You appear to be operating on the assumption that they are different than me. Have you sufficiently ruled that out? Regardless, Vod has a habit of following my posts fairly closely, so he probably did make the decision to upgrade the formula after reading the suggestion from QS. I don’t see any other reason why he would announce the change exactly 8 hours, 29 minuets, 45 seconds after I brought up the point.
|
|
|
Legendary members, or those who were legendary as of this past January have a significant advantage in this ranking as they started with 1000 merit so in general they will have a better merit ranking (2 posts later) I am going to change the front page to show Most Merited and base the recognition calculation on only the merit you have been given by other members.
However, the most important point is: I believe that old forum users will not care about this.
I received a PM similar to this, saying older users were getting shafted by removing original merit from the equation. http://archive.is/oRIC6Hey, thanks for taking my advice regarding your project into consideration. I would appreciate it if you gave me credit for my inspiration. Maybe you could add something along the lines of to each page on your website: Some ideas on this project were inspired by QuicksellerThanks. edit: you can also write how much you look up to me in your website. (obviously this is a lot) edit2: I am 172nd in most recognized.
|
|
|
Universal basic income, along with other welfare systems, create disincentives to work and otherwise generate income. As such, it would be a very bad thing if UBI, in any form were enacted.
I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time.
The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates.
|
|
|
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It would probably be best to remove the government nonviolently, preferably by getting their people to overthrow it.
Wait, do you actually think overthrowing that government by the people is a non violent solution? Or did you mean non violent for America? LOL Okay fair enough. However overthrowing governments can potentially be as nonviolent as a “routine“ arrest by law enforcement; for example if a military leader tells the political leader of a country they are no longer in change. A case of citizens overthrowing their government will be significantly less violent than a war though.
|
|
|
I would ignore that person. I don’t give much credence to those who leave retaliatory negative trust. Those types of ratings are common and abbr ignored. If there is any evidence to backup his claims in his reference (he didn’t leave one, but if he did) you would want to respond to defend yourself, not leave a negative in retaliation.
In general, I would say a negative rating in response to any kind of criticism is inappropriate and would look at anyone who leaves a single such rating with skepticism. In extreme cases, this may be appropriate though.
In regards to your positive trust policy, I would suggest that you not give a positive rating for every transaction you are involved in. If you risked money in a transaction (intentionally or not), you should leave a positive rating. If you have traded with someone many times (either directly or as an escrow agent), and the person acts professional and otherwise appears trustworthy, you may want to consider leaving a positive rating— you need to use good judgment in these cases, and you should be confident this person is not trading with you to get a trust rating.
|
|
|
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It would probably be best to remove the government nonviolently, preferably by getting their people to overthrow it.
|
|
|
You need to follow what the below link says link
|
|
|
I would find it unlikely and unwise to attack Iran “next month”. Sanctions have not yet been put into full effect yet and won’t until at least November.
I suspect the US will first appeal to the people of Iran (and those in military power) to overthrow the current regime.
I suspect that any invasion of Iran would likely be lead by Israel and possibly the Saudis and the US will either provide Air support, including offensive bombings, and possibly with supply pipelines, but I don’t think Tripp’s will be on the front lines.
there will be no invasion, that would be a sure way to maximalize american deaths... totally useless. But the iranians should really think a little right now... they continue with their will to destroy israel, they will end worst than syria... summer is great... water access is harder. anyway, when you think about the size of the operation needed to finish the iranian gov (meaning they have no capacity left what so ever, but mass burials), I think it will even be day time... http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html"Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear ... As the Trump administration raises pressure on U.N. inspectors to demand access to Iranian military sites, Iran insists it won't allow such visits." let me joke... first the coast will be cleared of all life form, and then it will be down in a few minutes (I mean it could be days) but all in all... it's just a kinetic/logistical question. the thing where the iranians and their supporters are wrong, is that they don't understand that many israelis speak farsi... no need for translators, and what the iranians gov and most of the populatio say is clear as diamond... The first thing the US will do is try to overthrow the government without the use of force as this will result in the least amount of US deaths. However at the end of the day, if an invasion is necessary it will happen. If we can’t overthrow the Iran government we will probably resort to airstrikes at first if we are going to engage in conflict with Iran. If our intelligence is confident they do not have nuclear weapons the air strikes will probably start “slow” at first and escalate over time. In general civilian deaths will be avoided and this is possible because of advances in technology. If we believe Iran might have a nuke, we will probably try to take out their military and communications ability in a night, or even possibly in an hour. John Bolton argued for a pre-emptative nuclear strike against North Korea in a WSJ opt-ed earlier this year and he would presumably make the same argument for Iran. I would imagine we would use multiple aircraft carriers and submarines/boats capable of launching missles into Iran at the same time (the airstrikes against Syria involved a single boat last year).
|
|
|
I don’t think “recognized” is the most appropriate way to name this attribute. Maybe activity3 would be better. All of the attributes are a measure of how active a user is in various ways.
Legendary members, or those who were legendary as of this past January have a significant advantage in this ranking as they started with 1000 merit so in general they will have a better merit ranking
To better measure “recognition” I would suggest measuring the number of transactions a user has for trust (global not just DTN), merit and activity. Ideally you would also measure the number of times someone is mentioned in posts, however I don’t know that you have captured the content of posts.
|
|
|
If anyone is dumb enough to pay $760k for a forum account, then good for that guy.
The OP of that thread was using abbreviations that google translate could not decipher, however I am guessing he was selling at a very high price.
|
|
|
edit: actually thinking about it for a bit, there is a good chance there are more not connected via this merit circle. I say have theymos look into his current alts and ban them all if they meet the criteria.
Theymos won't look into cases of merit abuses. He nor cyrus don't look into anything related to ban evasion or even bot abuse etc. Even the people caught farming or copy and pasting on an industrial scale and are ban evading are free to evade on how many other hundreds of accounts they have and they do regularly. Meanwhile staff have to play whack-a-mole with the bots wasting time finding them manually when many of them could likely be found by a simple IP check. Merit abuse isn't a huge issue and probably shouldn't be wasting time at an admin level but the bot spam and ban evasion is. This guy already has a banned account and I'm sure there are many more. I would not ask him to look into alts because of merit abuse, I would ask him to look into alts because of evidence that one person with many accounts is making many low quality posts. The appearent merit abuse is simply how we know they are likely the same person. BadBear would often look into alts in connection with banning spammers such as those described in the OP, there are a couple of instances in which he banned spammers minutes after they bought (and paid for) accounts, which certainly should have discouraged spammers from buying accounts.
|
|
|
I think you should give them a little bit of leniency for their names I would ignore the merit farming issue, and address the fact this couple is a clear example of someone making many very low quality posts across many accounts. Well it's both really: shitposting account and merit farming. I say avoid the drama associated with tagging him, and see that he is banned if his posts support that. He has replied saying the high level accounts are his "friends" accounts, which is probably a lie. I say review the high level accounts and ban them if their posts are poor enough, or have theymos look into if they are the same person or not. I think it is pretty clear he has created many accounts with the intention of ranking them up with low effort posts, and selling them. This kind of activity is a problem on the forum and should not be allowed. (I would not have an issue if he was putting effort into his posts, and contributes to various conversations). edit: actually thinking about it for a bit, there is a good chance there are more not connected via this merit circle. I say have theymos look into his current alts and ban them all if they meet the criteria.
|
|
|
Looking through the first two pages of your posts, it looks like your posts are mostly one liners (or two liners), and as such very little effort was put into them.
The above plus any paid signature you were wearing would have caused the ban. Paid signatures are not against the rules, but those who wear them cannot be putting little effort into many posts as they have an incentive to make many posts.
|
|
|
I think you should give them a little bit of leniency for their names I would ignore the merit farming issue, and address the fact this couple is a clear example of someone making many very low quality posts across many accounts.
|
|
|
I would find it unlikely and unwise to attack Iran “next month”. Sanctions have not yet been put into full effect yet and won’t until at least November.
I suspect the US will first appeal to the people of Iran (and those in military power) to overthrow the current regime.
I suspect that any invasion of Iran would likely be lead by Israel and possibly the Saudis and the US will either provide Air support, including offensive bombings, and possibly with supply pipelines, but I don’t think Tripp’s will be on the front lines.
|
|
|
You were probably logged out by an admin when you posted concerns about the email. The purpose was probably to invalidate the reset email.
|
|
|
Get him to confirm he has been repaid in full and I’ll remove my rating. From what I can tell there about.02 outstanding
|
|
|
can Bitcoins101 confirm repayment?
|
|
|
It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.
Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it. [...] AnonyMint was banned [...]
AnonyMint [...] is responsible for a significant fraction of the technically competent people becoming largely inactive.
People who are really savvy with the technology have valuable time (as is the case for anyone with valuable skills). It's a waste of that time to spend it in a place where there are decent odds of their efforts being buried under a mountain of abusive nonsense. Even those few who don't find his dishonest practices extremely annoying are forced to admit that it's just a waste of time to be in the same venue as someone like that.
[...] AnonyMint's consistent conduct year after year is especially demoralizing. [...]
If a community can't choose [...] participants [...].
You can read the rest of his quote and see he clearly does not like Anunymint. Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this.
Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"? See this and read for yourself.
As previously mentioned, Anunymint seems to have agreed to abide by the forum rules, which appears to have met the condition of unbanning him imposed by theymos.
|
|
|
I think it would be better to remove the incentives of the copy/paste spammers and/or provide incentives not to spam (this way).
One suggestion I can remember came from a member was to disable topic bumping for the comments from users who are not at least a member. That is one option, although I don't think it would address the copy/paste spammers (it might address the "bump spammers"). Again, it is the incentives that need to be removed, not abilities/permissions.
|
|
|
|