Might want to add this info into OP:

If you are still reading & posting, what "support" are you stopping exactly?  
Your "support" to campaign managers, bounties, etc. is not "supporting" this forum, it's supporting your greed, and advertisers and/or ICO scammers.

Well sure, any post that is made right now is now in "history" a second after the post, I'm saying going back years in time to merit posts that have inactive accounts. I thought part of the idea here is sort of a trickle-down effect, when you are sending those sMerits to satoshi, he is getting 1/2 of those merits as sMerits, and will never send them to anyone and those sMerits are lost. I guess a "merit source" may not care as much because they can create the merit... my thoughts were to look at current/ongoing posts and selecting ones right now that may be worth merit.

If we go back into *all* history, my sMerits will be spent quickly and will probably be going to users that aren't as active anymore.

I assumed that this thread is what theymos was intending when he made that comment. I've been thinking of creating a thread like this myself but wanted to see/learn how the system plays out a little more first... I'm not sure I understand why I would go back in history to merit posts?... I also can't understand why some people are sending smerits to satoshi when the account isn't active and I assume those merits are burned.

You will not rank up unless you meet the activity AND merit qualification for that rank:

Rank	Required activity	Required merit
Brand new	0	0
Newbie	1	0
Jr Member	30	0
Member	60	10
Full Member	120	100
Sr. Member	240	250
Hero Member	480	500
Legendary	Random in the range 775-1030	1000

What do you mean by "sunked in threads" ??

You do not lose "Merits" when you spend "sMerits", the other person gets Merits & sMerits when you Merit their post.
If I mark a post of yours with 6 merits, I lose 6 sMerits, you get 6 Merits & 3 sMerits. I will still maintain my number of "Merits"

This is a decent FAQ that has been started: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2820030.0


I'm not sure it is to incentivize more posts but to increase the quality, primarily for those desiring to rank up.

Well this thread grew quickly. I'm liking the merit system... seems like it should cut the shitposting down pretty quickly when they cannot rank up as easily. Sorry if I have missed this in the 19+ pages I haven't read yet but should I assume there is no point of giving merit to legendary posts?  I assume that merit sources should be seeking accounts that are needing to rank up and marking those posts?

Only other concern I would have is if I add merit to a post, it displays my name and almost makes me feel like I'm supporting the content of the post, whereas I would really just be marking a post as quality, not agreeing to the content.

I'll just go on record stating that if you see my name appear on a post, it does not mean I agree with the content of the post, but that the post is high quality enough to deserve merit.

So a "spammer" tag would be introduced and that spammer tag would then remove a signature if X amount of spammer tags have been added by DT members?  I need to think this through but it sounds interesting.

One note: the number of 'spammer' tags should maybe be calculated on a percentage to accommodate the DT list growing or reducing.

Would there then need to be a way to counter spammer tags if others think it is an inappropriate rating?

Using my best judgement with the information I currently have, there is no hard evidence or proof of this happening now. I have fears of it growing into this issue. If anything like that is happening now, I'd guess it's on a small scale. It seems obvious there are at least like-minded thoughts that exists with a group of DT members, but that doesn't necessarily prove a "club" exists. I'll admit part of my fears stemmed from the fact that this like-minded group appeared to be originating from one DT member, then I saw the comment about a sanctioning by "upper-level DT members", so I've been curious where this comes from and wanted to see who else may support it.


From an advertisers perspective, I assume a lot of them do not care about the post quality, it's just getting their advertisement shown as many times in as many places as possible. They know that red flagged users on this forum are not seen as trusted and carry a high chance of having their advertisement ignored or seen as a scam, so it more aggressively eliminates a piece of their audience.

Leaving neutral feedback probably will not solve anything, those managers will probably just allow the accounts with neutral because they are not going to eliminate as many viewers as a red account, and I find it unlikely that most of the campaign managers would take the time to look through to see neutral feedbacks.

Again, I can't say I'm opposed to the idea of DT tagging spammers assuming admins/mods can't handle it and need help, but I do feel like there is a higher potential for abuse and too many blurred lines on what could be considered a quality post. Some are obvious, others will be controversial
...the potential for racketeering comes to mind.



**And no, this thread was not intended to be a Lauda or The Pharmacist reputation thread.  

I'll accept that there is not communication between most DT members, my communication to other DT members has been minimal, but the potential to abuse seems higher when DT members can mark an account negative for post quality, which I think would open an environment for the controlling of what content is deemed "ok" by DT members.

The quote I posted in OP, which hints that there is some sort sanctioning by "upper level" DT members to tag shitposters was a little surprising considering I was under the impression, like you were, that not a lot of communication happens between DT members.


This is what I was alluding to in my OP, this type of feedback goes against the guidelines set by theymos... and IMO the racist tone on some of the feedback isn't helpful to a forum that has plenty of non-native english speakers and is a discussion board for a worldwide cryptocurrency. I'm sure there are reasons for the guidelines in 2013 but that is part of the reason for this thread, to establish where other DT members may stand, and maybe Blazed will get a response back from theymos on whether his guidelines are any different today.

Read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497545.0
You will need to have a prior address that you've used on the forum in the past, and will need to be able to sign a message from that address verifying you are the owner. Additional details are available in the thread mentioned above.

DT members are basically just users of this community that are trusted by theymos or the various DT1 members. They are not held to any different set of rules or requirements because they are not admins or mods of this forum, they do not get paid, and they really do not have any obligation to respond to you at all. Your chances of being responded to are reduced quite a bit when you are red from negative feedback by other DT members.


This did cross my mind... they certainly could remove their 'no red trust' rule but with the current conditions I'd foresee campaign managers being fearful of doing this because then they would then be running poorly managed campaigns that encourage or support spammers, which I assume would justify this same type of feedback being left on their own accounts, damaging their own reputation. It might be more likely that campaign managers themselves start excluding specific DT members from their own trust view to de-validate the red from those members, which may result in some of the outcomes you mentioned... but I assume would still lead to DT members tagging the managers.



I guess I'd like to know who is neutral to it and who supports it then... if the majority of DT1 members are neutral to it given the current circumstances of post quality, this is good information I'd like to have.


I'm mainly trying to evaluate my own guidelines/criteria for leaving feedback but I'm fine hearing from A), B), and certainly C) in your list... although I'll likely not react to most of the B) group.
And what's wrong with libertarianism??  

I'm conflicted and need a reality check. I believe I'm more reserved in my approach with feedback than say Lauda or The Pharmacist, and I don't really believe theymos had intended DT to act as a cleanup crew for sig spammers on the forum, but that seems to be where this is heading, and I can't say I'm entirely against it because mods and admins have shown they do not, or cannot, get involved on a large scale with the shitposting/sig spamming.

Even though I feel like this type of work should be handled by admins & mods (and I believe they are trying), the constant crap content and one/two-liners in a lot of the larger boards certainly effects the community, and one community-based way to fight back may be the DT system, especially if signature campaign managers are using it as a guide on who can join their campaigns. However, the potential for abusing this and/or the DT system turning into a sort of "good ol' boys club" would be my fear.


I'll assume Blazed is included in the comment above but I'm curious which other members may be supporting this, or at least how many support the leaving of feedback based on just the quality of a users post(s)?

I've always seen the rating of accounts based on the quality of their posts as going against the general guidelines set by theymos for the DT system, so I've always had reservations about going down this path and usually try to find more than just the quality of the post as a reason to leave feedback. It would be easier if I didn't have to do this, but I've always made it a personal responsibility.

I'm interested in hearing other opinions & thoughts on this.
If you are not comfortable posting publicly for whatever reason, PM is fine with me.

Well it certainly is, and you certainly have not read the thread I wasted my time posting for you.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
But as I've explained, as did the thread I've already posted, this is technically "your" trust list. By default, you are probably trusting "DefaultTrust" which includes all DT1 and DT2 members.

Details of trust system: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0

In short, theymos sets DT1 members, and DT1 members each have their own DT2 list. If you are on DT1 or any of the DT2 lists, you are on "DefaultTrust" which is the default trust system every account starts off with. However, every member on the forum has the option to exclude/include anyone from their own individualized trust list. But by default, everyone starts off trusting DT1 and DT2 members.

I'll be waiting with bated breath for the "synced details". For the record, I'm not an alt of anyone involved with ALU, or anyone else on this forum for that matter, so please... sync those details and post them already! 

And where is the evidence?...

I need to find additional reasons to tag outside of these links. Some are easier for me to personally make a decision on, and I haven't looked at all of them (maybe only half), but just the wallet link requires me to seek more reasons to be confident in my feedback. Regardless, these should all be public for others to make their own determinations, which is why I posted them before really doing my own review beforehand. I started looking at the largest groups initially then eventually shifted my time to the script itself but unfortunately have not had much time recently to continue that either - holidays & life/work responsibilities.

The next few weeks should clear up more time for me to devote. For the accounts a little harder to make a decision on, I'd like to incorporate looking through the post history of those that are found as potential wallet links and doing an analysis on it similar to the one that was done on QS, and may look into automating a 3rd piece of supporting evidence which will analyze some other details about prior posts... the first 2 may be enough for me though. And, if I'm confident enough in the automated results, I will make the feedback process a little easier for myself on tagging them.

I've left feedback as well because the account has very likely changed hands and shouldn't be trusted.
However, I'm not sure if you are the original owner or not.

This post has been deleted, however:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160223093401/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1036780.320

Can you sign a message from 1PErxneKUsQ5PojdkSKHx1bdtqEJ8p3fj3  ?

I had realized this at some point already and changed it in the OP.. but had not changed that post .. I've modified it!