Bitcoin Forum

I am taking a quick survey:

Who thinks those who have requested they be removed permanently of their DT1 status should also be removed as Merit Sources?

The three voting choices are as follows:

• Yes, removed as Merit Sources if they request permanent removal of DT1 ranking
• Not sure - something needs to change.
• No - the merit sources should stay as is.

Discussions welcome as are votes.

One vote per user - you can change your vote as and when you feel like it.

---

---

This survey is to get a feel for other users' thoughts - I have no idea who is actually a merit source given @theymos does not appear to advertise such information ^{(and we only have anecdotal information to support any theories who they are)}.  But, given others are calling for change in the DT1 ranks - perhaps now is the time to examine who is a merit source and as the poll asks, should they be merit sources if they do not want to carry the mantle of the rank of DT1.

I voted "No - the merit sources should stay as it is"

I honestly do not see the correlation between both, besides being volunteer positions (especially merit sources) that users do not get any benefit from. Being a merit source does not come with extra benefit or obligation besides taking your time to find and merit deserving posts, and stay away from dubious merit activities.

Merit sources do not have to carry the mantle of Default trust and shouldn't if they don't feel up to it or interested.

---

The topic title already gave away a prejudiced view from you

Thanks for voting - I appreciate it.


I believe most merit sources don't actually go looking for meritorious posts, rather they gift them amongst other DT1 or Merit Sources with feeble stories of some sort of Trickle Down Effect to the lower ranks.

Most Merit Sources were anointed originally while others have campaigned to be given their rolls.

If you don't know who merit sources are, how do you know how "most" of them act?

Your views could of course be correct and there could be a sort of merit back scratching among sources, but I do not still get the correlation to default trust and a users decision to want to be excluded from it.
No system is perfect, but if you believe the merit source make up is flawed and abused, you can make an argument against that directly.

This is my vote (too). The drama about Trust is one thing, meriting posts that deserve it is another thing. Yes, sometimes people merit posts expressing views on the trust system, and yes, people tend to merit the posts expressing views similar to their own instead of good posts, still, the merit system is imho in a much better shape now that it was 1 year ago (just a random date in the past) and I don't want to risk making it worse (we do need the merit sources).

And back to the Trust system, that one may need improvements. People removing themselves from DT1 or clearing their trust lists are just a symptom of all that. And those are valid choices; people should not be punished for that.

---

Edit:

I don't agree with OP, still, I find it a valid question. Not really worthy for a poll, still, a valid question.

I'll be honest, I was also struggling to see the correlation between the two. However, I guess there's one point to be made. If a user isn't trusted in the first place, do we trust them to distribute merit appropriately? I guess that's the only major question I can see from this. However, if you're trusted, and you've just asked the community to not include you in their trust lists, I'm not entirely sure why that would effect their judgement on being merit sources. If theymos has a problem, he will, and has removed merit sources.

I also voted no for the time being, unless I'm missing the point here. Feel free to enlighten me.

I will choose that merit source should be left alone regardless of being among DT1 or not, but this may not be perfectly answered because if DT system is regarded to be flawed, so thus merit system. I wonder why they want theymos to make some changes to DT while not complaining some changes for merit source. I expect merit system to be more decentralized than theymos packing most smerits to just few people. Both are not perfect but both are helping, nothing should change is what I think.

There isn't any correlation, but Timelord2067 has been known to exhibit a weird form of pareidolia when it comes to forum-related associations, so maybe DT and merit sources being lumped in together is an extension of that.  No offense, Timelord2067; I know I'm not the only one who's noticed that trait, nor am I the first to have mentioned it in a thread.

So who are these members who are demanding to be removed from DT?  I've read about people clearing their trust lists (which I've recently done), but aside from marlboroza a while back I haven't seen any such demands.  Could have missed it, though.

In any case, I wouldn't even care if a DT member-merit source got booted from the DT list by the community.  As long as they're handing out merits appropriately and not abusing the system, they should stay merit sources.  Think about how many sources we have now and how long it takes for members to rank up.  If you started removing sources simply because they wanted off the DT list, it'd throw a monkey wrench in the merit machine that might be hard to fix.

As I explained, anecdotally we can deduce who the various merit sources are (some have identified themselves in various threads discussing meriting/merit source applications etc)...

From those we can deduce are Merit Sources, my conclusions are based on my observations of their behaviour.


Well ... are there any DT2 merit sources that have *never* been DT1 ?  i.e. they have been voted up by a DT1 member/s rather than being appointed via the monthly lottery?


I believe that's what my survey is attempting to do.

I never said it was not a valid question. But the use of the word "Lemmings" in the title already shows a prejudiced view.

No, your survey is not arguing about a flaw in the merit system. It's rather about whether volunteer merit sources should have the freedom to opt out of another volunteer position in the forum

Instead of personal remarks against myself, do you have any suggestions of substance?

---

---

I find shock and awe gets a reaction where a less forthright comment gets no reactions.


I'm not suggesting they have the option to opt out of being a Merit Source should they request they be removed from the DT1 lottery, I'm suggesting it ^{(being a merit source)} be taken away from them.

If merit transactions are still loosely monitored by the forum (and the admin team when made aware), would there be a reason to do this?

If there's been a system change where being dt1 automatically makes you a merit source and I've missed that then that'd be different but I think the two accolades should stand on their own as much as possible.

Have people given reasons for withdrawing from dt1 (surely you could just not participate if you didn't want the drama)? If there were cases of this and it become more evident there were reasons that conflicted with the user being a merit source afterwards then it'd probably be a good idea (done individually) but merits might be recognised more than trust so a dt1 member and merit source i could see stepping down from both at the same time if they didn't want the pressure of the trust system.

I'm sure most will understand that I'm not proposing a DT1 member automatically be anointed as a merit source and that role be taken away as a part of the monthly lottery.  (We'd have the reverse - more members clamouring to be a part of the DT1 lottery)

I feel that to be appointed a merit source one of the stipulations should be that you are at the very least a DT1 member.  So, it would stand to reason that if you request to be removed as a DT1 member, then you are in effect relinquishing your right to have the roll of merit source assigned to you.

I would be keen to read @theymos' thoughts on this (and the overarching DT1 "issue" that is occurring in some quarters).

DT1 and merit source are completely different, a DT1 member have a power to join the vote of DT system which is about feedback relation while merit source have a power to give many merits that deserve to get merited which is about rank relation. I don't see any reason why DT1 and merit source should be combined, does all DT1 is a merit sources? AFAIK it's no (CMIIW)

If he's become DT2 and still become a good merit source, then he's good.

So my vote is no.

Archived for future reference: [1a (https://ninjastic.space/post/60763201)]


That's the best counter suggestion you can come up with?

Voting no. Similar to what I have said in the past. Trust should have nothing to do with feedback. So in this case DT status should have nothing to do with being a merit source.
There are probably some merit sources in some local boards that will never be off DT2 if they are even there because there is just not enough traction to get them to DT1

With that being said, I am off DT1 lottery at the moment and am not a merit source so if I was yes to both I might feel differently, but I don't think I would.

-Dave

Do the police hand out degrees?

It took a lot of years for theymos to come up with the trust system we have now (and at least 3 s systems have been implemented already, 2 being trashed).

A merit source is there to find posts that contribute effectively to the forum and actively read and take part in a large amount of discussion. A trusted member has built trust with other users (in most cases) which is an achievement but may come to the forum with different interests than that of a merit source.


Theymos' idea of the merit system is similar to that of the report to moderator system (I say that because it's easier to find the report to moderator quote): "Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports." they had a similar rhetoric for the merit system when that was first out too.

As other users have stated, there is no correlation between a merit source and a DT position. They are both distinct and functions independently of each other and as such, it should be exclusive to what actions or inactions that could result from the stands of either.

Users might choose to be vote out of DT or be removed as a merit source whol they uphold the other. It's entirely an idea of choice and if we are to be true to ourselves, having to choose is a critical part of cryptocurrency and being able to express it makes us even more stronger.
Them getting to choose where they could perform best is a good for the forum and having that influenced by an exclusively distinct function doesn't make a lot of sense.

I count only two or three who've gone down the path of actually requesting to be removed from DT1 while around four or five (if I'm reading BPIP correctly) have taken the soft approach of removing their DT trust lists - for the time being - effectively removing themselves, but not actually being removed point blank from the system.

---

---

Perhaps if they did we'd have less fatalities on the roads.

I saw a drama in Reputation about DT, I took an example from the topic @yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409300.0), there I can draw one conclusion, indeed what @yahoo62278 said is true and also I saw other members complaining about DT.

In my opinion, they don't blame and don't ask for the two SURVEYS below to be removed.

They're just tired of drama, all they want is:

Myself included, also suggesting the above, changes, I don't think the removal of DT and Source merit is victimized in all the drama.

If this is a criteria for Theymos to select merit sources, then you would have been correct when you say if a member stops being DT1 they should also relinquish their merit source position, but i have read the thread on the requirement if a member wants to be a merit source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.0) and theymos didn't stipulate that you must be on DT1 rank to be a merit source, so other than those that said Theymos sent them a personal message to be a source of merit, the requirements for those applying is:

---

If Theymos agrees that in his hidden criteria to be appointed merit source you should be on DT1, then i think many people will agree with you, myself too. In my opinion the only reason why a merit source should be removed is if they are hoarding merits for a long period of time.

I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.

These are two sensitive positions that I would classify as "volunteer" because there is no monetary compensation. And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position. A user who lacks good judgment when providing feedback may also lack good judgment when dealing with merits.

Someone who has the ability to manipulate his DT position should not be given/allowed to remain as a merit source.

A biased person will always be biased.People don't change power only brings out the true color of everyone..

Your post is redundant as you quote me in saying:


That is my opinion.  All you did was quote what is in place, but offered no alternatives.

---

---

I appreciate the vote!  It looks like you and I are not the only ones who think the two rankings are indeed intertwined.  Merit Sources are in fact laying the foundations for those who want to be DT1 by giving them the merits they require to be DT1 in a portion of 250/10 split merits.

---

---

Vote now!

Have your say!

I'd argue that only one of those things is a position--the merit source "job".  DT members aren't expected to do anything whatsoever, aside from continuing to leave accurate feedback and basically being honest in their dealings on and off the forum (wasn't there a DT member who was removed because he was sent to jail for credit card fraud?  I can't remember his name, but it was a couple of years ago).  But if you're picked to be a merit source, it's expected that you're going to actively distribute merits, be fair, and not abuse or misuse the system.  If you don't give out any merits, I'm pretty sure Theymos would remove you--therefore, unlike being a DT member, you can't just do nothing.

I don't agree with that at all.  There are plenty of trustworthy members who aren't on DT, and there were even more before Theymos changed DT to a rotating system.  Aside from that, someone just has to demonstrate that they have an interest in keeping the merit system running smoothly and can show they have a good eye for quality posts.  There's no need whatsoever for a potential merit source to be on DT.

If the person requested to be removed from DT1 then more than likely they were trusted enough to be in DT1 to begin with.

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT but that's not what the OP is after for obvious reasons.

Thanks for stopping by.


The DT1 members who have requested to be removed from DT1 are indeed excluded Q.E.D.

Feel free to expand on your vague comments and don't forget to vote in the survey.

I know you love redefining commonly used / common sense words and phrases but no, they are not excluded in how this is understood by most users (~ in the trust list). They are merely removed from consideration for DT1. Most (if not all) remain in DT2, which also confirms that they are not excluded.

Interesting response.

As far as I've seen recently, only one DT1 member recently requested to be removed, others are simply no longer eligible because they don't have trust list inclusions anymore. No request made.

Suchmoon provides an interesting response because there's clearly a difference between being eligible and being excluded. Let's check with Google definitions shall we.

 

Having to include definitions of relatively basic concepts here to highlight the clear difference is somewhat embarrassing I know, but somewhat required it seems.

Which is what I tried touching upon with my reply. If that was the case, I'd say you might have a case. Although, ultimately its down to theymos, and therefore theymos is the one that has the review the trust exclusions or trust ratings left on a user, and make their own decision.

Willing fully requesting to be removed from the trust system or opting to clear your trust list as a protest, I don't see as connected with how trustworthy a user is, and therefore shouldn't effect their merit distribution.

You are correct, but I was referring to those who were kicked out of DT for whatever reason and continue to hold merit source positions. I mean, I wouldn't trust such a user to distribute merits effectively; it takes someone trustworthy and unattached in his dealings to distribute effectively.

I can't argue with you more, but I've yet to see a non-DT member appointed as a merit source; I believe some of the newly appointed merit sources were handpicked from DT1 by theymos, and I know 2-3 people who didn't apply but were appointed.


Isn't that the point of the thread? I mean, I based my vote and opinion on users who were excluded or kicked out of DT, not on those who left on their own.

No.  You couldn't have read the OP very carefully:


Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status (likely because of all the drama caused by users just like Timelord2067).  So now Timelord2067, because they are a vindictive and petulant child, wants to have their merit source status revoked as well.  Despite the part where most of these users are considered valuable contributors to the forum.

I had too much cheese let's say I skipped!!  ;D

He's not the only one who has issues with other users, so why would you say he's the main reason for some DT1 members boycotting the system? BTW, it's a pool, and he's not the only one who voted. Yes! I believe the whole DT squabble began with the recent reputation drama, and Timelord2067 was not even a part of it. Saying he is the cause of the entire drama is an unfair judgment lol. You're overstating things..

The two of you are crazy.

Detached from reality.

Wanting to see the world in a way that it is not, and a way that you wished that it were.


 :D :D :D :D :D :D



Most of the time, I try not to get very much involved in the various interpersonal battles, yet inevitably there may be some needs to attempt to follow some of the matters in order to attempt to understand some of the context for various claims that members are making in regards to the conduct of other members or some of the changes in forum rules/practices that they might be suggestion to potentially be  solutions to the various problems that they perceive to be happening.

Over the years, I have had some mixed interpretations of some of the issues set forth by Timelord, and surely sometimes he brings up decent points and/or frames some of the subject matters in ways that are worthy of consideration and even might be ideas that no one else is raising and should be considered.. This framing of the merit source versus DT1 matter surely is not even close to one of the times that seem to be worthy of considering based on the way that Timelord is framing the topic.  

As almost all opposition responses have pointed out, Timelord's whole premise seems to be off since the DT system has different underlying goals as compared with the merit system, even though if we were to draw a Venn diagram with two topics like the one on the left below, we would likely see that there can be some overlap too (the A & B portion), but the mere fact that there is some overlap does not mean that they are the same thing in the majority of circumstances as Timelord seems to be wanting to imply with the way that he is presenting the topic in this thread.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-svg/VennDiagram_900.svg

I hope I am not late with the vote. So, let's cut to the chase and my vote is No - the merit sources should stay as is.

In my own opinio, I don't think that it is right solution/idea to also remove your role as a merit source when you want to be removed from being a DT member. To become a merit source, you must first complete the task (Applying for merit source thread) needed before you become a merit source and it is to be decided if you are to become a merit source or not. To become a DT1, you don't need an applying to become a DT1 member thread as you guys know that it is about Trust system.

You can't really know if someone requested it or not unless they announce it but that makes no difference in this context. Removing one's trust list has essentially the same result (with regards to DT1), just without sending a PM to theymos and delayed until the end of the month.


Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust


Anything else is muddying the water for no good reason.

You just contradicted yourself.

As you yourself quote, exclusion from your own trust network - not everyone else's.

---

---

No. No I don't.

---

---

Try to stay focused on the discussion instead of personal attacks, please.

There is no contradiction.

If one requests theymos to be blacklisted (made ineligible) from DT1, that has nothing to do with being excluded as per trust system settings above. "Excluded" in the trust system context would mean other users excluding that person via their trust lists. You should know because you are excluded. That's not what happens when theymos blacklists (or the user clears their trust list).

i.e. user voluntarily making themselves ineligible for DT1 does not mean excluded, or untrustworthy, or not good enough to be a merit source.

Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.  So, why should we trust them to dispense merits?

What's their end-game?

I think that this is incorrect. Because if one cannot be trusted, then he's basically a scammer. I don't think anybody wants to be seen as a scammer.
Imho one who has requested to be removed from DT wants to stay away of the DT/trust drama. That's all. (I am very new in DT and I may be more aware than the long timers on the pressure that comes with being part of DT, especially DT1)

And based on this logic, since it's not a scammer, he can still give out merits impartially, nothing stops him from doing that. And merits don't come with the same amount of drama like DT.

What makes you think it's a requirement to "go looking" for posts? I'm a Merit source, and I read what I want to read. If that's worth receiving Merit, I Merit it. On rare occasions, I check someone's post history to see if I can dump more Merit, but nobody should expect me to read topics I'm not interested in.

FWIW: people have also requested to be removed as Merit source. It has nothing to do with being on DT1.

Look what you did! Now you got yourself an Untrusted neutral feedback diary entry from Timelord2067 too :D
Does this post make me get another one? I only have 2, so 3 more to go!

First: this is about users who requested to be blacklisted from DT1. That doesn't mean the community doesn't trust them, quite the contrary.
Second: I'm curious if you can show a few examples of non-DT1 Merit sources who you believe Merit bad posts.

No, they don't want to be able to create DT2-members and the drama that comes with self-scratching (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407909.0).

Hard to really say without actually knowing how we're referring too, but there's plenty of reasons why someone might not want to be on DefaultTrust, including one which has already been mentioned; drama. While not all DefaultTrust participate in the drama, there's plenty that do get sucked into it. However, aside from that there's the extra scrutiny of leaving trust feedback, they might not want to be held as accountable, since whatever a DefaultTrust does can effectively have a larger impact than a user that isn't on DefaultTrust, I can see how that would worry some users.

The thing is, I bet you don't trust a lot of DefaultTrust, while another user might trust all of them. I myself, have found respect, and would trust certain users that aren't on DefaultTrust, so it's swings in roundabouts. DefaultTrust doesn't automatically qualify as trustworthy for everyone, same as not being on it, especially if it's self elected.

Yes I see your point, blacklisting is a much better term to describe this, noted. I got the impression Timelord2067 was referring to being excluded in this context (blacklisting), but who knows at this point.


Blacklisting is a form of exclusion in the generic context, this would be where the confusion lies rather than contradiction. But really at this point this argument is based on semantics.


Someone who either requests to be removed from DT1 eligibility (blacklisted) or otherwise removes their trust list inclusions (in order to become ineligible) is not saying they don't want to be trusted, but only that they don't trust the system at most (unless you're like eddie13 and simply too lazy to recreate one). Some would argue it makes them a more trustworthy DT member, as one without desire for power of influence:


Overall this survey/proposal is completely ridiculous, as the results show. The suggestion is that DT(2) members who don't trust the system shouldn't be trusted, or be merit sources. If anything they'll be in a better position to be distributing merit as they won't be wasting their time with DT drama such as this nonsense thread as well as others, so should have more time to find merit worthy posts ironically.

No, that's not what they're saying, not all of them anyway. They're saying they don't want to be part of default trust level 1 and seeing the mental gymnastics in this thread it's not difficult to understand why.

Besides trust is expressed by other users; "wanting" to be trusted or not doesn't mean much. For example if I said "I want to be trusted" that doesn't mean I would be. Similarly some users who wanted to be excluded (marlboroza had an appeal like that a while ago) didn't get their wish because other users still trusted their judgement.


This isn't a game. Or - if it is for you - maybe some people don't want to participate.

I'll vote for NO!
There are some users here in forum who are member of DT1 and also they are merit source but as we all know that DT members has a different obligation by the merit source because as we all know that merits source has an obligations to give  merits to those merit worthy post or reply. And also in short DT members is for trust feed back purposes.

I hadn't said there were not the least of which I'm not employed to verify merit sources who are for the most part unnamed.  That's part of the issue - there are no checks or balances for those appointed to the role.


Yeh, there's circumstantial evidence a current Staff member is doing that Dabs thing...

... and it isn't Welsh ...

---

---

Hardly surprising given in just this thread I've been called all kinds of things (crazy etc) simply for asking people's opinions all the while I'm engaging in respectfully responding to questions put to me.

---

---

It's a survey, not a proposal.

Nothing more.

Don't forget to vote.

A few merit sources have been removed for abuse/misuse of the merit system. Everyone of us can do "checks and balances", i.e. report abuse to theymos and he does sometimes remove merit sources. Tying merit source positions to being in DT1 makes no sense and solves nothing.

Thanks for bumping this thread by repeating your view from earlier.

I voted for the 3rd option because I don't see much correlation between merit and trust. Though,  majority of the merit sources are members of DT.
Decentralizing the DT by making it possible for everyone's vote to count in the DT is already a big win for the whole forum.

What I would say is that if anyone is removed from DT due to abuse of it and it is confirmed that the person is a merit source, he should also be removed from being a merit source. This is because if one can play the trust system, he could also play the merit system.

Thank you for answering my question - I do appreciate it.  It's insightful and shows a different point of view.  Approx 30% of respondents don't agree with your answer and have responded accordingly.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobae399e7f90cf7289.jpeg

I asked a question and you gave an answer.

Thank you.

---

---

This should never be allowed to happen:

I asked a question and have been verbally attacked and then the person has then gone on to DT distrust me.  I have never interacted with this person prior to this thread.

https://ninjastic.space/post/60776729


https://loyce.club/trust/2022-08-20_Sat_05.08h/131361.html

---

---

Actually no @DooMAD, I don't have a beef with anyone - I asked what people's views on a subject were and they responded respectfully and I have replied to their questions with my views in a likewise respectful manor and the conversation has progressed.

Nothing more.

Since when has interaction been a prerequisite for distrust?  I've never interacted with Faketoshi, but I can still tell they're a skeezy sack of crap.  You've been on my radar for a while and this topic has convinced me that your motives are suspect and you're attempting to manipulate DT and merit to your own ends.  As such, I don't trust your judgement.  It's as simple as that.



No one should be allowed to form a negative opinion of you based on your words and actions?  It's called "consequence".  I'm afraid you have to learn to live with it.

Perhaps instead of relying on the voices in your head whispering narratives about me, you read my words I've said here.


... and ...

Are you being serious or just trolling right now? I'm sorry but I really can't stand misrepresentation of statistics, it's disrespectful to the data and it's participants.

Only 16.7% have said Yes to your poll, therefore disagreeing with the 3rd option. The 2nd option is "not sure", and doesn't support the 1st nor the 3rd option, despite your interpretation of it. Even with 12.5% saying "something needs to change" it doesn't mean they support the proposal, it could mean they think something completely different should change, otherwise they would have voted for the 1st option.

Please just accept 16.7% agree with you, not 30%. Next time, maybe try avoid having contradictory answers like "not sure / something needs to change" in the same poll option to avoid this misinterpretation.

I never said 30% agree with me - rather what I said was approx 30% of respondents disagree with the person I was responding to.

Please refrain from pushing your view in such a biased manor.

When it involves data and statistics, it's always explicit and yet confusing. He didn't surely get what you said and because of how you composed your English, or rather his preconception.
Actually as of when I responded to the poll, 16.7% + 12.5% which is approximately 30% of people that participated disagreed with me.

That's your personal opinion. If I trust you based on our trading history or your conduct on the forum, it matters very little to me if you are DT or not, or if you are a merit source or not. I don't see why my opinion about User X should change because he no longer wants to be on a forum trust list. It's still the same person who was there last week. And now all of a sudden he isn't trustworthy and shouldn't be allowed to distribute merits as a source either? Sorry, but no.

I voted with NO, just because I never seen a Merit Selling DT1 tagged and stripped from this trust powers  and still being a Merit Source. Maybe I missed someone?

Trust and judgment over quality of the posts have no crossing lines.

Thanks for voting - I appreciate it.


I hadn't refereed to a specific case such as being striped because of merit selling (you would imagine they would have their merit source capabilities removed if that were the case)

What I was talking about was those who have *requested* they be removed from DT1 then also be removed as merit sources.

But why?
Here is an example: I remove myself from the DT as matter of protest against what was happening between Lauda and Theymos back in the day. I didn't like the war between them two and didn't want to pick a side. It was too much drama which wasn't on my taste. That aside, I kept giving merit to people, and kept browsing the forum, If I was a merit source back them this suggestion will quite reduce my ability to be beneficial to the forum.
The political games have nothing to do with the posting quality and people ranking up. I see no connection there, sorry.

It would probably help if the topic title wasn't about cute little rodents.

Had to Google the reference, but think it's more likely this meaning of lemming rather than the rodent:


Which is ironic, as remembering the game Lemmings (absolute classic), there are always some lemmings that lead the way differently. Doesn't always lead to destruction.

My sarcasm was lost on you :(

It makes no sense to criticize those who disagree with you because their opinions do not affect your own. It's a vote, and people's opinions vary depending on how they perceive and comprehend the situation.

---

https://i.imgur.com/Cxu3drg.png

We could argue that 54 participants are insufficient to draw conclusions about or decide the fate of 3 million forum users, but 70% is far too much. It has been more than a week and nothing has changed yet. I don't think anything would change even if the pool ran for a year.

My responsive comment was sufficiently backed up, so it does make sense. 

In this case, crazy relates to mostly bad conclusions and bad logic, but sometimes crazy might also relate to wrong understandings of the facts, which it seems that most of the facts are sufficiently understood.. even if some of the facts might be being weighed differently.. for example, it could be argued that you and Timelord believe that the merit system and the trust system is the same thing, and that was part of the reason why I provided the Venn diagram in my subsequent response (within the same post) in order to show that there could be some shared ideas yet the interpretation of the weight of those ideas goes into different directions, in which I am characterizing both yours and Timelord's interpretations of facts through logic and conclusions reached to be crazy.. and the easier (short-hand) way to say that is just to refer to both of you as crazy.... even though it really remains an attack on your ideas not about either of you as a person.. .because maybe each of you are not actually crazy?  perhaps?  there's a chance.

I didn't attach any emotions to my statement, and I don't care what you think of me as a person or whether you agree with my vote or not. BTW, there were 8 members who voted for the first option, but you chose to call out only Timelord2067 and I.


Well, the DT and Merit systems are not the same, but being on DT most of the time automatically qualifies you to become a merit source because anyone on DT is trusted enough to do the right thing, so yeah, both systems aren't the same, but they benefit each other..

In my original response, Timelord responded to your post, so my responsive post was only addressing the two of you.  Perhaps I could rethink my comment to include the other 6 as well?  hahahaha.. but it might not be as good since I am not sure about who those other six might be, and it really seems like a waste of time.. since I already made my comment and my comment was sufficiently fair and backed up, like I already mentioned.


I did not see any source for your comment in which theymos chooses merit sources based on their being trusted or a part of DT.. He did make some comments about his wanting to have merit sources to be fairly well established in the community.. but   really he has discretion regarding the criteria to employ for merit sources, and even if theymos might want to get away from centralized aspects of forum systems - there are likely some difficulties in terms of tweaking any of the systems from time to time.. including the seeming infrequencies that he had made changes to the merit source members, and sure there might be some overlap like I already recognized that point. 

It seems that we are starting to repeat ourselves.. or at least I feel that my comments have already been made and already stand, so I don't really have anything further to add in the direction of the comments that I already made.. even though you seem to want to get me to change my comments and to proclaim that you and/or Timelord are not crazy or that you and/or Timelord are no longer crazy.. hahahahaha  I don't have enough information to change what I had already observed in that direction.   :P :P :P

I've got not problem with you calling me crazy for having a different opinion on any given matter.

We express our own thoughts and are respectful of the others' judgement.

---

---

Other users who are critical have been belidgerant towards us.

That I don't approve of as it's not voicing an opinion whilst respecting the other person's views.

---

---

... And you're right, most people should have cast a vote or voiced an opinion by now.

Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Looks as though one person has changed their mind about jumping off of the cliff:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/15/blob5fbd3b33b2fd1fed.jpeg

Voting still open - vote now.