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). |
|
|
|
FYI : Vod, Lauda, & Lutpin are the only members I have included in my list so that automatically does quite a lot of sorting for me. Just 3 days ago, you had a completely different list:
I was going to show post the same thing  It's a good way to get a feel of who trusts who's judgement.
I'm not kidding when I say my forum page looks either dark green or dark red. The changes in DefaultTrust have increased the extremes indeed. Have you considered changing your settings to DT1 instead of DT2? |
|
|
|
I'm just leaving this here: - 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. (read the full post!) |
|
|
|
My issue was resolved. How can I close this topic? Click "lock topic" (bottom left). |
|
|
|
I'll also delete my review. Please. Are you trying to use your trust as a bargaining chip? You shouldn't have left retaliation feedback in the first place! Note that your account is now under scrutiny, don't break forum rules  |
|
|
|
You should be able to manually go into each post and delete the post. This may take a while since you cannot do it in bulk. It can be done pretty fast: 1. Go to your history in a new browser window 2. Click your middle mouse button on all posts you want to delete (20 times per history page) 3. CTRL-SHIFT-TAB to the last tab, click your middle mouse button on the "delete" button, CTRL-SHIFT-TAB to the next tab 4. Repeat this 20 times 5. When you're back at your history, go to the next page, right-click the tab and select "Close tabs to the right". Writing it down takes longer than doing it, you should be able to clean up 500 posts in 20 minutes. I've archived your profile to keep track of your progress. |
|
|
|
I'll throw in my 2 satoshis too: OP is a bounty spammer, but that seems to be accepted on the bounty boards. Even if it wouldn't be accepted, it's something Mods should handle, and not something that DT should tag. Posting on the wrong board can happen to anyone if you use enough open tabs. Not moving it by yourself is dumb/spam, but still not a reason to tag it. I've reported 100 times more posts than I've tagged, which is how spam should be handled. I was going to Merit OP for his post that's worth reading, until I read his first post was asking about Merit. I can't verify it though, after OP deleted many of his posts. I assume OP has more accounts, and uses them to spam bounties (just like many other or even all bounty spammers do), and I don't want to give OP a Jr. Member signature to spam with. Can I ask you something, be honest. Why does someone who knows the word 'scoundrel' participate in social media bounties? I was wondering this too, and it makes sense if OP has more accounts.
TL;DR I think this shouldn't be tagged. |
|
|
|
Never know, after reading your posts maybe scammer Dean Nolan will get back to you in the hope of silencing you by offering you the 0.2BTC for your betking tokens. I thought of that too, and I don't want it to look like a bribe (or blackmail). Then again, I've created scam accusations without being personally involved in the past, so I can do it again. But like I said, it's a lot of work (and quite boring to do). |
|
|
|
You seem a very intelligent person so why hold out for any reply addressing your concerns and questions The reason I haven't created a scam accusation thread yet, is that it'll take a lot of time to find all details. The ICO-information was spread out over a few threads, that's a lot of posts to read again. If/when I do it, I want it to be a complete accusation, and after that I expect red tags to accumulate ( like here). |
|
|
|
The second time we were surprised a little bit when the moderators of the forum in response to our request for clarification of these action completely ignored it, thereby taking the side of those who took part in the downgrade. Trust is not moderated, to prevent moderator abuse. Mods don't "take sides". Trust issues can be discussed in Reputation, which is where I created Red trust on Bestmixer: is this justified? |
|
|
|
There's another update: How BKB holders benefit from the new EOS airdrop. It reminds me of the BKB ICO: just throw around some numbers, most people won't verify it anyway. Example: Meaning BKB holders will receive 6 times the BKT tokens as EOS holders even though EOS trades at 25x the price of BKB. This is comparing apples and oranges: the EOS airdrop is free for EOS holders, while the BKB holders have to hand in $0.099 with each BKB. BKB currently has a buy back price of $0.099. Conveniently ignoring the fact that there are no buy backs anymore. I still have over 7k BKB tokens which I'd love to sell them back at the "value" you claim they have:$720. 64.
Let's round it down to 0.2 BTC and we're good. Deal?
I've just sent a PM asking if I can sell them back. I didn't get a reply to my PM (which I sent to 2 known accounts). |
|
|
|
Report the plagiarism, don't worry too much about the Merit abuse. It's a small amount in the total Merit system, theymos doesn't want users to be tagged for that, and eventually they'll run out of sMerit. If I remember correctly this comment was referring to the merit sources and if they get tagged by DTs for giving away merit, I not really sure that this applies to all the users. This applies to all users: Merit sales, transfers to aliases, back-and-forth trading, etc. are not much of an issue. All illegitimate merit will decay, and will account for a tiny and very expensive fraction of the total merit economy. It's basically a rounding error; fight it where convenient, but waste no sleep over it. |
|
|
|
Update: NEW: trust.txt.xz converted to userIDs (machine readable)
I've included a link "userIDs" on top of my weekly index. This makes is easier to analyze the data.
("t" stands for "trusts", "d" stands for "distrusts") Please let me know if I made any mistakes, I think I handled all weird characters correctly now. Example: my latest update shows this: Trust List for all users (created 2019-02-03_Sun_00.08h) based on last Saturday's data dump (trust.txt.xz; I used this copy to get userIDs) (the last link is new) |
|
|
|
I think I pulled it off. I've converted trust.txt into trust.userIDs.txt. As far as I can tell, I covered all usernames it without any mistakes. My request still stands, as it makes things much easier, but for now it works for me. I'll publish weekly updates through LoyceV's Trust list viewer. |
|
|
|
Started using Bither in late 2017 Do you still have a backup of the mnemonic word seed (12 words)? If so, this should be enough to recover your funds. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
