On the other hand, look at my posts... i am ALWAYS trying to help but i will NEVER make Sr. Member just because newbies that need help don't give merit.
ok so I looked, your posts aren't shit - but they are short, and you aren't posting in places that a lot of merit is handed out - saying that, i do think you are one of the unfortunates with the merit system - next time i get topped up ill hook you up fella Thanks for pointing this out. Djhomeschool indeed isn't a spammer, and thus shouldn't be restricted by the Merit system. I took the lazy path of meriting his posts have have been merited before. Did it once but i'm not going to post there every time i try to help out a newbie, i would be posting there a few tomes a day  I don't see your post there (did I delete it?). Feel free to post good posts there. That's what the thread is for. You can also start meriting good posts on your own, you have a few sMerits by now, pay it forward to posts that deserve it. Make those Newbies have some sMerit to give too  |
|
|
|
How does this happen? I never registered for this bounty campaign and now my account is listed on the spreadsheet. There may be others. You may want to see if your account appears as registered for this campaign. This really pisses me off. I don't think my account was hacked though. This has been happening for a very long time, and has nothing to do with your account. It could easily be prevented, for instance by setting up Google Docs to scrape the addy from the Location field in your profile. I've been playing around with that a while back, but didn't get it working exactly how I wanted. There's also no need at all to post a Bitcointalk username if the bounty has nothing to do with this forum. They could just as well omit the username and only let them only spam their Telegram. This mostly happens with bounties who managers do not emphasize proof of authentication "Proof of authentication" is some sort of legalized bumping spam. It goes directly against the forum rules: 1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e] But without this bumping spam, bounty threads quickly disappear from the first page and don't get the participants they want. There's absolutely no need to spam the same address in many different threads, that's what a profile page is for. It's very easy to scrape that and stop all account-abuse. But that requires a bounty manager who cares, which won't happen as long as they earn more from spamming more. I'm just hoping this person doesn't use the same token address and/or telegram address and register for a signature campaign and start posting bullshit. I don't want my account linked to some bounty cheater's account. I wonder why they picked little old me? I wonder if I should actually be flattered.  Don't flatter yourself, it's either a bot or an idiot  |
|
|
|
loyceV, I saw you tagged by other people to join telegram campaign That's what happens when an incompetent campaign manager doesn't care about doing his job. It's easy to prevent, but that would mean more work and less applications. |
|
|
|
I'll leave my opinion on Yobit aside, but I don't think it's a sound precedent to outright ban particular campaigns or signatures. It could have been handled on an individual basis, with spammers being banned. This is exactly what the Signature Campaign Guidelines warn for. It's not the forum's job to look after a signature campaign, they should have hired someone to do this. Banning their signature is a punishment to YoBit, and sets an example for others. I think this is exactly what this forum needed The question is will there be some legit campaign manager who will accept their sig campaign? Maybe most of this campaign managers will be hesitant as to whatever may happen to their service. That's why I suggested Atriz to apply: his reputation is red already, but he is a good campaign manager. |
|
|
|
When someone gives you negative trust without valid reason then what does that mean you are a scammer? No, it means someone just disqualified himself from ever deserving a position on DT. If you don't value someone's sent feedback, you can exclude him from your Trust list. I recently got red trust from someone. I left him neutral trust explaining it, and mentioned it in my reputation thread because I was curious why he left it. I'll never know, because he was banned the same day. If you are not a scammer then how you will react, you will keep silence? If you keep silence then what will happen, You agreed with the feedback which you received? This was actually the reason why I created my reputation thread last year, and there's some discussion about it. This was my conclusion at the time: I kinda want to leave red trust in response, but it doesn't feel right to (ab)use DT-powers to do so. On the other hand, I obviously don't trust someone who leaves me random red trust without any reference link.
So, I'll leave this question for the community: what to do? This question has been answered ("do nothing"), thanks!
And there's this from theymos: All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. My personal opinion: using DT-power to retaliate is bad. When you're on DT, you should just be the bigger man. Who cares what someone on the internet says about you |
|
|
|
Input*180 + output*34 + 10 plus or minus input
Say, input is 2 and output is to 3 address. The size is-
2*180 + 3*34 + 10 + or - 2 = 470/456 bytes. There's a much easier solution: use https://coinb.in/#fees, and in a few clicks you get the size including a recommended fee for a fast transaction. Note that most transactions don't need to be fast. |
|
|
|
It's sorted based on the highest ranked oldest? DT1's trust list in which they appear. The DT1s are sorted based on account age.
The first 34 entries are all included on theymos' trust list. The next 32 (from 35 - 66) are on gmaxwell's trust list. The next 17 (67 - 83) are on phantastisch's trust list. And so on. It obviously doesn't display duplicates. It also doesn't matter if a user is trusted or distrusted by the DT1 member in question - if they are anywhere on their trust list, they will be grouped under that user. For example, Gavin Andresen is number 36, under gmaxwell's group, despite being excluded by gmaxwell. Thanks, I hadn't looked into it, but this makes a lot of sense. I'll quote you in the OP. I edited your quote, do you agree?In short, it's most likely just the way LoyceV's script collected the data. It's totally arbitrary and means nothing. Correct, I wrote that in the OP: I used the same order as used on Trust settings, I'm not sure what it's based on. - In my opinion, a threshold at 25 merit over last year is minimum one to judge quality of DT2 member. The threshold should be higher, 50 or 100. I would prefer to choose the threshold at 100 earned merits. This is too high considering the threshold for DT1 is only 10 merit. I think either 10 for both, or perhaps 25 or 50 for DT1 and 10 for DT2 would be reasonable. I'd say 2 inclusions from DT2 would help a lot. DT1 needs at least 10 votes from users with earned Merit, so 2 votes from DT1 isn't that much to ask for. - It might be good if you can make a list of only DT2 member whom did not earn a signed merit so far, rather than a mixture like current list. It is ridiculous when a real DT2 member has not been able to earn a single merit so far, especially if still being actively in the forum last year. Wait for it......... |
|
|
|
On a semi-unrelated note, do mods delete 'spam' in off-topic? If so, do short and pointless posts count as spam? From what I've seen: yes they delete it, and yes pointless posts are against the rules. |
|
|
|
Well, this should be enough or not? If theymos really forced OG to remove Laudas tagg
He did not. Case closed Theymos can remove any feedback he wants, he doesn't need anyone's permission to moderate trust. But theymos believes in decentralization, so why would he? With my custom Trust list, theymos himself has red trust from Xian01. This user is not on DT, so most people won't see it. I love how Admin here gives anyone the possibility to speak his mind, even if it's against him. |
|
|
|
Can you guess what it may be? Something like: 1000000000000000000000000000000000...............000000000000000000000000000000 000a |
|
|
|
You don't just dish out negs every time you feel emotional otherwise what you are trying to fight for will no longer look credible to the members. I'm just leaving this here: Forgiveness and de-escalation are key to getting Trust working smoothly:
- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
- De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.
This is wat neutral feedback is meant for. And I mean that both ways LoyceClubArchive https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=841288 > Archived: http://loyce.club/archive/trust_841288_2019-05-05_Sun_21.06h.html |
|
|
|
The OP still has links to your old URL.... I think that could be changed? Thanks, it's fixed now. |
|
|
|
Both you and loyceV data are wrong. Unlikely This data is based on Merit data dumps up until last Friday. See your Full Merit history. You've received 6 Merit on Friday, which will be included in next week's data dump. Airdropped Merit doesn't count for this topic. Add everything together, and you're at 442 again. |
|
|
|
Do you feel the system works better now rather than the old way? I feel like it caused a lot more drama with the power-fights. It also "inflated" trust: users got either a lot more green, or a lot more red. I agree with all of this, but instead of having the 100 "randomly" selected they should be selected based on the criteria used in Loyce's DT "Rank Up Pipeline." Maybe have the selection based on "who fits into DT1 the most" rather than relying on random elements. I expect theymos to use a combination of randomness and votes. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;suggest for example: my name shows up most of the time (refresh the page a few times), but not always. There are a bunch of good DT2 users who I don't think we would want to lose by setting default depth to 1, but I would agree to setting a much lower cap on DT1 users coupled with stricter requirements as above. An easy and effective restriction would be to require 2 ( my suggestion) or 3 ( LFC_Bitcoin's suggestion) inclusions from DT1 to be on DT2. That takes away the responsibility from just one person, and prevent users from directly influencing their own trust score. |
|
|
|
if someone new posts like these shitty nonsense,they would get banned Let's see, TMAN's first time to use these words: fudge a clusterfuck half fucked fuck it It's really like he was slowly building up to reach his full potential It didn't take him long when he was a Newbie. idiots will deny spreading shit 5 major kinds of retardation roll this bitch put the Tampon away Later on, the poetry evolved: Night night princess charge all the Pajeets $300 Mr Cryptocunt |
|
|
|
* I am not sure what's wrong with update from LoyceV (tried editing few times, but it does not work, so this week I have to split the club of above 250 merits-earned into two posts. Sorry for the inconvenience. See [ table] limits on Bitcointalk (?) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
