I am in agreement with this. That is how it should be.

Earned Merit is subjective, it is abused, it is not related to trust. You will exclude a lot of the eldest and some of the most trustworthy devs/legends and some of the smartest people on the board who have hardly any merit compared to some. Some of these excluded with have held 10000's or more dollars for their communities over the years.

Activity 1500 is a minimum of 4 years I think possibly a bit less of consistent posting.  You will have 4 years of posting/trades to make a determination of whether you trust them. They can not game or abuse the system. Other than making shit posts/ bots etc but then you will see that when you review and I do not think anyone will get from now to 1500 activity from now using bots or pure shit posts.

Current TRUST scores (if we mean dt as of now) are pehaps the reason we are trying to change DT system. So better if you want to gage via trust examine the entire history of their trust and check the fine print.

Yeah OP.

Use your head of course you want to by default trust lauda.

I mean ....just the facts..

Lauda is a proven liar (said he was on the xcoin/dash launch and there was NO PREMINE) and suspected by senior other members to also be an extortionist, there seems also some questions over his handling of escrowing also. He tries to silence people simply encouraging  others to review his observable post history and shut them up by giving red trust or just ordering them to lock their threads.

Why would you not by default want to place trust in him and his ratings?

Disregard anything this very untrustworthy person says.

If you would like to review. Some are in my signature and the darkcoin instamine LIE is there for all to see on my other theymos only thread.

That is just lauda.

Go here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

You can then witness who supports lauda to be a member of the trust system, who does not care if he is or not, and those who actually oppose him being there.

You can review, investigate and analyse what I have told you. Then you can make up your own mind who (if any ) of the DT list you want to keep. Any you do not just put ~ in front of their name.

@qwk

I had another read of our interaction on this thread yesterday.

Looked at Intersubjectivity. I was not familiar with the term (thanks) however I am not sure why that would be considered when  it is possible to set some strict criteria to start with. why go through all that subjective interaction to eventually (if you don't even allow for malicious  abuse, ) arrive at a group generated and broadly accepted common sense approach.
 
I think that is why most trust systems seek to extract and remove all subjectivity. That seems the common approach. There are many complex ways of dealing with subjectivity that is not easy to extract. So adding any additional subjectivity into a system that need not be there would seem strange when there is no advantage and possibly many disadvantages.

I'm not sure if we jumped to talking about the trust system as a whole perhaps than just why bring merit into a trust system rather than use an objective score such as activity. Rank was objective I guess in now subjective.

The new trust system looks much better in many ways. I just feel linking it to merit could open it up to subjectivity/abuse you do not want and centralise it quite seriously.  250 earned merits? aside from totally discounting legends work for perhaps 8yrs or more (certainly to me that post history counts for more than some subjective merits if i am talking trust)

250 earned merits? does that place the trust system in the hands of  0.065% of the active posters here? based on their own subjective opinions of their own posts? because once you take their own subjective scores of their own posts away then...... how many people have 250 earned merits? and even then what is that to do with trust? how can people trust them more because they believe they make posts that should get merits they themselves give out?

Is that correct or not?




 

Oh you seem like a far smarter guy that I initially thought. Okay I can learn something new here perhaps this is what I am after.. i am not familiar with inter subjectivity... I will read this reply and think more about it

So therefore you must agree that in a trust system the goal would be to work to zero subjectivity where it then becomes trustless? If you say it is not possible to reach zero I agree to but to increase variance at any point seems strange if there is no need.

Is this correct?

I agree with you but I was confused by your reply.... should have just said well cryptohunter at zero (which you want) you need no trust it is trustless but yes you want to reduce subjectivity where possible? or are you not saying that anyway?

To me injecting subjectivity in at any point is a move in the wrong direction if working toward reducing the level of trust?

I am interested in your opinion on this but if you can give me examples or analogies also this will be great. English is not my first language so analogies or examples help me greatly. If you have time.


I am actually trying to understand the reasoning. I am going out for the evening later tonight so i may not reply for some time but i will when i return and read what you have said.

Take out the top 200's own cycled merits and see how many have 250 earned merits.

About ... not many.

Earned merits only is like saying all posts legends made before merit system were worth zero .... that sounds very strange.

centralised the trust system and injects huge swathes of subjectivity and variance. Variance you eliminate from a trust system if possible I would say.  

trying to use subjective (and meaningless by suchmoons definition) scores as building blocks for trust seems quite a strange idea. I would like to have seen a debate on it by some real game theory egg heads to see what they say.

I still am yet to understand why creating some merit analysis stats makes you more trusted than a legend that has held 10000's of dollars or millions of dollars of coins for years and never took even one for themselves.

If anyone can explain it.

Mikey - I am sorry to hear that you got scammed as people know I detest scammers.

We can't rely on anecdotal evidence. It has low power or can even be misleading for the larger picture.

Another thing in favour of legends that scam is the punishment side of things. They have more to lose.

Let me say I am not claiming to be correct anyway this is simply a debate.

QWK - can you explain what you mean? why would you not want to reduced subjectivity in a trust system?

How can you disagree you want to reduce subjectivity in a trust system.... I am interested in this.  zero is the target surely or as near to 0 as possible.

Perhaps I am wrong but I can't see how you can not want to decrease subjectivity and variance. I am always willing to change my opinion though so perhaps it is more complex that I think. I await your reply

This is why high merit does not = high value and sometimes is a very negative value.

This is a demonstration of someone trying to stifle free speech and ideas. He could come here and give a sensible answer and debate.
But no just insists this should not be discussed.

Can someone point me to even 1 of loyceV posts that is of HIGH VALUE that is not some stats related stuff he just pulls from the servers.

I mean a post from loyceV that demonstrates original thought and insight of very high value. I mean surely someone with the highest earned merit must have 100's of very insightful and important contributions.

This is not part of my debate here but I will use this point to illustrate that high merit is not correlated at all with high value posts or large contributions to the forum. So ignoring pullling stats and presenting them in graphs etc.

LoyceV apparently has me on ignore so not sure why he is too worried about this thread.

So let's carry on debaiting the OP as I said I am not going to be derailed by personal matters for this.

This is simply a question I am asking because I would like to know the sensible and logical reason behind it and I can not ask theymos directly because he said I write in a rambling low content manner (which could be true) and does not have time to read it at the moment. So I am asking others to debate without getting upset or angry about it.

@maydayonliner

Then perhaps you bring a good point for the distant future. I though this you saying this can happen at this point.

I was talking about now. But for sure we could make it 1500 activity and extend the rank sensibly over time.

I mean this is just a discussion I am not 100% which is the better way of course. We could make a list of pro / cons and see how we go



I will not reply to this thread for a few hours and see what is said by others because I will hopefully avoid dispute with other people who wish to prevent the simple discussion of ideas....

Try to make an objective list merit vs activity +rank.

Then I come back and review and just analyse peoples thoughts. 

Intention and motivation are largely irrelevant to a debate.

Why would i wish to keep new members from DT if I could trust them more.

I am simply saying I think you could TRUST someone more if

they have been here a long time and have a long history to examine

more than

someone who could have been here much less time

also you have to realise activity is applied to every person fairly and objectively so it is impossible to game or manipulate that score.

Merit score (especially with no criteria or mandate) can not be linked to trust.

Weight out the positives and negatives of each.

A subjective score is dangerous if you try to use those scores as if they were derived objectively and fairly. Even if merit was somehow distributed by some AI have valued each post against a set of criteria I do not think it has a huge correlation to trust.

Time does.

However let's not focus specifically on that part too much.

@mdayonliner

please relax... it is called a debate.

I am not sure what your examples are supposed to demonstrate.

Explain your meaning.

As far as I know someone with that activity can not exist at newbie rank.

Also to prevent something like that being possible (but highly unlikely)  in 5 years time we can also say 1500 activity and hero

Thanks for post, Yes  I thought it did work as you say.

I do not think 1500 activity would be easy for account farmers that would take YEARS of farming and is unlikely to go unnoticed. If you want put it to 1750 or 2000. You will lose an account like that then you will not be rebuilding it again for another 5 years. I don't think people will ever farm that again. Make it Hero + 1500 activity.

I am simply saying by this logic.

It is about trust -  so

Who do I trust to be having influence over DT1

New member who got a score via a totally subjective and easily gamed system that can be abused.

Old member with lots of history who obtained the score through objectively observable and fair means that can not be gamed or cheated.

When you are talking TRUST you want ZERO subjectivity or as little as possible.

I am opening a debate only to get greater understanding of the reason behind it. Everything else about the new system looks like a big improvement so I am not being critical of the changes over all.

Straight forward simple question.

Perhaps I have not fully understood the new DT algo.


What does merit have to do with trust?

You must have  member with 100 "earned" merits directly decide to include you in their trust list?

Would that not be better to replace with activity 1500 or above?

How can a subjective score that can be obtained quickly and has nothing to do with trust be a more useful and sensible basis for trust than Rank or Activity - these are objective scores and take a long time to gain and can not be gamed or cycled.

If someone has been here years (to gain 1500 activity) and I can explore their post history to gauge if they are to be trusted or not that is far more useful than some subjective score that can be gained quickly.

merits can be earned quickly, simply for some creating some merit stats and are subjective and can be abused/gamed.

rank and activity - these are objective meaningful metrics - can not be gamed - takes years to attain and more history to explore for trustworthy behaviour. If you have not scammed or engaged in anything untrustworthy in YEARS of being here then you are more trustworthy that someone that came a few months ago and made some good stats metrics, or got given huge merits from their alts.

Other considerations that may or may not be correct

Elder legends and heros may  be more likely to be very wealthy already and need not scam?

By saying earned merits you are NULLING the effort of elder legends who may be due much more than 1000 merits and actually in some cases could be due 100000's of merits by earned merit standards. Also nulling the post quality of legends that never come to meta.

I mean there are many Legends in the alt board that have held millions and millions of dollars in community funds for years that will not be classed as important TRUST WISE as someone who could come here and make some nice merit stats or bought merits.

I suggest removing 100 earned merits and replace with 1500 activity.

Let's have a sensible debate.

speculation but could be because you are implicated in a possible extortion scheme and also red trust people for presenting facts for a start.

I have not created my trust list yet because i never really paid any attention to it before

but anyone here who puts ~  in front of untrustworthy members linked to real financial wrong doing/scams hit me up and I will put you on a list that I will be recommending to all legends and heros to use.

Produce my claims that have no evidence or strong corroborating observable events to support.

I'm not asking for him to be banned or strongly punished. They are simply using the subjective nature of the systems of control to their own ends and attempting to influence free speech. I would simply like criteria introduced that we all need to abide by that will remove that subjectivity from where abuse can reside. Of course though they should be blacklisted from trust positions.

I have provided evidence for every point I have made.

These people are not against me - why would they be. They are against criteria being brought to Red trust and merit allocation that will remove all of their power.  I am calling for such criteria to be introduced to make things fairer for all and prevent free speech being influenced.

That is it .... that is all there is to understand.

Please moron do not seek to silence me with your stupid remarks and sexual deviance any longer.

Read my what makes a HQ LQ thread. Then come back after that free education.

Opinions without accompanying reason/evidence/logic  that form the basis of that said opinion are not validated and therefore suspect if there are contrasting opinions that are accompanied by a strong case.

Find a flaw in the OP and present it or fuck off you demented little gimp.

You forgot the evidence

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096017.0

Some unknown wanna be Hhampuz kicked out LoyceV and nobody noticed?

Personally I love the lemons thing. At first I suspected you could be trolling me (providing false almost ludicrous information in a serious tone). However, as I now understand the DT and trust system I see now that you were simply demonstrating the subjective nature of DT.  I mean I find it more reasonable inside a trust system to get red trust for lemons love than I do for some of the red trust I have witnessed already.

Disruptive I will accept. I do not find being disruptive is essentially negative. Indeed if you believe systems of control are suffocating or influencing free speech then to disrupt is positive - logic and reason must be applied to what they are disrupting and what their agenda is. I mean as noted I have no power other than to present facts. My agenda is clear for a fairer and more transparent set of rules that prevent abuse and freedom of speech being muted. If that is something you would distrust then that is something for you to either explain or not.

Anyway this was not essentially meant to be a post that focus on my trolling/not trolling it was meant for trolling in general.

I thought the LQ HQ post criteria went rather well and I think a quite comprehensive and exhaustive set of criteria was set.

Now I notice a lot of talk about trolling all over the forum. It seems to have become an umbrella term for posts that seem very different in tone and content and humour.

So I was simply hoping to emulate the HQ LQ post and see if we could drill down and see how what people consider as trolling.

I've been on wind up too... I just didnt think of going so extreme as you though ...with the uncles touching children and carrots and fruit up the ass pipe...

Can't believe you bit the bait.

I was undercover trying to flush out the real mad fuckers. You ruined it all now. I know how you feel on that extortion thing.... getting your cover blown by some well meaning goodie goodie.