Verified on Electrum. Tagging account now, whose profile has been archived: https://archive.is/lny9S
Do keep in mind that account recovery has been extremely slow. |
|
|
|
It would be difficult as there are so many varieties of english. For example, I consider "color", "center" and other Americanisms to be incorrect. I gather the spellings were changed by Webster to help country people who were home educated, but it does cause problems when there are so many variations. Those should not be an issue because the semantics are still there. However, when you create garbled messes of dialogue that are incomprehensible, then there's a problem. How many times have you seen run-on sentences that seem to continue on for several lines and just make it impossible to understand the meaning to which you would simply rather just not read the text entirely and move away from the redundant and recycled wall of text that is a putrid, filthy, mess that ends up being a mental strain on all readers, never mind the padding and bad grammar? See what I did there?TL;DR: The main issue that I have with users that do not have good writing skills is the lack of (proper) grammar and brevity. The combination of both creates a poor post. |
|
|
|
|
I have an arbitrary method to check for mentions.
By using your name as a keyword in the search tool (and I personally organize it by most recent), you can view posts that have quoted yours and posts that mention your name.
However, the issue with my method is that there is only one result for a given thread. Thus if there were any earlier mentions (due to my sorting) I would not be able to view them immediately on the result page.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see any point in posting the reason for merit awards. Sure, you can argue that explaining your rationale for sending merit can help others create constructive posts but I would argue with more of a 'show don't tell' method. If users truly want to create quality posts then they would read merited posts and try to figure out why they were merited.
When you have your own unique perspective on constructive post creation it's less of a cookie-cutter recipe for posting and more of your own creative outlook.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure why I'm being mentioned here, but you can say "he is" instead of "they are" as I'm not a delusional sociopath. Will do so in future mentions. Thanks for clarifying. If I was wrong and you are going to act like The Pharmacist and make racist posts talking down to newbies, I will most definitely add you to my exclusion list. While I don't completely align with some of The Pharmacist's remarks, I do believe that they have a significant portion of valid negative feedback ratings, which is why I plan on taking a look at some of their ratings in case accounts that warrant the red trust are now made neutral.
I don't think I have made or will make any racist remarks towards others. |
|
|
|
|
This thread has derailed. Completely—not even in the same zip code anymore.
In regards to the actual topic, I'm interested in seeing OgNasty's opinion on my DefaultTrust status, given that they are an active DT1 member that has the ability of fully excluding me. I don't believe that I've seen any weigh-ins yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Selling/buying/trading accounts is not prohibited by the forum.
However, I find it equivalent to buying trust/reputation. And in that regard, I believe the act is untrustworthy. Hence, the red tag.
There is no more to discuss here.
|
|
|
|
One of the issues with negging so many people is that it forces them to create a new account, with the knowledge of what to avoid doing in future to avoid another neg.
What if negs by DT members were not visible to the user themselves, but only to other logged in members? Obviously there are some flaws to this idea, but I believe it could slow down the rate at which accounts are created and ditched. They usually notice when they're kicked out of their signature campaigns or are told by other users that they wish to trade with, "you have red trust". Doesn't do much. And also, isn't making people avoid getting tagged a good thing? They'll stop scamming. They will avoid ponzi schemes. Etc.
The only problem is discreet account selling... which you can't avoid regardless. I see no benefit in making red trust unnoticeable to the user that is tagged. It would use some extra server resources and overall have little to no point. |
|
|
|
With over (I believe) 1500 ratings left, good luck with that. You'd be playing whack-a-mole unless you tag almost all of them. Assuming it takes 4 minutes per rating to investigate the validity of the reference and tag, that's 100 hours of work. On just the ratings. :/
It's a huge timesink even with some rating overflow from other DT users. |
|
|
|
How do you see who has excluded who in their trust lists? I am in noob in this. Jump into hierarchal view in your trust settings and you can check exclusions by DT{0, 1, ..., n-1} members (where n = depth).
Hm... Should I now take a look at the valid negative ratings in order to prevent scammers from resurfacing now? |
|
|
|
I may be deluded - entirely possible from all the magic smoke* I've inhaled - but I think I am the proverbial poster child for this: nearly 600 posts - most of which took considerable time and/or effort to create and are informative, rather than interrogative - and just 9 merit received. It's problematic because posts pre-merit implementation will get less (or no) attention from people who are prospective sMerit users. In that regard, you will only see the most notorious old posts being merited (i.e. thread-starters of large threads, old quotes from notable members, etc.)
It's not just you. Think of the merit system as kind of like rewarding active constructive posters. Sort of in the same vein as the activity system but requiring constructive posts. IIRC theymos has a much lower threshold for quality posts. Something along the lines of, good posts are 1-3 merits, excellent ones are 10/20+. The problem with this idea is the huge limitation of sMerit income, as there may be plenty of these 'good posts'. Personally, I believe that using merit in this way is unsustainable. I'm quite frugal with my use of it but I do sprinkle some around when I find nice replies. |
|
|
|
If you are scare people abuse your poker games, you should restrict their ip to have only 1 account so you do not really this vip thing. Use the vip thing to get the extra benefit, if this vip means only we can bet huge amount, I do not think people will like it. There's going to be IP restrictions regardless. If someone is a mid/high-stakes poker player, I don't think they will have too much problem with playing a tiny bit of dice or verifying their independence. |
|
|
|
I will talk about two points: 1. we have 65637 merit was sent in the last 30 days and about 892303 number of accounts. With a simple calculation I think we will get on 0.07 merit/account. Really  This is assuming that all those 892303 accounts are active. Shave off the bots/inactive users and that number will be higher. Next, remove all the farmed accounts, and if we check out rizzlarolla's list then we can see that there's going to be a large number of farmed accounts. Those are the ones that have been detected thus far. Now, think about how many have not been found. And then if you want to remove over 50% of the forum members who are spammers and don't really help the forum then we're getting somewhere.
Point is, it should be difficult to gain merit. It means that being a "Senior Member", being called "Legendary" should actually mean something. Not just a fake rank, like Executive Assistant Managerial Custodian. That is a limited list. You know not how many users have sent 100+ merits. |
|
|
|
|
Removed.
Please, from now on, offer your merit to high-quality posts. The decay has not yet been implemented but you should still send points to posts when you think they are good. That's the point of the system, after all.
|
|
|
|
What does it mean to forgive? I did not break the rules and do not need to forgive me for anything. I ask only to understand the essence of my problem and accept that I'm not guilty of anything or I did not deserve a red trust.
But I also would like to receive positive trust, but I do not know how to do it. Here you can see that the red earn easier than green and even without a reason. Prove the proof of trade between you and HypNoSE and the trust will be removed. Otherwise, your accounts are linked via blockchain evidence. It's not enough to say that messages have been deleted or that you don't have access to logs anymore. Anyone can simply say that. It's insufficient. |
|
|
|
The big issue I see here is if Betking allowed multiple tables to be played will there be any hindrances on that table? For example a player playing in multiple tables will most likely lose track of his turns delaying the said table/s. I'm sure that you haven't played online poker before since it's extremely common to have a time bank for players. It would only really cause a short delay which would be only slightly longer than typical wait times for player decisions. Once a player runs out of their timebank then they'll be sat out. That's typically not something players want to happen on cash tables since they lose out on the orbit. As for tournaments, you usually want to keep a high timebank so that you can make tougher decisions.  |
|
|
|
How can you even focus on every table that you joined? And how are you going to play on many tables? I do not think that you can really maintain every tables well. And I do not suggest you to play on every table as well, let say that you are lucky to win at least in 2 tables? How are you going to proceed on the next round with 2 accounts on the same tables? May be for normal playing, this can do but for some tourney, this can't be acceptable SyGambler is referring to cash tables. And yes, good players can multi-table. In fact, I personally can't stand playing without multitabling unless the competition is fierce. If you're a reg it's usually common to see 4+ tables at a time. Some people have done 30+ before.
Tourneys wouldn't allow for multiple tables. You only have one session—and otherwise, that would make it unfair to other players if you're able to have multiple links on a single tournament. |
|
|
|
Do not represent a point of view.
You have 39 views, not 39 people view your post "In fact 22 of them by me".
Some accounts are posting daily on that wall "more than 1000 view for some accounts". Non-unique views do not add to the count. AFAIK, it's discrete data based on accounts & guest viewings. (I'm not sure if there is a IP-based uniqueness for the view counts) |
|
|
|
I'm sure that with the state of the forum, we all need pills to cure our headaches when we have to truck through a sea of garbage.  |
|
|
|
I have 83% accuracy with 115 posts reported. Report more. You have made some contributions however it is pretty dwarfed by a lot of other people's contributions which would be more deserving of a moderator spot. rickbig41 did become a moderator, but on that list, he's got >10x your report totals within those 4 months. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
