Yes, but it is better to be detrusted by "no one" than "unwanted" by quite more people.
The data is updated on Fridays. Check back tomorrow. Still it's not even close to "no one wants you here" in any feasible way that I can see. You're making these broad and fairly ridiculous statements quite consistently. Is this caused by the same issue that also caused you to "unlearn" English recently? What caused you to unlearn everything recently? Let's look at some of your statements shall we. " most " pre merit legends are spammers -- that is quite a good one or it is idiotic and incorrect to assume some of the 99.87% of the board can make posts as good or better than some of the 0.13% (top200 merit cyclers) Your statements are far more ludicrous. Please do not lecture people on making statements that you feel are ridiculous since that likely means they are quite sensible and reasonable. Well let's rephrase .... nobody who thinks proven liars should be in positions of trust wants them there. I don't care who is on DT so long as they are forced to work within a sensible framework and to a sensible fair mandate. If they will not they need removal. Of course it would be quite sensible to remove persons whom are proven liars since surely we can find others who are not to replace them. |
|
|
|
If he has the original email that is more than enough.
No. It is actually highly likely that an account could have been hacked simply by acquiring access to the original email address. So, proof of control of the email address doesn't necessarily prove anything. Am I the only one noticing he is not spamming a sig ? like every single other person in this thread. That would suggest he is not desperate for btc dust either like the rest here which further supports the fact he is likely a vip.
That's the reason why my "gut feeling" says "not hacked". Then again, it might be considered wise to err on the side of caution. Not only the fact there is no sig being spammed. There is no mention from the hacked person they lost control of the account. Is it not unlikely someone would not kick off if their vip account got hacked? also most hacks here are mostly due to the site being compromised are they not? my email was never hacked but they hacked my account. Lucky for me they missed the PM with the keys to several million dollars of an alt that were sitting there that I had no other record of that I could locate. That was a big relief to get control back. I think for certain account swaps then perhaps it is debatable but for only "possible" account swaps or sales then neutral is sufficient warning surely. |
|
|
|
While your intent seems constructive, the application of this would be a logistical and ideological nightmare. One thing I have learned over the decades of being on the internet is some times the most important things people need to hear are often the most unpopular. Creating a system to allow people to hide unpopular information would be a massive problem. I will let you fill in the blanks with hypotheticals. I am sure the trust system debacle serves as a good example of how that might go... I 100% agree with you there. However I consider the current system to be already doing this to a large degree. This system would I hope prevent this and reverse this completely. I am only trying to propose an entirely fair and objective meritocracy as far as we can create it. Would not the thrashing out of the criteria for a valuable post inhibit unpopular and popular being relevant . I mean surely if we drill down enough on the criteria - then there s no longer room for subjectivity and something either does add new relevant factual information or highly probable correct information in light of presented corroborating supporting observable events or not. I mean if you drill down enough with criteria a post will either be a net positive logical contribution toward finding the optimal solution or truth or not. We need to drill down and down until only objective analysis of posts all measured to the same criteria is used to generate a score. Actually as score will then be subjective so perhaps we need to make it either merit worthy or not merit worthy that will perhaps be easier. So no score just yes positive or not positive according to the exhaustive criteria we can come up with as a community. Merit worthy or not merit worthy. Valuable according to the criteria or not valuable. In highly complex discussions with many layers and each layer having multiple factors of influence so that there is no correct answer perhaps that we can discern easily (perhaps things like broad topics on economics/politics etc) then still there can be logic and reason separated from groundless opinion and "ideas" that are popular or unpopular. The detail is the important thing. I certainly would never want a system that prevents "unpopular" ideas being silenced because quite often those are the most sensible, reasonable and logical ideas promoting fairness and a real meritocracy. Now of course you will create situations were some merit sources believe the criteria is met and other will not feel the criteria is met. So eventually you will need to only have merit sources that can clearly and logically present a case for merit or non merit. Gradually over time the merit sources themselves will be drilled down until you have a group of persons that are well suited to analysing posts and picking them apart for real objective value or filler that sounds like it has value. To merit posts you of course need persons that are capable of demonstrating clearly why they meet the criteria for a valuable post if challenged. You could have a variation on this with merit sources being able to actually remove merit ( 1 vote per post) they feel does not meet the objective criteria. I'm sure most merit sources will stick to the criteria or else just replace with people that will stick to the criteria. There can be small margins of error where some of the criteria is met but for posts where none of the criteria are met then they get a couple of chances making such an error and then they are replaced with somebody else who is able to match posts to the criteria consistently.
Ctrl+F "Merited by"
This is what I do, especially in threads with lots of replies, like 20+ replies. The problem with sorting by merited is that Bitcointalk doesn't work like Reddit for example, where you can sort by upvotes and understand the discussion. In Reddit there many parallel discussions on the same topic, and those are sorted by upvotes In Bitcointalk the discussion usually goes in a linear chronological order of the posts, so you cannot just swift a merited post to the top, it will break the chronological order and may not make sense. This could be the case so this is why you would jump to the post with the next valuable post button and you can look for the context. However since it should be largely on topic and relevant to the OP and also they usually quote what they are responding too then it should still work well. There will be times when reading the entire thread is more useful though. However that should mean there are lots of valid points being made frequently. I mean imagine there are zero valuable posts at all after the op until page 4 then skipping to it immediately should not result in you not having a clue what the post is about because the posts are supposed to really be relevant to the OP and not go meandering off topic. However, yes if you did not understand why this post has value in the context of the OP then you will need to trace back. I do not think this would happen too often if the criteria is held too strictly. |
|
|
|
I was thinking of a voting system where members can give +1 to a good post, then posts get sorted based on the number of votes. /it's kinda like how merit system works exept for the sorting thing.
Perhaps it makes sense to implement "Like" button  along with Merit system, so any member can vote. In the top right corner of the forum comments had obtained the highest number of Merit and "Likes" for the day may be displayed. In that case posts with a large number of "Likes" would help Merit Sources to find good posts quicker. Yes exactly this same thing was just suggested with the +1 idea above. Same thing. The onus then is on the merit source who will measure against strict criteria and reward objectively. |
|
|
|
Ctrl+F "Merited by"
in current form not even comparable to what the OP is suggesting in anyway. 1. would that not only cover the page you are on? what if in a mega thread next valuable post is on page 8 2. currently merited posts meet no criteria so have no consistent value at all so it can not work in its current form. If you really want to find objectively valuable posts then criteria must be set and measure against. Anyone opposing that should be able explain why they would want to oppose objective evaluation of all posts fairly. To oppose this you are opposing a true meritocracy. You see once you have a strong foundation many things can be built upon it. Trying to build upon a broken unstable and inconsistent foundation just makes for more problems. |
|
|
|
We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?
NOPE! BAD idea, very bad idea. This place will become into a absolute shithole if that ever happens, because of obvious reasons. Really? why is that? |
|
|
|
It would be a great feature if implemented, but let's suppose we agree on those criterias, who is going to select the good posts and how? I think it is impossible to make the post selection automted.
I don't know about you, personally when I start reading a megathread I focus on merited posts.
Edit: I was thinking of a voting system where members can give +1 to a good post, then posts get sorted based on the number of votes. /it's kinda like how merit system works exept for the sorting thing.
This is true it can not be automated. It could work like this 1. criteria agreed and exhausted for valuable post 2. merit sources study this and give merit as per criteria suggests only and objectively 3. meriting when criteria is not met frequently = removal of merit source and passed to new person 4. you could combine this with your +1 idea so all members can highlight a good source then server totals most +1 alerts merit source to review manually. 5. People pressing +1 false 3x (merit source decides post not meeting criteria) then have their +1 button deactivated for 6 months. I mean that is just an off the top of my head idea ... some peoplen could perhaps design something even better. |
|
|
|
|
If he has the original email that is more than enough.
Am I the only one noticing he is not spamming a sig ? like every single other person in this thread. That would suggest he is not desperate for btc dust either like the rest here which further supports the fact he is likely a vip.
If you "suspect" this has changed hands a neutral is MORE than sufficient to be left as a note that it MAY have changed hands. Red is just trust abuse on a suspicion
This thread says hacked (because I doubt a vip was ever broke enough to need to sell) i am sure someone if they were hacked are quite likely to be mentioning it also.
|
|
|
|
So today actmyname starts a thread that got me thinking a bit more about this issue. I didn't reply on his thread since it may be classed as diverting or off topic...but We have all known that a lot of threads on certain boards are high% valueless filler that consists of off topic, irrelevant , text spun parroting of prior posts or groundless improbable opinions , net negative clouding of the issue etc. So even if the OP was interesting you have to sift through 20 pages to find perhaps 1 gem of new information that has some value that is related. Often you may give up after a few pages because nothing of further value is located. So what if you hammered out strict criteria for a post of value - something like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5091552.0Then the posts that were measured against this criteria and marked as valuable were hyper linked in a small reserved space under the OP so you can jump to next valuable reply..it could just be a button saying next valuable reply on each post of value so you just jump from one to the other but still can look back over prior posts before it if you need a bit of context (if on topic to the OP should be okay anyway)? . I mean if you have ages to browse the forum then yes it is okay it can be fun to read the entire evolution of a thread through natural disagreements, the gradual build up of frustration of both sides of a debate and sometime resulting drama etc (all part of forum fun) but if you don't have a lot of time or can't be doing with to much debate that day and just want to jump to the valuable new information then it may be a useful feature that could be implemented. Of course this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5091552.0 can be improved upon further this was just the start. However once you have a check list to measure posts against then it will get easier over time for people to mentally auto checklist posts against this kind of criteria mentally and be able to eliminate filler/misleading posts quickly and reward posts of real value correctly. This could fit in nicely with the sig banner impressions thing that was being discussed also. I mean this is extreme but you could put in your settings inside your account a tick box for show valuable replies only. I mean that would be risky and cut out valuable stuff that slipped through the net I guess. |
|
|
|
that restriction makes it centralised and gamed easily by a few colluders merit cyclers. However it does not really make too much difference there are plenty of other ways to make it known that red trust abuse will not be tolerated.
This restriction isn't the sign of centralization. Its a requirement to be eligible for participation. Obviously who have earned 250 merits got much acceptability than others. So here IMO vast experience & previous works history makes the difference only. Yeah in your vast experience and previous works your humble opinion is valid right? Haha what an entertaining post in so many ways. Previous works and history? yeah that is why there are noobs all over DT. Lol not centralisation just requirement for eligibility... is that some joke? in this case it is the same thing. The people awarding themselves and pals merit support the same pals on DT Wrong, 250 earned merits are mostly cycled junk from no more than a tiny tiny subset of cyclers for the most part. It is quite observable by bpip and the dt inclusions list these are colluding. There are elder legends here with less than 50 earned merits that are far more trustworthy and make far better posts. Please stop hanging around meta merit begging and get out on to the real discussion boards like most noobs here. People don't generally join a board to discuss how the board works. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.
Which is a lie (neither is there any urgency nor is this place near the state of being a mess of that type); stop pushing false narratives using a hacked account. The end goal is to make account trading non-taggable again, and that is not going to happen. Your lies have really become tiring to read.  Lies lies lies, says the proven liar. Remove my red trust or debate in public with me why you gave it to me in the first place. |
|
|
|
Well then perhaps instead of insinuating it is proof of some kind of dishonest behavior, you should admit this is what you judged your OPINION of him on. I have watched you and others endlessly ride these conflicts as if they themselves are proof of wrong doing simply because he reacted badly to being accused. This to me is just more evidence of the mobbing behavior you partake in.
I've had numerous fights with Lauda, members of the collectibles forum and elsewhere but I've never been treated as badly as I have been by you, ognasty & other people that have told me I "hang out with bad people". It's quite interesting though that the common denominator is that "you guys" seem to have an urge to prove that you are better than everyone else. I truly hope you can find serenity, perhaps this is your outlet for mending your health, I don't want to jump to conclusions. I'll end this now by putting you on ignore, I found that doing so to other members that only seem to spread toxicity has made my every-day life that much better. Look toxicity is not the same as truth demonstrating wrong doing. You should review the cold facts and simply do what is right. It is not drama, it is not negativity, it is not trolling, it is not madness, it is not self righteous high horse, it is simply the right thing based on facts presented. If ignoring truth about how things are makes your day better than that is fine. |
|
|
|
Well, I can see your concern. However, we are getting a bit off topic for this thread. However, anyone is welcome to apply to become a merit source. However, theymos does also just recruit people. That's how I got to be a merit source.  I only cared very little about the forum politics until I was drawn into meta, since many of the threads are about the merit system and I want to see what other people consider to be a good way to distribute merits. Of course, I am not perfect at the task and only venture in the boards that I am interested in. However, I have expanded my horizons quite a bit since being made a merit source and continue to expand. Unfortunately, there is only so much that I can read in a day. Yeah I am in full agreement actually. Of course persons can not be expected to find every good post then work out where to give merits. So I think it is good to not have people that are all in close circles to each other and share views because then only the same posts will attract merit. The best way would be 1. make a set of criteria that each person applies to the posts they review 2. make a very wide set of merit sources a lot from the alt boards too actually if you had a strict set of criteria that removed subjectivity as much as possible it would not matter who was the merit source because only the post would determine the merit awarded so it would be very fair. Of course still you should have a wide spectrum concerning areas of interest because we should aim to give all post the same opportunity of review. However I think most people should favour a fair system like this that is why I can not understand the resistance to it from those that already have the most merit. Just create a fair system that can not be gamed. I can not see why such strong hate for this idea. The same goes for DT - fair system that brings in the most trustworthy persons. Anyway yes don't want to go off topic but now I do not support his merit source application because we need to broaden it to other areas of the board as much as possible. Find some old legends who make great posts and that are fair and give them merit source. Also tell them never to come to meta and get involved in a war so no need to take sides just give merit to posts they think are deserving. Or of course bring strict criteria for merit worthy posts (which i was trying to define in my what makes a valuable post thread) and then anyone can be a merit source until they don't stick to the criteria. |
|
|
|
Because as a knee jerk cheerleader for these people, I see you as no different. Is that not how you scambusters do it? Guilt via association? The point remains regardless of the fact it applies more closely to people you support, such as by making this post to begin with.
In other words, you didn't even check Hhampuz's trust history before you accused him of mass tagging people, and you're covering up that error by blaming everyone else for the whole "guilty by association" thing. Gotcha. Look people are guilty by association. If he supports people on DT that do mass tagging of innocent people then they are only on DT and able to do this because of him and other like it. He is therefore responsible also. Please don't play dumb (actually sorry its you) Suchmoon clearly states as I have proven if you are supporting a "possible" scam you can be tagged for that. That is guilt by association to even a "possible " scam. However he then goes on to support a PROVEN liar, and scam protector in DT. Now you of all persons should be hiding up after you were busted for being a sneaky greedy sock puppet racist trolling sig spammer but for some reason you think you still have the right to lecture others on financial shit posting. You can not have people here with such tainted pasts that are proven fact giving out red trust on grey areas or in extreme cases like my own for actually presenting facts that demonstrate your wrong doing. It simply is beyond sensible debate. Honestly some of these grey area tags are generating such hate simply because it is clear the people red tagging them are actually guilty of far worse. I mean the injustice felt by members facing this treatment is fuel enough to keep this raging forever. Red trust needs to be confined by strict criteria and a clear mandate. Also any wrong doing proven by a DT member required immediate removal by a higher power regardless of what his chums on DT say. It simply makes any decision taken by DT members whilst they support proven liars and trust abusers and greedy sneaky sock puppet shit posters seem unacceptable to the community due to the double standards. Fix it or watch the entire forum degrade into chaos. Fair reward and fair punishment for all. Anything else is going cause chaos over time. Things will not get better they will get worse. Some persons here are so annoyed at this perceived mistreatment due to observable double standards and gaming of the systems of control even banning will have no effect. Better to give a strict criteria that ensures a fair environment for all. |
|
|
|
Yes it is an okay post. Let's call this a nice presentation of the quite obvious with some questionable reasoning behind some subheadings. Net positive on the whole I guess. Imagine though that post has more earned merit that gjhiggins smooth, david zimbeck and 100's of other great legends that have earned in total. Please get serious. Go read some of their posts they are not simply the presentation of the mostly obvious mixed in with some questionable reasoning. The most valuable poster to examine real ico value is banned. Who can you ask now for a detailed analysis of some complex white papers conceptual design entirely for free? Well, perhaps the next time Theymos determines who should be new merit sources, he should pick some distinguished regulars that post on the altcoin boards. The problem with this though is most people are only interested in a limited set of altcoins. If at all. So the selected merit source would probably only distribute their merits in the threads talking about the coins they are either interested in or have serious concerns with. Well that is a reasonable post and I do agree with you. That could be a problem. This is why merit can never really be treated as a valuable metric. I mean imagine that we even introduced strict criteria for giving merit. That would be a HUGE upgrade to merit. However we still have the HUGE issue of making sure everyones posts get fair review or opportunity for merit. That has been my major gripe with merit being used for anything other than holding back account farmers and bots. You simply can not relate merit to trust it is not at all possible and has broken the entire system. This is why theymos needs to stop making merit sources that are closely connected and give it to lots of unconnected persons like very great posters from the alt boards. Really I believe the most users are from the alt boards. So you need lots of dedicated merit sources that are also given criteria for giving out merits. I only ask for what is fair nothing more. I do not request ever to be DT or merit source myself. However lots of the older legends that are incredibly smart and respectable should be on DT and merit sources themselves. You need a broad spectrum but all must stick to a fair criteria that is applied fairly to all posters. |
|
|
|
|
If he has the original email and there are no persons here claiming it was their account then what is the issue?
I see no evidence here it was hacked.
I mean surely the real account owner would be here freaking out if this person were not the original owner.
Anything else is speculation.
I see it mentioned " turning up with strong views"
LOL that is like admitting you want to red trust for that reason?
There is no reason for him to explain anything at all if he has the original email and nobody else is claiming they got hacked.
|
|
|
|
Yes it is an okay post. Let's call this a nice presentation of the quite obvious with some questionable reasoning behind some subheadings. Net positive on the whole I guess. Imagine though that post has more earned merit that gjhiggins smooth, david zimbeck and 100's of other great legends that have earned in total. Please get serious. Go read some of their posts they are not simply the presentation of the mostly obvious mixed in with some questionable reasoning. The most valuable poster to examine real ico value is banned. Who can you ask now for a detailed analysis of some complex white papers conceptual design entirely for free? |
|
|
|
Seems you need to...
I don't take orders from you. I'm Lauda's pet bitch-fox, not yours, remember? In other words foxpup says.. I am afraid to debate in public my approach to DT and its implications. Fair enough.... @tryninja did you miss my post I am still waiting |
|
|
|
I mean if DT members have no interest in tagging proven liars that are on DT then that is fucked up.
Perhaps, but at the same time gwsukabokepjepang makes the compelling argument that we should only tag people who have directly scammed us. I can't please everybody. Seems you need to make up your own mind and give a public statement on this. So you are only going to red trust people that scam you directly?? How does that fit in with including proven liars and trust abusers on your own DT list exactly? I am interested to hear your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Okay so now that you are a DT gang member you need to uphold your position in tagging liars.
Why should I? My position is not in tagging liars and never has been. Please immediately tag lauda
Sorry, I don't do requests. If you've got a problem with Lauda, tag that cat yourself. explain here why you will not tag a proven liar as untrustworthy?
Because I don't care. Tagging liars, proven or not, isn't my job.
Who gave this moron foxpoop so much merit to pump out and destroy the small value of that metric further.
Blame theymos. If you don't like how I (or any other merit source) distributes merits, take it up with him. thanks, just quoting for future use. I mean if DT members have no interest in tagging proven liars that are on DT then that is fucked up. @TryNinjaThis is exactly why I enjoy engaging with people like you. You see your post allows me to illustrate 2 clear things about you. 1. you deliberately ignore the 3 most damning facts I present. Lauda is a proven liar Tman is a proven trust abuser and supports a liar The pharmacist is a proven greedy and devious sock puppet racist sig spamming troll. So before we go further with this discussion and I can not wait to get to the merit cycling part since it will allow me to bring you back to my most important thread of the year Since you are questioning my evidence. I am very glad you will now seek to examine all of my evidence in depth in public fairly and give your thoughts in public. I am glad you asked me back to discuss with you. 1 why do you deliberately ignore the other evidence if you wish to discredit my claims?? When you have answered in full and we have examined my evidence then we will move to the merit cycling. Let's address my facts based claims in order. I am fully open to indulging you in any debate or examination of evidence you would like. Let us start now..... I am waiting for your reply. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
