I would want to see the calculations as to why FJ thinks the bug started at line 184 of the "full betting history" (going up). Or some other explanation as to why they believe there is a bug in the game.

If I am reading the spreadsheet correctly, it looks like the OP's "spins" would never have resulted in a loss with a "cash out" of 0.99 or less. In other words, someone could have bet 260+ times to win 1.99x (winning 99% of the bet, and getting the bet back) and won each of those times. As such, I think it is fairly likely there is in fact a bug, however I would want a more detailed explanation from FJ.

The number of bets presented is small, however one scenario could be that the correct formula should be :
It appears the payout formula during when the OP was playing the new game was:
If this was the case, it looks like the OP would have won 67 of his 78 bets during the claimed "bug" (if this is the case, the entire betting history for the new game was likely "bugged", and the OP simply had lost bets prior to when FJ claimed the "bug" started).

Other possibilities would be that the SpinBPS was otherwise being calculated incorrectly.

This game is currently up on FJ's website, and is claimed to be provably fair, so FJ presumably knows what the issue was and should be able to show what the outcomes should have been.

---

---

I think if the "correct" outcomes from the OP playing the new game would have resulted in the OP having sufficient funds to make the plinko bets up until he won the jackpot, the entire jackpot should be paid out.

If the above is not the case, the floor the OP should receive is what MadZ suggested above. However there are other considerations that would make me believe the OP should receive more, such as FJ essentially "freerolling" their players, and the possibility that the OP may have made different sized rolls had he had a different bankroll size.

I wouldn’t jump out blindly saying everything is fine and dandy without reviewing the evidence.

Based on what I have seen so far, I think FJ is in the wrong.

If the OP would have been issued the bug bounty from his encounter from the new game, he could have used that money to play the 2nd game and win the jackpot.

I don’t see any reason why the new game being buggy would affect the OPs ability to win the jackpot.

I am not surprised to see certain people wearing a FJ signature defending FJ, even though they have taken an opposite stance in similar situations in the past.

I have a feeling the OP is a troll. Lol.

I am pretty sure this is fake news.

There are enough scammers (and close friends of scammers) on DT1 that have excluded OgN, and as a result his trust ratings do not show up by default.

I would note that TMAN, owlcatz and lauda were implicated in an extortion scheme in 2017, all of which are now on DT1.

While I do agree there are flaws in the current DefaultTrust system, and that improvements need to be made, I don't think the changes to the logic as to who is on DT1 are a step in the right direction. Below are my concerns:

Using Merit for a metric:
I am generally against the merit system, for a number of reasons such as I think it creates groupthink, suppresses descent/unpopular opinions,  many who have sMerit tend to receive a lot of merit, and the overwhelming majority of forum users do not participate in the merit system do to having no merit. I think a good alternative to the merit system would be adding a financial component to achieve each rank (exceptional users could rank up for free).

I would note that I am one of the most merited users on the forum, and as such, I have shown that I can "earn" merit as I wish, and if I wanted, I could create a new account and earn a lot of merit on that account. As such, I am a benefactor of the merit system.

If the merit system is here to stay, requiring a small number of merit to be eligible for DT1 is probably not all that bad, as long as the requirement is low. The 10 merit requirement is probably low enough.

The DefaultTrust system is something intended to gauge one's ability to be trusted in the marketplace, however the merit system is intended to gauge one's ability to make "good" posts. I don't think making a lot of "good" posts should give someone the right to have influence on the trust system via who is on their trust lists. Granted, one person with nefarious intentions will have difficulty personally get someone untrustworthy added to DT1, however a group of nefarious people (acting in concert or otherwise) may be able to get less desirable people added to DT1.  

Lack of Accountability of those on DT1:
This is an ongoing problem with the DefaultTrust system, however I believe the new DT1 logic makes this worse.

As it stands nowyesterday, if someone on DT1 has one (or more) people on their trust list who have no business being in the DefaultTrust network, they are more or less not held accountable, and will remain on DT1. Today, if someone is in DT who should not be, other DT1 members will need to be lobbied to get this person excluded (on a technical level, the DT1 member that added this person can also remove this inappropriate person, however this rarely happens in practice).

If there were major concerns with a DT1 member's trust list (and/or ratings), these concerns could be escalated to theymos, and theymos can remove them as he deems appropriate.

The above is still possible under the new system, however I suspect in many cases the response will be he meets the criteria and there is no manipulation to meet the criteria, so he will stay. Once someone "meets the criteria" it will be difficult to get this to not be the case, as those on DT1 tend to receive additional trust inclusions over time, and over time, people will become inactive, and as such will not respond to (or see) requests to remove controversial people from their trust lists. theymos would have the power to blacklist certain people, however I suspect there will be a high threshold for this.

Trust inclusions and trust ratings are entirely separate:
One stated goal of this new system is:

Previously, there were a group of people on DT2 who rarely traded, but would frequently give trust ratings to others (frequently negative, and frequently controversial). Many of these people are now on DT1. Many of these people earn incomes on the forum via signature campaigns that will not necessarily be sensitive to a rating that says "this person gave a controversial rating but did not [try to, nor plan on] steal money". Some do not try to earn any money on the forum. It is also not terribly difficult to explain to a trading partner that you are standing your ground on a controversial rating verses having to explain a rating that explicitly says they are a scammer. If someone gives a retaliatory negative rating that is a frivolous scam accusation (as often happens), they will not maintain credibility for very long, nor will they remain on many trust lists (and rightfully so).

As a result of the above, I don't think there is any real consequences to giving out controversial ratings for many who previously have given out these types of ratings.

Conversely, if someone who is solidly on DT1 (or in some cases DT2) will be well protected against being called out on scammy behavior that is not "vanilla" scamming. There are people on DT1 today who have ignored calls to explain six figure (USD) discrepancies in money they held in escrow, who have been involved in explicit illegal behavior, including extortion without any serious pushback.

There are a number of people who are now excluded from DT2 who previously gave ratings to powerful scammers

the new DT1 contains much overlap and many "communities" are unrepresented
Roughly a third of new DT1 members are in the same "clique" / "trading circle" and another 15% closely associate with this group. This group just so happens to collectively give out many controversial ratings, reducing accountability for such ratings when they support eachother (the support is not necessarily universal among the group).  
Most local communities do not appear to be represented in DT1.

This quote:
This should be fairly self explanatory, and is only asking for problems.

---

I have some other concerns, and I think I might have some possible solutions, however it is very late now.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to blacklist Lauda, TMAN and owlcatz, considering they all were part of an extortion attempt....

My online banking has technical limits as to how much money I can send via wire transfer (and via other means), and many cars have technical limits as to how fast they will drive, and if they will play the radio if the seatbelts are not being worn. Both the money in my bank account and any cars I own are still my property, despite these technical limitations.

I would like to say this is not something I would do myself, nor is something I would personally condone.

With the above being said, someone has sMerits because they ultimately previously made a post someone thought is deserving of merit. As such, I consider sMerit (assuming they are not spending sMerit they have resulting from what they received from being a merit source) to be their property, and I am not a fan of telling others what they can and cannot do with their own property.

The underlying reason why others believe sending merit to your alts is because of the conflict of interest. However, as previously mentioned, the ultimate reason why someone has sMerit to spend in the first place is because someone thought they made (a) good post(s) in the past; the reason someone will send merit to themselves is to rank up, however if someone earned merit in the 1st place, there isn't any real reason why someone couldn't make good posts with their alt to earn merit from someone else.

Back to the topic of conflict of interest, a bigger concern is when people send merit to someone who they have a business (or other) relationship with. If there is a relationship between two people, there may be financial (or other) reasons why someone is giving merit to that person. It could easily be argued that the merit sender thought the post in question was deserving of merit. Unlike with cases of sending merit to yourself, it would not be trivial for the receiving account to earn the merit if there is already merit to spend in the 1st place.

Here is one sMerit. Spend it wisely. Theymos can consider giving you more.

The constitution specifically requires the president to protect the country against invasion. The various “caravans” and exactly this — an invasion — other illegal immigration is not far from that, if not also an invasion. The caravan is arguably an act of war, and the same for governments failure to do anything to stop it that are in a position to do so.

Tucker is right, a wall will stop both illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs that kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. The later is harming millions of additional American lives.

Democrats have historically been opposed to illegal immigration and many prominent Democrats in leadership positions have specifically been in favor of a wall in the past. They likely don’t want Trump to have a win, nor an accomplishment.

I am not familiar with him, but once you are certain someone is a troll, it is probably best to simply ignore him. If there is a post you come across that you can quickly respond to off the top of your head with little effort, you can respond if you wish.

There are a decent number of people whose goal appears to be only to waste others time and effort rebuking points. You can make your point and show your logic, however at a point this becomes futile.

I am guessing he blocked PMs for a reason. Probably one similar to why he doesn’t want to hear from you. He is unlikely to read your message anyway. (It’s also possible he hasn’t unblocked PMs from newbies).

The real risk is that someone would download all of the posts and impersonate the forum by telling everyone they have been logged out to get plaintext passwords. They might even say PMs are down to further delay suspicion. They could also impersonate reputable people to ask for money/loans/investments.

This was because the forum server needed to calculate everyone’s trust score who appeared on someone’s trust page. This could not be done periodically globally because everyone’s trust settings, including their trust list is potentially different.

---

I don’t necessarily think it is a good thing to have sent a lot of negative ratings. Above all, it is important to have accurate ratings, including those that meet the definition of the description of the type of rating you are giving and that third parties are not in disagreement with. Another useful metric would include the number of people that openly dispute your ratings, although it should be acknowledged that some people will simply be unreasonable and will refuse to accept their behavior indicates they are either a scammer or will try to scam in the future.

Also, uncovering a difficult to detect scam that has gone unnoticed by others is better than tagging many low hanging fruits and/or tagging after checking others’ work.

Why do you think these people are plagiarizing? What are their incentives to do this? Are they trying to rank up their accounts? Are they trying to use SEO to help their websites?

I would suggest that accounts get permabanned and this would get reduced to a signature ban (after an x day “hard” ban) upon the person appealing the ban.

Merry Christmas to everyone. (On Christmas).

Happy holidays to those who don’t celebrate Christmas.

This thread is in regards to those banned for plagiarism. There is little reason for someone to plagiarize if they don’t think it will help them earn money, either immediately or in the future via a higher ranking account.

I suspect these people are few and far between. Especially if you consider that some of these people are trying to rank up their accounts to use paid signatures in the future.