These broken systems of control need to have opposing factions to keep them in order and prevent this board becoming an echo chamber.

All this fuss about him self escrowing is NOTHING compared to what others have tried here. Let's be honest to even be a DT or merit source you need to have done something scammy or support their scammy actions. So trying to prevent him on this basis is laughable.

That theymos made tman a merit source says it all.... ANYONE can be a merit source in that case. That person is observably stupid, runs if you ask him to provide any examples of his original thought inspiring posts and is guilty of many untrustworthy deeds and actions. How long has that miscreant been a merit source?
  
QS has some critical reasoning skills and makes the odd mistake (like he did by saying my post theymos deleted was irrelevant and off topic when clearly it was not and nobody would even dare debate it with me) but the majority of his posts seem far more logical and clear minded than most others who are merit sources and DT (not difficult). Some of those do not even have the capacity to recognise a valuable post from a net negative piece of trash hence giving them merits to splash just creates a misleading system on top of it being a dangerous system.

The more merit sources the better really, these broken systems will stay broken and free speech vulnerable until the colluding group have a serious bit of opposition. The systems MAY improve long term when there are enough DT's that total collusion is impossible to maintain.

That is my reasoning for supporting his application. I would say all legends should auto become merit sources anyway unless extremely inappropriate... but given the fact tman is merit source then.......

OG/QS/CH, seems like the fan club is growing..   

TMANFANS... just a shame I don’t give a fuck about the members, sounds like another club I know

I do not think you suchmoon can bring these points up to prevent QS when you enable and support people who are proven liars, scam pushers, sock puppet sig spammers, probable extortionists who got busted and trust abusers on to DT directly? Actually you support/include ALL of them onto DT.

Thanks for again demonstrating clear double standards when it suits you, what an excellent member you are.

This post is highly relevant and on topic because it demonstrates that a counter argument and criticism to quicksellers application is invalid/ disingenuous  coming from this member suchmoon,  the readers of this thread must understand that suchmoons motives for denying QS are not because he wishes dishonest people kept from merit source and dt but rather only those that he does not collude directly with.

These things are very important to consider when you are reviewing such an application. It is fine to put up a reason for supporting or denying but these reasons will come under scrutiny when people want to reach the optimal solution.

This is now turning into a Reputation Thread of QS. Let's just leave this up to theymos, he is the only one who can decide whether he is capable of being one or not. Criticizing QS because of his past won't do us anything good, though I know the point of everybody here and more or less everybody has his/her opinion about a certain user.

Not being a Jackass here but this isn't going anywhere. Let's all have a piece of mind, just as suchmoon said, you can just stick your eyes to him if he becomes a source.

With all due respect, the community voicing its opinions is what these application threads basically are--that's what it's always been, and I think it's a good idea as well.  The other source application threads I've seen have had lots of posts giving either support or criticism of the applicant, which I think is entirely appropriate.  Yes, it is ultimately up to Theymos but the community ought to be able to talk about whether someone should be a merit source or not, as we all have to deal with it afterwards if the person gets accepted.

I said my piece on QS, and I'm not going to keep ragging on him for his past misdeeds.  They do need to be mentioned, however.  Some newer members might not be aware of his shady history, and it certainly is relevant to whether he can be trusted to be a merit source.

But you do it so well yourself:

---

Nope, it's still your perverse interpretation of some badges and stats as "influence/power". One more reason to not let you near said "power", especially when there are so many deserving users with a non-transactional approach to their forum activities and their contributions to the community.

      Stingers was removed from being a merit source because he stated that he was going to give merits for the sole purpose of getting his allies enough merit to have votes in the current DT selection process. I don't see how Vod & Lauda meriting my post has anything to do with ensuring that I have enough votes to vote in their allies or themselves. If you believe theymos' ruling against stingers extends to meriting any post that you happen to think makes a good point and you happen to agree with, or from time to time meriting something that you find as entertaining satire, being a merit source might not be for you. After all, I would hate for you to fret over every merit that you dole out, wondering if it can be construed as "political." If you do become a merit source, you should also prepare yourself for being under extra scrutiny since many members here simply don't trust you. I suspect Timelord and many others are going to be all up in your Kool-Aid. (Although they already are.)
   Good luck with your application.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY5Ug1OW5O4

who is who ?? LoL
merit sources in action ??

I thought QS was a merit-source, too ?

Are you sure your not confusing him with QA? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=72795) QuestionAuthority was a merit source, but lost the privilege by staging a merit giveaway in the WO thread that only required people to ask for it. Only being quick on the draw mattered, not quality of the post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5050263.0

I can't speak for everyone else who thought that QS was already a merit-source, but I know better than to confuse them with QA.

That's a shame about QA, I didn't know about that situation.

Quickseller is an old school dodgy douche-canoe from the forum; self escrowed on trades, stole the escrow fees, sold accounts he farmed.  All around turd; not sure how you thought he was a merit source.

I'm not the only one :P

It would seem crazy to me to have a known account farmer and seller as a merit source.  Wack-a-doodle even.

The point is theymos stated that past mistakes should not be counted all the time, and users should have other chances to show that they are really changed and have better attitude or have actually changed to contribute more to the forum.
I have not been there for too long to comprehensively known about QuickSeller, so it's just the point, as you and theymos wrote.
(I read the trust page of QuickSeller, but just read for overview, and I don't have intention to look so deep at his past history).
I saw some cases that DT members lift negative trust when people changed, and it is what theymos wanted, I believe.
Whichever systems implemented in the forum, the ultimate objectives are making the forum and forum users better, not solely putting them down.

Its pity cause QA has an excellent mind on BTC and so on itself... he would be a good source if he didn't did those giveaways ....

While I personally wouldn't trust Quickseller farther than I can throw him, IMO he does serve a purpose around here. While I don't condone any of his past behavior, or even like him as a human being, the scamming element was largely exaggerated simply to get him to stop being such a stalker as he was one of the earliest forms of "trust police" around here. While he certainly was dishonest, he can only be said to have gained inconsequential amounts form this duplicity indicating to me his primary goal was not theft. I think he also understands that if he were caught abusing merit he might as well be the forum leper at that point. I would say making him a merit source and keeping a close eye on him would be a reasonable thing to do and a net positive for the forum.

While yes, I did monitor the various marketplace subs, and did put a lot of effort into research in stopping various scams, I largely followed the standards (http://archive.is/CsoEs#selection-3967.582-3967.670) you are advocating for, perhaps also including when someone *attempts* to do any of what you believe is acceptable for negative trust -- if someone makes a serious attempt to steal, but are unsuccessful, I think in most cases others should be warned. I can't recall any instances in which I added a new "rule" that others had to follow to avoid getting negative trust, as many on DT1 have done in recent time.

Thanks.

I looked at the situation when it was posted in this thread. My opinion on the situation is QA should have resigned from his position as merit source instead of doing something he (should have) knew would get himself fired. From the looks of it, he had concerns about the merit system, and about the forum in general -- he could have voiced his concerns to theymos privately, or publicly, and they may have been addressed if theymos agreed, and if QA was still not satisfied, he should have resigned, or otherwise stopped giving out merit.

His underling concerns appear to be around the newer users of bitcointalk (who needed merit) to be more focused on various altcoins (and ICOs) than on bitcoin. The only way this could be addressed would be to limit the ability to discuss altcoins, and/or limit the ability to run ICOs and bounty campaigns. However both of these generate a lot of page views (ad revenue). I believe a lot of these people come to bitcointalk because of the altcoins, and if the altcoin discussion and ICOs/bounties were not allowed, these people would migrate to other platforms, however being on bitcointalk can give these people exposure to  bitcoin they might not get on other platforms.

I think QS can be trusted to be a merit source..
I'm pretty sure QS has a decent stash of coin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=812533.0) so it's not like he is going to sell them to try to make a few satoshis, and he has proven that he can accumulate his own merits just fine without the need to cheat the merit system.

I personally would also trust QS to hold loan collateral or trust him in a trade to higher amounts than I would trust many green trusted members but that would be my own money. I do not think QS is trying to scam and even if he was I imagine he would probably be doing it under a different account more suitable for that purpose.

Everyone likes to call QS an "escrow scammer" but that isn't the entire story. He was running an anonymous escrow service at the same time as he was running separate anonymous sales services and would escrow his own trades, from 2 different businesses/accounts, while at the time they were not believed to be under the control of the same person.
I agree that it is a somewhat shady practice but he never blatantly scammed anyone, and others have admitted to self escrowing the same way QS did and still are trusted because they didn't lie about it and stopped when it became unacceptable.
He is not the only one who did it. It was the wild west back then, similar to the account sales situation.

The problem with QS is that he was caught lying about the self escrowing and lying is a good reason to lose your trust around here.
More problems with QS ever sense, and probably continuing to this day, his personal vendettas and fights back and forth with other forum users, mostly over the escrow scandal, where QS has taken fights too far, and came from unreasonable and malicious positions at times.

Where I do not trust QS is, though he is highly intelligent, articulate, and "in the know", he is very biased against certain other users so if he makes a good point it may be exaggerated towards his favor and not the entire story. He knows a lot of stuff but is very onesided at times, so when you read what QS says be sure to do your own research about the entire situation because it may be part of his agenda.

I also think that QS has made some progress in the last year or so towards being good for the community and stopping his fighting. It is a shame that he has made his mistakes and bad decisions because he has the intelligence to have been a great asset to the forum otherwise.

Also I commend QS for continuing under his ruined account, but I would not doubt that he has other unknown accounts, possibly even DT accounts if he wanted, because he is smart enough to pull it off..
If QS is going to scam it will be bigger than what he can pull off from the QS account I would think. If QS is a scammer he is a very dangerous scammer because he has the ability in his knowledge and intelligence.
QS is a great scambuster because he understands the social engineering behind them, and therefore understands how to social engineer a scam.. I saw this post in another thread..
I disagree with that because the person that does the scammer research and the scambusting will have a great education in all the ways to scam, what to do to cover your tracks, avenues and scenarios to set up a big scam, social and trade engineering, and how to get away with it. They would be much less likely to try some petty scam but if they were trying to scam they would be a very dangerous enemy, a mastermind.

I do understand other people's anger toward QS, those who have been in a fued with QS where QS has resorted to unreasonable tactics, and do not blame them if they never forgive him. I doubt he will ever be completely trusted but I do think he is/could come to be a positive asset for the forum.
If anyone can spot a scammer, or a possible scam situation, it is QS..

In conclusion I do not think that we need to worry too much about QS trying to sell merits, it being such a petty scam, where merit is so transparent, and Theymos has the ability to stop it immediately and reverse it at any time.

I still think this is the best argument against making QS a merit source. He is known for having (a large amount of) alt accounts. We can endlessly debate on wether or not he should be a merit source but that decision is upto Theymos. I assume Theymos knows about QS and his history so he'll be able to make a fair judgement on his own.

I'm more concerned about him propping up his army of alts with his free source merits and using those to stuff DT ballots. He's well known for attempting to get into DT in roundabout ways (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=92133) and still has that unhealthy obsession with the "positions of power" as he calls them.

If theymos wants to expand the list of merit sources I think there are better candidates to choose from.

Let's examine this fear that you have and have a sensible genuine debate.

How does anyone know for sure who is who's alt?

The dangerous people here will NOT make any mistakes and reveal their puppets. I suspect many DT's have other alts in DT's already. We can all suspect and guess.

I mean how you, tman, lauda, owlcatz, pharmacist, and the close knit group of about 10-15 users all observably cycle merits to each other and all include each other on DT and all observably gang up and pile into every single thread where one of you is questioned or all make most extreme excuses for each other when observable wrong doing is present in your post histories. I mean pharmacist was busted with a sock puppet account already who is to say who has puppet accounts here. I mean this is the equivalent of having alts in fact it is better because you have the energies and time of several different colluding persons to battle against any that come against them.

These seem like very strange excuses to prevent someone who you know will NOT collude with you guys from the start. I see NO reason for him NOT to become merit source or DT any more than I see any reason for many of those you support in DT being merit sources. Actually less reason.

Also it is laughable to claim these are NOT positions of power and control. It is actually impossible to deny. They have the power to control a persons paid2post and trading capacities on this board. You pretending they are not positions of power just makes you look foolish and more sneaky.

I notice in the h8bussesbicycles thread there was lots of laughing at them saying they do not have the "power" to do anything because they do not have enough merits.... which is true

I say this even though I am not a  pal of QS and he says I'm an unproductive member ( i do not agree obviously) , I don't think he has given me any merits ever (again seems like an oversight) . This is simply a post to demonstrate that your argument seems to demonstrate double standards and that you only want people in positions of power that you know you can force to collude with your group. You must be more honest suchmoon.

NO, that is not a good idea. If we can not have a strict set of criteria for merit allocation or trust positions then you want people that are unlikely to collude at the very least.  

I notice you simply don't like QS and he does not like you that is why you do not want him there. If anything after reading his posts I can see that your critical reasoning is far weaker than his, so if anything he stands a better chance of helping create a real meritocracy. When I meet you in debate I feel comfortable and very relaxed since you have quite a feeble mind once you start pulling it apart and make many mistakes because you are emotional and far from objective.
I am shocked that someone who can say openly in public " that is is incorrect and foolish to believe that some of the 99.87% of the board can make posts as good or better than some of the 0.13%" is allowed to be merit source. I mean if you think about that statement you made it is ludicrous.

I think the reader should be privy to what I consider to be the REAL reasons for you trying to prevent QS being a merit source so that they make an informed decision and then voice their own opinions.

Please realise that if we want a real meritocracy then it matters not who gives the merits, it is only how merit worthy the post is in its own right and how accurate they are at analysing that post for its contribution to the optimal outcome/solution.

Both you and QS don't like cryptohunter so I have no real advantage to QS being merit source myself . However it is only fair the reader gets some background to measure your post against and not take it at face value.

My goal is to reward others who have taken the time to educate themselves about Bitcoin and other topics that I believe are consistent with the forum's values and ideals, and those who can show they have contributed over a period of time. 

I am not going to scam.

The avalanche of negatives does make it difficult now-a-days because many do not have the opportunity to show red flags of a scam attempt (they are tagged before it gets to that point, but there are also a *lot* of false positives, which is harmful to the community and the Bitcoin ecosystem).
I am not going to sell merits -- if I wanted to do this, I would earn them myself -- I have shown the ability to make sufficiently good posts so that I am one of the most merited form members, and this is while not being in a position of authority or power. The majority of the most merited accounts are either staff, DT or a merit source, or a combination of the above.

Here is a fun fact -- I was reviewing the BPIP most merited profiles, and it turns out one of the accounts I sold years ago is actually a merit source, and has earned more merit than me  ;D

In addition to your assertion being explicitly baseless, you are ignoring the fact that I already have an unlimited stash of merits by way of making very good and insightful posts. I think you are biased because I have called you out on your inability to think for yourself, and your tendencies to side with the more powerful in a dispute in an effort to gain additional power yourself.

This is a concern of mine regarding using the merit system to determine who controls the trust system.

I would probably have a somewhat higher standard if I noticed someone shady is making good posts for the first small amount of merit I sent out, however if I noticed a lot of shady people are deserving merit in many instances, I would most likely open a thread with my concerns.

I hope you can improve. I also think you have become so extreme so that you are somewhat discrediting the arguments you are making. 

It is nothing personal. I will try to help you (and anyone else I see struggling) to be a more productive forum member, however I do have limits, and in some cases it may be too late by the time I notice what is going on.

It has basis in your history of lying and sockpuppeting and lying about sockpuppeting, ad nauseum. Also you don't have an unlimited stash of merits and neither do merit sources. If you did we wouldn't have this thread. You want free (obtained without having to work for them) sMerits and I happen to think that you should be at the end of that line.

You still haven't explained what my "powers" are. Can I have one that gives me additional limbs, often run out of them.

Merit is not intended to be traded, and as such, all merit is free. I have not worked for any of the merit I received, nor have I received anything of value for any merit I have sent.

I have sent a total of 413 merit since the merit system was implemented, and those I have sent merit to (and those they sent merit to, and so on) can send a cumulative total of 413 merit, for a total of 826 merit.

In order for someone to get onto DT1, they need votes from people who have received a total of 580 merit, I have already given in excess of enough merit for someone to get onto DT1 if that is what I was wanting to do (it is not).

If you only count the merit I have personally sent, the total merit I have sent enough merit to get an account most of the way onto DT1 if that is what I was attempting (it is not).

The only alt accounts I use for posting are used to post to avoid harassment. I may or may not have used these alt(s) for signature campaigns in the past, or in the future. Yes my alt(s) receive merit, and no, none of the merit is from me directly or indirectly. Yes my alt(s) receive more merit than most people around here. No, you cannot know the identity of my alt(s), although I would tell theymos if he asked, although he can also look for himself -- I have never taken steps to (try to) hide my alts from the administration.

---

I would challenge you to find a post I have given merit to that is not deserving of merit OR was written by someone who can be linked to me. I don't think you can find the former, and know you cannot find the later.

I have a fun suggestion. How about Quickseller agrees that if he is caught using his merit to rank up his own alts, he agrees to be permanently banned from the forum. This is a win win for everyone guys.

You will be assigned to follow him around forum, closely watch merit he sends and dig his alt accounts  :)

---

What's next? QS's DT application?

I don't think someone who was farming accounts to sell them stopped doing this no matter what he says, he is definitely not good choice for merit source. His farming accounts are one of the reasons why we have merit system so no one should reward him.

Quit the mental gymnastics, you know what I mean. If you had unlimited merits you wouldn't need to be a merit source. Nice attempt to have it both ways though. If you're so awesome at earning merits with multiple alts then why don't you work do whatever you're doing with that and don't bother with the merit source application.

And all that bullshit about sockpuppeting... is that supposed to make you more trustworthy / meritworthy? SMH.

Lol, I can agree to that. I would say this should apply to all merit sources ::) although I would not make that a condition of agreeing to this.

You are wrong. The reason we have the merit system is because a certain group of people were leaving negative trust for what they claimed to be poor posts, and the resulting outcry.

I am myself suspicious of people who try to hide their history (https://web.archive.org/web/20171125031436/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=841192)....perhaps they have something to hide :)

There you go, another reason why you shouldn't be merit source.

---

If you want to talk about account zorroback create thread in reputation and maybe one day someone from that account will reply to you.

perhaps you should review my post history and reevaluate your statement. The amount of merit I have should speak for itself. However I have also long been considered to be one of the best posters of the forum. I have received many custom signature deals paying to advertise on my signature well above market rates specifically because of how many people follow my posts because of how insightful they are and how much effort is put into them.

It was the actions by those who were tagging the people who were posting garbage that were harming the forum because after they got tagged they would often abandon their accounts to create a new one. In order to get banned for insubstantial posts, you need to post garbage over a period of time after receiving a number of warnings (such as having posts deleted and or getting publicity called out) — there are sometimes exceptions to the warnings. By essentially forcing people to abandon their accounts, these people were actively preventing the spammers from getting banned.

The other account is you. In addition to the Blockchain evidence, you sent it trust confirming the same and you recently responded to someone on one of your threads as yourself. You deleted the majority of posts the account wrote. There isn’t any reason to open a thread about it because the evidence is there.

What does really a merit source qualifications? If it can allow red trust member to be a merit source then QS is qualified. Besides trust rating is commonly the known its purpose in trading but for now it talks about all the process and works of the forum.

Bitcointalk.org still has to migrate to the new forum and it could be mean that possible trust rating modiFication.

^{[citation needed]}

Perhaps before you became 4th least trusted account on the forum. Recently, not so much: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4910025.0. You've had your "tipping address" signature for months prior to your current signature campaign in the last week or two.

Although I agree that you know what constitutes a good post, and we probably couldn't find anything shady in your merit history (although I haven't had more than cursory glance over it), since the merit system now plays an integral part in DT selection, I can't support a known scammer and self-admitted account farmer being made a merit source.

Very unsafe account for very unsecured connections.


You are not making much sense Quickseller.

Do you have proof it was me who deleted posts? Hah! You don't. Got you there.

Fair enough.

Considered by who?

Pointing fingers? Eh. Now you got me very interested to look at your merit history.

Farming account (http://archive.is/gd2Z7)
Since I am desperately in need of merit so I think I can give you sincerest answers (http://archive.is/OcFu1#selection-4755.0-4755.83) --> first post
farming account (http://archive.is/QRGb1)
farming account (http://archive.is/5H8tT)
farming account (http://archive.is/46Glb)
farming account (http://archive.is/AHfKl)
farming accoun (http://archive.is/TLS1b)

It happens that GreatArkansas (http://archive.is/3bBAw) wear the same Codex signature as alexandria (http://archive.is/mgeRm) which also recently received merits from you.

This pair is better:


Ok, 2 years later:


Lately:



Post, space, link, space, post:


Post, space, link, space, post:



On top of account farming to sell them and escrow scamming, this is just another reason why I don't trust that you will be a good merit source. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying any of these accounts are alt accounts neither I am trying to say that some of them are maybe yours because I would never say such crazy thing without more proofs which I don't have time to search at the moment, I am only sharing my observation from something which is probably just funny coincidence  :)

It sounds like an endorsement to me.

The merit system is designed to award people for making objectively good posts, and not to award people for being trustworthy, or punish those who are not trustworthy. The sole basis for giving out merit should be:
If you are giving merit out (or not giving merit out) because of your personal view towards the person, you are not using the merit system correctly, and have no business being a merit source.

Giving (or withholding, despite being aware of an objectively high quality post) merit because of your personal views towards a person is borderline censorship, and is encouraging people to agree with you, and to write things you agree with.

I would ask that you cite someone who has claimed (credibility) I have either stolen or attempted to steal from them. Knowing you are unable to produce this, I will preemptively demand for a retraction.

I would also point out that have publicly claimed to be a doctor, who is bound by a strict of ethical standards, but you gave what amounts to a medical diagnosis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31713128#msg31713128) (in saying "you have a gambling addiction, and a severe one at that"), while admitting you have not personally examined the person, which is unethical for a doctor to do. I also have circumstantial evidence, and have a belief that your field of practice is well outside of what you were apparently diagnosing.

I also have circumstantial evidence that certain people are both giving merit and using their trust lists in a way that involves a close personal (undisclosed publicly) relationship that would amount to something very similar to giving merit to their own alts, and would probably be viewed by most reasonable people around here as inappropriate, IMO. I don't yet have sufficient evidence to call the person a merit scammer, although I have put very little effort into looking into this, and only stumbled onto this while researching something else.

I would implore you to evaluate your own ethics before you go around judging other people based on incomplete and inaccurate information.

That account does not show up in the modlog in masse, and anyone who has 80%+ of their posts deleted is not going to be allowed to continue posting around here. It was you that deleted the posts.


I don't know what your point is about any of these people.
It is nonsensical to say that someone's entire history should be reviewed before giving merit to someone. I would refer you to the specific posts I merited, and if you have any concerns about those specific posts, I would advise you to voice your concerns. Merit is given for specific posts. If someone previously made crap posts, but has since cleaned up their act, they should receive merit for their good posts.

Further, as of when I reviewed your post the day you wrote it, they all had received merit from multiple reputable people subsequent to when I sent them merit (perhaps with few exceptions), so I am not the only person who believes they are making good posts. I am also not aware that any of these people have been banned for making crap posts. I do not know any of these people, have not done any kind of business with any of these people, nor have had any meaningful communications with any of the people you cited.

If you think I have ever written like any of the posts you cited, I would invite you to review my post history, and would ask you reevaluate your assumption. 

Really? I have never seen such rules and the threshold of 80% deleted posts, beyond that accounts will not be able to post other posts later.
Can you give me source where you get such rules on the maximum allowable deleted posts, please. I even saw some guys deleted all their posts, then demoted from Full Member or Senior Member rank to lower ranks, even Newbies, with merits were not destroyed (those accounts were not nuked). So, the figure you mentioned very strange, at least with my limited understandings.

My concern isn't you giving merit to objectively low quality posts, it's with you using said merit to rank up your alts.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020;dt

I was very deliberate in my wording so as not to state I was making a diagnosis, and it is perfectly ethical to share general expertise and suggestions which do not amount to a diagnosis. I will also freely admit although I have plenty of experience in said field I am not a psychiatrist, not that you need to be one to recognize the symptoms of addiction. I can't tell if your next paragraph is referring to me, but I'm sure everyone would be interested in seeing your evidence of merit scamming.

Yes, yes, I understand this but do you have proof that it was me who deleted posts?

Post video proof of me pressing delete button and removing posts from account zorroback.

Oh no, account seller and escrow scammer is trying to get me on "playing stupid again" card.

Like to quote theymos when it suits you? Well read this:
It doesn't say "have scamming history".

This.

Over and out

The reader should realize that moronbozo is clearly being hypocritical on 2 points . He only requires video evidence when we are examining his own guilt but for others it is just enough to say he believes it to be true.. He is also previously guilty of supporting and including for DT those that have been demonstrated to be clear scammers and liars, and those that are implicated and likely guilty of extortion. The reason should consider all of this back ground information before deciding to take into account his false indignation at QS becoming a merit source. 

^^I would prefer you don’t post in this thread. I don’t have any way of enforcing this other than asking nicely, however I don’t believe you doing so contributes credibility to this thread (although I do also suspect this is your intention).

I would put you in the category of someone who cannot handle any type of criticism, nor can handle being under the spotlight, even marginally. Perhaps you should be willing to be investigated before you go around judging people based on flimsy evidence.




Perhaps you could quote one person who left trust in the link you cited who is claimed I I have stolen or attempted to steal from anyone. Hint: it doesn't exist. Protip - you should retract your statement as it is defamatory and untrue.


You said both "I feel confident suggesting that you have a gambling addiction" and "Please, seek help"....not ~please be evaluated...~ or ~please see your doctor~....I cannot see any way this could possibly be anything but a diagnosis. 

---

I have stated above that I will not do this (multiple times), and that my being a merit source is not necessary for me to do this because of my ability to create good posts.....

Great this application was granted. I wasn't expecting it when @Quickseller noticed my post as a newbie and merited it (4merits) amidst some attacks. I appreciate.
Not forgetting 4 merits from @Ognasty after signing a message, then consecutive 2 from @The Pharmacist. These personalities made my newbie, then uncountable came my way. I am grateful!

Im glad I was able to use merit to create a positive experience for you and to grow the forum community. Your feedback is appreciated.