I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.
Why do they don't own a vote ? I can think of a reason: the account farmers from before the Merit system shouldn't be able to use those accounts for voting power. 2 more videos of that low quality and he will be a DT1 Receiving Merit alone doesn't put him on DT1, it gives some voting power at best. Last Saturday, nobody had included Crypto-DesignService, and he didn't create a custom Trust list either. |
|
|
|
I simply never understood why all of you fight one another. That's the politics/power-part that I hate most about the current DT-system. On the one hand it means DT doesn't just accept things from other DTs, on the other hand it now means some of the biggest names on the forum are fighting each other. I do believe the forum and Bitcoin ecosystem would be better off following theymos' advice: 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. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. oh I added
OgNasty
suchmoon
sidehack
frodocooper
Lauda
to my list the last few days
of course I now jump back up to 671 trust number vs 221 Adding people to your trust list heavily changes it from DT-view. You're currently at 128: -0 / +13. One of the reasons I dropped almost everyone off my list was I don't know:
real names phone number and addresses
makes it harder to trust if I can't get to them. Interesting approach. I don't know nor care about real names or addresses, and I'm certainly not willing to provide mine. |
|
|
|
you have us on ignore There is no "us" on my ignore list, it's individual users. Most of them are cheaters from the time I was running giveaways, only recently I've added a troll. Not "all of you" as you claim. why should we trust you ? That's up to you to decide. I couldn't care less if you don't trust me, but you're missing my point: you should make your own judgements based on the actions you see from people. Or at least: that's how I've created my trust list. lauda thinks you support him has you on his list i agree So does OgNasty. OgNasty and Lauda don't trust each other, and yet, they both trust my judgement. i dont see any of your circled merits voting for our cause I don't Merit users for voting power. I Merit users for posts that are worth reading. you ever speak out against lauda ? Does this count? switzerland cult member I'll take it  I try to stay away from controversy. cult confirmed How many of ch's posts have you read? |
|
|
|
I don't think that's helping your "cause". What happened to using arguments to include/exclude someone? |
|
|
|
if you dont want to be excluded on this mass list remove your inclusion of lauda tman and owlcatz and it will be updated without your exclusion And yet, I'm on the list. May I challenge you to show any feedback left by me that you disagree with is incorrect? |
|
|
|
Aww sorry I didn't know about that dafqq Im so noob , letter O will do hehe tinkyuuu again xD A capital O isn't allowed either. Please read the complete post next time before posting (it's in bright red). Public Key: 0405AAACBB9C50038A27582ADBA77921298F1B655F7EF3F53E880EB8986C72FB15DED5B5407AD11 85B3E0586CEDC633FB7BAFA027F04EEE50DB1DA3D51A873711A
Preferred Prefix: den0k I got you this: Address: 1 denokAin9b3Por1LnyKGrG8unWpqVD1b (Balance:  ) PrivkeyPart: 5JahRFEUrbWf492DVLWgsYnGts3vGPVF6rFS4jAuNSvtM5BNf4W |
|
|
|
how can merit sources have users on ignore ? Contrary to popular belief, I'm only human. I'm not obligated to read everything anyone posts, and if it bores me, I stop reading. Also: this isn't the place to discuss this, please do that here. |
|
|
|
a lot of effort was put into this post but it received no merit This is why:  After about 1500 posts rambling on for many months about how unfair merit is, many users have put him on ignore. I don't want to read more of the same. I hope you can help Please remove the code-tags. |
|
|
|
Awarding merits for political reasons, this is totally partiality while judging peoples here. The evidence was pretty clear: You need 10 earned merits to vote right?
I can provide you with that to be eligible for voting. Not many but some of the supportive and abused, Jr.member and newbies can vote because of my help which is an honour for me. Giving merit to a political post that's worth reading is okay, but (as a merit source) giving merit for voting rights is abuse. |
|
|
|
I prefer the current sorting. I just figured it would be easier to sort it by changing the list to being sorted alphabetically You can copy your list into a word processor, sort it, make your changes, and replace your old trust list with it. When you click Update, it's sorted by userID again. |
|
|
|
I hope as prefix if posslibe Zerbis
Pubblic Key:
043FB934D71867CD09D791D222AC2D9C67A9875361082FE0364DEA944435281181942C2A6850BD4 0D7F6F349042A04F0581B2873321575DBED0A3D7D2E2EE0DD9A Case insensitive: Address: 1 ZerbiSVF9DVpHM6Qfu2tRELf7C9Ucge8 PrivkeyPart: 5HvbdQGPTqrxQhJxpd6LAZ4LXuz3tnMraiBoifeJ2zPdKixayWH (Balance:  ) Preferred Prefix: den0k A 0 (zero) isn't allowed. |
|
|
|
I hope as prefix if posslibe Zerbis I can do this case-insensive, case-sensitive takes too long for this giveaway (or I can do it for a fee). |
|
|
|
Let me quote this for attention: 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. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes. |
|
|
|
How about OGNasty vs Lauda   |
|
|
|
It's really up to them
Is it though? It feels like they have to sign their names to other users and potentially be associated with their actions, and it's possible that nobody has met their criteria to be added onto their trust list. It doesn't seem fair that they should be excluded, because they are conservative with their trust list. Maybe I am being naive to the importance of this criteria. Part of being on DT1 is adding users to DT2. If you're not adding anyone, why would you be on DT1? They're still included on DT2 anyway. |
|
|
|
I find it extraordinarily strange that members like minerjones and philipma1957 have found themselves no longer part of DT1. That doesn't seem appropriate and I hope it changes soon. It's really up to them: - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries. More than enough users included them, but they didn't include enough users by themselves: |
|
|
|
You want me to show you where current DT members got their merit from ? Edit: Am I included in you "current DT"? . I'm taking this opportunity to promote my Trust list viewer, which is received well by the community, but I think most users don't know it exists. And it was quite some work to create, so use it  |
|
|
|
phantastisch - added
- is also german mod, but is AWOL for over 3 months if I recall. Inactive users don't qualify for DT1: - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days. |
|
|
|
Theymos posted something that could act as guidelines: I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. However if he tried to actually "game" the system to his advantage (not saying he did) should THAT be tagged?
With gaming the system I mean influencing DT list for his own sake or agenda and not for legitimate reasons. See Thule et al.
If the "gaming" takes the form of strategically sending a lot of merit, creating sockuppets, and stuff like that, then no. That sort of gaming might get me to blacklist people, in fact. But if it looks more like politics, then that's OK, and that's what H8bussesNbicycles's thread looks like to me. |
|
|
|
Alex_Sr was on DT2 already, and moved up to DT1 today. This seems like a good moment to re-evaluate, and I'm no longer excluding him. I'm still not entirely happy with the way he left and then removed trust, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (like many other users have done). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
