Sure, I'll bite  1. You're quite selective in who's judgement you value. Unfortunately for you, cryptohunter's opinion isn't even a majority in this thread, and until recently he didn't even know DT existed. 2. Many users say that. 3. If it's helping users, why did you delete it instead of correcting your wrongs? 4. DarkStar_ reported your plagiarism, I corrected my mistake in the username. 5. Screenshotting PMs is not done, so don't do it. I did read your thread and your deleted topic. 6. It seems like you don't want to understand the point. I've seen a higher ranked and much more loved dark green trusted user getting banned for plagiarism, the rules are the same for everyone. 7. Lol. Feel free to make a poll on helpfulness: LoyceV vs Rambotnic. What makes you think usd sales through escrow make you more valuable as a user, and why would that have anything to do with your plagiarism? Hi, firstly I want to say I have no personal issue at all with thepharmacist (who i'm familiar with from the alt board years back) nor yourself who I don't believe I have encountered before I met you the other day where you kindly provided some stats. Many thanks. I always feel for the small guy in a situation where he finds himself on fragile ground and not entirely of his own fault. However let's try and solve this matter without any prior bias. I can not see any room for opinion. If we are simply to go by the rules of this board as they are written below. "33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e] ... Examples: ... 33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own. Anything outside of that is speculation and guessing. There could be implied meanings to many of the unofficial rules. Which as you correctly state here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.msg36030624#msg36030624 are not set in stone anyway. It is observable that TP said "You passed off all that "helpful" information as your own words." on the 5th november. TP then left on the 5th of november the negative trust saying the OP is a plagiarist. Observable also. You can therefore observe he left the feedback whilst being under a false impression that the OP had claimed the work as his own -- when clearly he had not been guilty of this. You can clearly observe the OP wrote at the top of his post "I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading." Writing that is a clear indication that this work is not his own. This meets the full and total expectation of the rule as it is written. Anything implied further than that is speculation. Anything else now is really not relevant but I believe there are more mitigating circumstances in his favour. 1. he is not a bot and clearly does not go around copy and pasting as a habit looking through his post history 2. he clearly would not go and post this in meta (which is where i was told it was posted) in amongst all the largest ban hammers reside looking for these kind of things if he knew he was committing a perma ban offense. It does not make sense. 3. marlboroza on 08-11-2018, 23:25:04 - although sticking to his view that full references should be give he goes on to say that after reviewing a few things he believes also this was perhaps not intentional by the op. This demonstrates to me a reasonable person whom i merited for this sensible consideration. 4. the rules are there not to get rid of genuine users nor users that make an unintentional mistake (not that he made one going on the board rules as they are written) they are there as you say to stop spam bots and real content thieves. To just speculate and generate discussion on your points whilst we wait for confirmation from the op. So hopefully we can get a sensible solution. *** edit i see he posted already *** so only some are relevant. 1. not sure why my lack of knowledge regarding DT is relevant? can you explain? also I would propose the the majority have not yet had time to take into consideration and comment back on the observable events that I have picked up on. 2. He can confirm he is not a bot i guess. 3. He deleted after being told by "authority figures he had done wrong" so delete, edit, does not really matter he posted in meta so I doubt he was trying to go under the radar in the first place. He probably was in panic after being told the ban hammer was rising and was convinced (I believe wrongly so) that he broke rule 33. 4. DarkStar_ ( i am speculating) may feel that the guy deserves a pass or perhaps we are being a bit harsh. I say this because my post defending the OP received a merit from him. Now that is speculation, he may have clicked merit by accident, he may have just though the post was funny or some other reason. 6. when looking at this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.0 i see a totally different case of someone with no disclaimer or reference at all therefore breaking board rules and allegedly on the basis of a sig campaign. I am not judging them but its not a fair comparison. He has apparent motive and broke the rule 33. Even so i see many DT members arguing for him not getting banned  you here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.msg36030624#msg36030624 saying even the rules here can have exceptions they are a guide not a set of firm rules.. and some other quite sensible comments regarding your own possible unintentional referencing linking mistakes that could be open to plagiarism claims. And some quite human looking text regarding stress and other things that could create human error. 7. is not really relevant to this. Again this is nothing personal I have no issue with anyone on this entire thread at all. It is just to see the small guy getting squeezed for what I believe was an obvious (perceived by some) mistake by a lot of high profile members is not fair. Although if I have made a mistake in this post I enjoy finding the optimal outcome so i will check back to see the case against the OP again soon. We need to cut a balance between getting rid of shitpost scammers who are here to pump scam icos and other scam bots account builders etc and stamping on real users who make the odd honest mistake. I can understand that the few of you that do most of the fighting of this nightmare are kind of jaded from it and I know copy and paste is a very bad thing for the forum itself indeed and does need to be clamped down on hard. I know everyone is getting tight on this now even memes etc. So perhaps a slight update to the rules going further on 33 saying - - url reference at a minimum but full source reference if there is one. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, since bitcoin ETF is not still approved by SEC, Bakkt is the closest big event for crypto community. Do you think crypto market will pump?
I could be wrong but i think it will be better for crypto than and eft since they will apparently settle you in btc. |
|
|
|
|
I think the entire distribution and funding method of non regulated icos kind of leave you very open to being a victim.
This is simply not a transparent and trustless way of distributing coins.
Then you take a risk and hope for the best. That is all you have there. The odds are stacked against you.
|
|
|
|
My original 2011 bitcointalk hero account suddenly got hacked
I already sent a signed PGP message to Cyrus & theymoss but they did not reply
please help.
that is not good at all. I often wonder why they do not enable optional 2 factor auth via email confirmation at least. This would stop a lot of this. Mine got hacked to. Vod and lauda did help me actually. So props to them. |
|
|
|
<...>I just want to confirm and fill in the X's for the top 10, 20, 50, 100.<...>
This should be it for the day ...: Top 10 -> 9,57% received merit from Top 10. Top 20 -> 17,80% received merit from Top 20. Top 50 -> 26,38% received merit from Top 50. Top 100 -> 32,69% received merit from Top 100. There are currently 24.234 forum members that have received >= 1 sMerit, so the 100% will be reached on the top 24.234. Also, we should forget the 2 million user mith. In practice, there are many less even posting and therefore postulating for merit on the whole (see The real activity of bitcointalk.org + full stats). Only 137K have made a post over the last three months for example, as seen on the referenced thread. Thanks very much this is kind of the format I was really hoping for. I am not that great at math at all so please keep with me for this...I just want to understand how this merit all works. Top 10 -> 9,57% received merit from Top 10. Top 20 -> 17,80% received merit from Top 20. Top 50 -> 26,38% received merit from Top 50. Top 100 -> 32,69% received merit from Top 100. So for example does this show... The top 10 merit holders got 9.57% of their merits (since merit started) from other top 10 merit holders? So let's call it 10% for ease of putting some numbers in.. So let's say the top 10 received together as a group 10k merit since merit started 1k total from other current top 10 merit holders. 9k from those outside of the top 10 current highest. that would not look entirely terrible although still quite concentrated considering the user number ( i accept it has been nowhere near 2million) So here comes the part I want to know... From just knowing that how do I know how much total merit the top 10 merit users gave out in total? Would it from this example be possible for them to give out only 2k and give 50% to the top 10 only ? Obviously that is a crazy hypothetical number (i hope) that I am using just to see if I understand how it works or what I can tell from the numbers provided kindly by DdmrDdmr and loyceV I know I keep asking for more and more but it is very helpful for the entire community to look at and learn if like me they don't already know. Who can show me the top merit scoring posts of all time here?? Let's say the top 100 top merit scoring posts of all time. So I can skip past those that have provided a tool or service or guide, and find some real general posts that make the majority of forum use. Not that tools/services guides are not very useful because some of course are and have required a lot of work. Writing a guide to increase chances of getting a high merit score for posts is good. However seeing the top 100 examples of highest merit scoring posts of all time would be very helpful/interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Hold on a bit for the discussion of the stats.
I just want to confirm and fill in the X's for the top 10, 20, 50, 100.
Then we can all just take a closer look make more informed comments.
@ qwk - thanks for reply... let me just see those x's filled in then I will certainly be down for a discussion of we think those are showing us.
It will be of great interest to hear everyone input and for a sensible and adult discussion to take place.
@ suchmoon these are certainly important points to further analyse and discuss.
|
|
|
|
And here I was trying to ease of the stats.... The Top 50 Receivers have received 26,38% of their sMerits on average from within the top 50 Receivers. That means 73,63% comes from of the top 50. Good enough for me .. nMeritTop50: Merit Received from top 50 Receivers . nMeritReceivedTotal: Total Merit Received. nMeritTop50 nMeritReceivedTotal % user_id name url
490 1172 41,81% 1582324 DdmrDdmr https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1582324
393 1203 32,67% 459836 LoyceV https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=459836
387 1044 37,07% 397737 hilariousetc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=397737
338 779 43,39% 897509 xtraelv https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897509
307 991 30,98% 479624 Last of the V8s https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624
302 817 36,96% 1067333 micgoossens https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1067333
299 869 34,41% 487418 The Pharmacist https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418
297 2878 10,32% 35 theymos https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35
273 776 35,18% 698159 Jet Cash https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=698159
250 643 38,88% 1188543 o_e_l_e_o https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1188543
247 602 41,03% 1291828 iasenko https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1291828
243 507 47,93% 787736 marlboroza https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736
240 764 31,41% 976210 nullius https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210
230 900 25,56% 234771 suchmoon https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771
219 613 35,73% 120694 xhomerx10 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=120694
215 427 50,35% 579628 bob123 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628
207 585 35,38% 11425 gmaxwell https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425
206 816 25,25% 30747 Vod https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747
206 448 45,98% 867786 HCP https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=867786
200 697 28,69% 98986 TMAN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986
195 709 27,50% 188198 Piggy https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=188198
179 487 36,76% 1560793 sncc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1560793
172 471 36,52% 557989 BTCforJoe https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=557989
167 564 29,61% 569455 BobLawblaw https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=569455
167 501 33,33% 181806 HairyMaclairy https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=181806
158 555 28,47% 1180530 theyoungmillionaire https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1180530
155 465 33,33% 1554927 bitmover https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1554927
150 420 35,71% 1424178 mole0815 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1424178
148 404 36,63% 881377 Hhampuz https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=881377
147 733 20,05% 290195 achow101 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=290195
142 447 31,77% 49008 jojo69 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49008
138 424 32,55% 143168 TheQuin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=143168
134 443 30,25% 41175 infofront https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=41175
128 758 16,89% 520313 Lutpin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=520313
124 425 29,18% 252510 JayJuanGee https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=252510
123 416 29,57% 1339716 coinlocket$ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1339716
118 402 29,35% 163318 Torque https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=163318
110 641 17,16% 101872 Lauda https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872
101 579 17,44% 1000199 krogothmanhattan https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1000199
90 422 21,33% 18321 OgNasty https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18321
77 442 17,42% 507936 DarkStar_ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507936
68 1263 05,38% 3 satoshi https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3
63 395 15,95% 64205 Carlton Banks https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=64205
45 447 10,07% 1878246 abhiseshakana https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1878246
39 614 06,35% 1275282 joniboini https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1275282
36 465 07,74% 24140 qwk https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=24140
14 426 03,29% 369212 zazarb https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=369212
1 396 00,25% 1071136 PHI1618 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1071136
1 478 00,21% 1076869 pitipawn https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1076869
0 400 00,00% 1090672 Smart man https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1090672
Thank you for that. Very helpful. So we are saying a 26% of smerits to the top 50 come from the top 50. So they are sending roughly 3/4 to those outside of the top 50.
That does not even seem a little high for a board with apparently 2M members?
Would it be possible for you to do that for the top 10 , top 20 and top 100 at all? That would be very go to know. I am dreadful at math and stats. Just one of those things. I remember at school getting out from a calculus lecture and a looking up where the social science block was. Edit - - hold on i notice a change to something. so the top 50 are receiving roughly 75% of their merits from out side of the top 50 ? Is this the same as saying the top 50 merit holders send approx 25% of their total merits to the other top 50 merit holders. If that is the case that is not great on a board of apparently 2m users? but still I had suspected it could be even higher. So to just be clear can someone fill in the X top 50 merit holders send x % of their merits to top 50 merit holders. top 20 merit holder send x % of their merits to top 20 merit holders. top 10 merit holder send x % of their merits to top 10 merit holders. top 100 merit holder send x % of their merits to top 100 merit holders. that would be great. |
|
|
|
The true telling point with be the amounts awarded. I think such a tool to analyse this very important (to those who want to level up ) would be of top priority.
I would love to know which boards have the most merit action also.
You have the data, get to work and let us know. What no offer of help? You could get some additional merit for such a useful tool. @LoyceV thank you very much for this Total Merit Non-Local board 2418 Meta 1263 Bitcoin Discussion 1067 Beginners & Help 951 Economics 692 Development & Technical Discussion 553 Marketplace 392 365 Announcements (Altcoins) 313 Bitcoin Technical Support 299 Off-topic 290 Trading Discussion 271 Mining (Altcoins) 247 Marketplace (Altcoins) 242 Mining 192 Altcoin Discussion Meta - 247262 Posts - 2418 merit Alt discussion board - 2564018 Posts - 192 merit Bitcoin discussion board - 2038120 Posts - 1263 merit These are quite interesting and confirm that meta although generally receiving 10x less traffic than the alt discussion board (where most new people are posting) still gets nearly 13x more merit activity. So that is quite alarming if you are going on a post to probability of merit ratio alone. 130x more likely to get merit for a post in meta- - Is that even vaguely correct?? Math is not my best thing actually so no shame in asking for assistance and confirmation. Even bitcoins main forum that is far more moderated to raise the level of post quality.. is at 10x more posts and 2x less merit. So the ration there is better than the alt board but king of the hill by far and where you want be posting is meta, and you want to be in the top 50. So in the most obscure board (for most) and be already one of the highest merit profiles is the quickest way to more merit it would seem. However yes, if everyone was as helpfull as loyceV then perhaps they should be entitled to high merit. I had suspected merit was introduced to enable only valid posters to level up so have often ignored very good posts from legends since I could not see any benefit to them to have extra when I could give lower level members that were trying hard a chance to level up. |
|
|
|
2. That high merit receivers/givers are circle jerking and backslapping each other and not seeking out lower rank members who are worthy of merit to enable them to legitimately move up ranks.
Who here can provide some analysis of this for presentation.
I would like to analyse the top 50 merit receivers on this board and see if the majority of their merit comes from other members of that 50. Here you go, the two Top 50's you asked for: Weekly update (2018-11-02_Fri_10.04h)Total number of users who received 1 or more Merit: 23981Sample 1. 2876 Merit received by theymos (#35) from 565 unique users in 982 transactions
2. 1254 Merit received by satoshi (#3) from 140 unique users in 171 transactions
3. 1185 Merit received by LoyceV (#459836) from 230 unique users in 651 transactions
4. 1158 Merit received by DdmrDdmr (#1582324) from 155 unique users in 543 transactions
5. 1026 Merit received by hilariousetc (#397737) from 149 unique users in 507 transactions
6. 933 Merit received by Last of the V8s (#479624) from 117 unique users in 661 transactions
7. 885 Merit received by suchmoon (#234771) from 145 unique users in 477 transactions
8. 840 Merit received by The Pharmacist (#487418) from 156 unique users in 500 transactions
9. 780 Merit received by Vod (#30747) from 198 unique users in 385 transactions
10. 766 Merit received by micgoossens (#1067333) from 88 unique users in 394 transactions
11. 764 Merit received by nullius (#976210) from 132 unique users in 370 transactions
12. 764 Merit received by Jet Cash (#698159) from 182 unique users in 439 transactions
13. 761 Merit received by xtraelv (#897509) from 119 unique users in 325 transactions
14. 758 Merit received by Lutpin (#520313) from 141 unique users in 192 transactions
15. 726 Merit received by achow101 (#290195) from 109 unique users in 399 transactions
16. 695 Merit received by Piggy (#188198) from 112 unique users in 269 transactions
17. 692 Merit received by TMAN (#98986) from 140 unique users in 289 transactions
18. 635 Merit received by Lauda (#101872) from 115 unique users in 202 transactions
19. 615 Merit received by o_e_l_e_o (#1188543) from 112 unique users in 327 transactions
20. 603 Merit received by joniboini (#1275282) from 98 unique users in 317 transactions
21. 591 Merit received by xhomerx10 (#120694) from 87 unique users in 310 transactions
22. 589 Merit received by iasenko (#1291828) from 135 unique users in 309 transactions
23. 584 Merit received by gmaxwell (#11425) from 53 unique users in 143 transactions
24. 573 Merit received by krogothmanhattan (#1000199) from 103 unique users in 226 transactions
25. 558 Merit received by BobLawblaw (#569455) from 86 unique users in 395 transactions
26. 554 Merit received by theyoungmillionaire (#1180530) from 107 unique users in 196 transactions
27. 497 Merit received by marlboroza (#787736) from 107 unique users in 233 transactions
28. 495 Merit received by HairyMaclairy (#181806) from 91 unique users in 436 transactions
29. 484 Merit received by sncc (#1560793) from 89 unique users in 175 transactions
30. 478 Merit received by pitipawn (#1076869) from 58 unique users in 77 transactions
31. 470 Merit received by BTCforJoe (#557989) from 108 unique users in 192 transactions
32. 461 Merit received by qwk (#24140) from 110 unique users in 210 transactions
33. 460 Merit received by bitmover (#1554927) from 126 unique users in 289 transactions
34. 439 Merit received by DarkStar_ (#507936) from 114 unique users in 192 transactions
35. 437 Merit received by jojo69 (#49008) from 76 unique users in 276 transactions
36. 437 Merit received by HCP (#867786) from 108 unique users in 265 transactions
37. 436 Merit received by infofront (#41175) from 84 unique users in 301 transactions
38. 425 Merit received by zazarb (#369212) from 38 unique users in 55 transactions
39. 425 Merit received by abhiseshakana (#1878246) from 37 unique users in 256 transactions
40. 422 Merit received by TheQuin (#143168) from 131 unique users in 264 transactions
41. 416 Merit received by mole0815 (#1424178) from 50 unique users in 229 transactions
42. 413 Merit received by coinlocket$ (#1339716) from 102 unique users in 222 transactions
43. 404 Merit received by bob123 (#579628) from 75 unique users in 238 transactions
44. 403 Merit received by JayJuanGee (#252510) from 106 unique users in 303 transactions
45. 403 Merit received by Hhampuz (#881377) from 95 unique users in 165 transactions
46. 400 Merit received by Torque (#163318) from 84 unique users in 325 transactions
47. 395 Merit received by PHI1618 (#1071136) from 63 unique users in 132 transactions
48. 393 Merit received by Smart man (#1090672) from 103 unique users in 176 transactions
49. 391 Merit received by OgNasty (#18321) from 115 unique users in 185 transactions
50. 385 Merit received by DannyHamilton (#60820) from 90 unique users in 200 transactions
(2 MB) Total number of users who gave away 1 or more sMerit: 18374Sample 1. 6624 Merit sent by suchmoon (#234771) to 779 unique users in 1907 transactions
2. 3225 Merit sent by QuestionAuthority (#72795) to 198 unique users in 226 transactions
3. 3210 Merit sent by dbshck (#153634) to 491 unique users in 1645 transactions
4. 3130 Merit sent by Foxpup (#55384) to 203 unique users in 1272 transactions
5. 2587 Merit sent by qwk (#24140) to 365 unique users in 1767 transactions
6. 2586 Merit sent by TMAN (#98986) to 346 unique users in 869 transactions
7. 2145 Merit sent by Vod (#30747) to 415 unique users in 868 transactions
8. 1910 Merit sent by EFS (#140584) to 333 unique users in 861 transactions
9. 1763 Merit sent by paxmao (#1192397) to 645 unique users in 1379 transactions
10. 1763 Merit sent by chimk (#1202061) to 415 unique users in 1223 transactions
11. 1322 Merit sent by bones261 (#452769) to 389 unique users in 826 transactions
12. 1289 Merit sent by LoyceV (#459836) to 489 unique users in 1149 transactions
13. 1231 Merit sent by DarkStar_ (#507936) to 366 unique users in 553 transactions
14. 1160 Merit sent by xandry (#382413) to 258 unique users in 993 transactions
15. 1152 Merit sent by JayJuanGee (#252510) to 416 unique users in 1143 transactions
16. 1051 Merit sent by BobLawblaw (#569455) to 120 unique users in 625 transactions
17. 937 Merit sent by OgNasty (#18321) to 612 unique users in 829 transactions
18. 909 Merit sent by frodocooper (#988740) to 149 unique users in 532 transactions
19. 885 Merit sent by Jet Cash (#698159) to 336 unique users in 575 transactions
20. 879 Merit sent by Micio (#115423) to 84 unique users in 411 transactions
21. 878 Merit sent by Welsh (#84521) to 212 unique users in 403 transactions
22. 785 Merit sent by LFC_Bitcoin (#379487) to 223 unique users in 643 transactions
23. 774 Merit sent by achow101 (#290195) to 147 unique users in 377 transactions
24. 767 Merit sent by theymos (#35) to 115 unique users in 143 transactions
25. 733 Merit sent by Flying Hellfish (#79608) to 149 unique users in 281 transactions
26. 701 Merit sent by teramit (#158960) to 197 unique users in 319 transactions
27. 678 Merit sent by mprep (#51173) to 210 unique users in 393 transactions
28. 668 Merit sent by mindrust (#176777) to 194 unique users in 320 transactions
29. 657 Merit sent by Vlad2Vlad (#112208) to 52 unique users in 126 transactions
30. 637 Merit sent by vapourminer (#33156) to 417 unique users in 608 transactions
31. 630 Merit sent by The Pharmacist (#487418) to 268 unique users in 513 transactions
32. 583 Merit sent by malevolent (#23092) to 158 unique users in 264 transactions
33. 541 Merit sent by DdmrDdmr (#1582324) to 230 unique users in 507 transactions
34. 538 Merit sent by Halab (#1053119) to 101 unique users in 255 transactions
35. 535 Merit sent by Last of the V8s (#479624) to 151 unique users in 529 transactions
36. 508 Merit sent by krogothmanhattan (#1000199) to 158 unique users in 313 transactions
37. 503 Merit sent by hilariousetc (#397737) to 134 unique users in 262 transactions
38. 486 Merit sent by xhomerx10 (#120694) to 150 unique users in 367 transactions
39. 466 Merit sent by sapta (#347141) to 73 unique users in 105 transactions
40. 426 Merit sent by Globb0 (#244243) to 74 unique users in 137 transactions
41. 420 Merit sent by theymos_away (#349090) to 79 unique users in 89 transactions
42. 399 Merit sent by hilariousandco (#164822) to 100 unique users in 170 transactions
43. 392 Merit sent by iCEBREAKER (#17501) to 99 unique users in 125 transactions
44. 390 Merit sent by RegulusHr (#1163424) to 74 unique users in 357 transactions
45. 387 Merit sent by micgoossens (#1067333) to 83 unique users in 365 transactions
46. 385 Merit sent by xtraelv (#897509) to 190 unique users in 369 transactions
47. 382 Merit sent by cAPSLOCK (#35501) to 65 unique users in 150 transactions
48. 381 Merit sent by rickbig41 (#553678) to 106 unique users in 169 transactions
49. 381 Merit sent by infofront (#41175) to 108 unique users in 371 transactions
50. 373 Merit sent by Lutpin (#520313) to 123 unique users in 159 transactions
(2 MB) You can easily see most users in the Top 50 sent and received Merit to and from much more than 50 different users. This is not a thread that should really garner much opinion until the statistics are compiled and presented. Then we can discuss what it all means. I'll share my opinion anyway: It makes sense that the Top 50 senders send a lot to the Top 50 receivers, that's what puts both of them in the top. It also makes sense that a relatively small group of people creates most good posts, and it makes sense that good posters are made merit sources. So what you're trying to prove, it kinda to be expected. And yet, the "circles" are much bigger. Thanks for this post. I want to make it first clear that I am not trying to prove anything. From my brief interest of late into all this merit obsession I seemed noticed there are a small group that seems to be circle jerking merit amongst themselves on obscure boards that most users will not ever use. That was a small sample size of course and statistically therefore held little power. So I just decided to investigate further. I was hoping actually to disprove my suspicion and see that the top merit holders that were already mostly legends were taking time to get out on the most populated boards and help newer and lower rank members level up. Rather than mostly award each other merits when they are already at legend status. The stats already provided are powerful confirmation that former is happening. I would suspect if we could get a graphical representation of these stats drilled down to exact number merits given and received amongst the top 50 per individual that would demonstrate just how much the top 50 is hogging the merits amongst themselves, and certain members are really giving each other some serious merit love. Who are the merit sources here btw? and what is a merit source exactly? I have previous not paid any notice of the kind of board metrics before since I am not a trader here. I am starting to take an interest in DT of late too I had not even known such a thing existed. I am interested to see how one is eligible and then who decides on DT. (that discussion is for another thread though). This is certainly not a witch hunt for individuals but rather an attempt to let us evaluate and discuss how the merit system is working out for the entire board so far. This place used to be the best forum on the net for free speech and a self governing community that weeded out scammers and desirables in a much more decentralised way. It seems to be lately going the other way. This may be unavoidable due to the scammers and ico bots out numbering genuine users and enthusiasts. I would love to see a simple metric that shows ie x% total number of all merit (not number of times they gave merit -- i would like to know the exact merit ) given by the the top 100 went only to other top 100 members. then be able to do that for top 10, 20 , 50, I would like to see which boards are the beneficiary of the merit given by the top 10, 20, 50, 100 and that matched to the amount of posts taking place on each board. Just to see how disproportionate this actually is. |
|
|
|
...
The percentage of matching lists - 42% This is for the top 50 ? Yes The true telling point with be the amounts awarded. I think such a tool to analyse this very important (to those who want to level up ) would be of top priority. I would love to know which boards have the most merit action also. |
|
|
|
Well the first thing to point out is that this forum is not a decentralised project. It has a standard hierarchy of officials and members. It may be that many members support decentralisation and are anti-globalisation ( but not all ). If this hierarchy did not exist, then it would be mayhem here, and the forum would be useless in my opinion.
Your other point that merit awarding may be abused is a topic that has been discussed in many threads. I'm sure there is a certain amount of abuse of the system, but Theymos has been fairly careful in his selection of merit sources, and their activities are under constant scrutiny by the forum statisticians.Your assumtion has a fairly obvious basis. Longer standing members will be more comfortable with their posting, and most will be able to contribute more to the forum based on their experience. It makes sense to draw merit sources from that pool as well.
Thanks for posting and there could be merit in what you have said. However opinons are something I would care to avoid until the statistical analysis is provided to demonstrate how much merit to and fro is contained within the top 50. The possible explanations of such activity (once determined) should only then be discussed because it may not be the case that the top 50 are circle jerking merit around at all and this notion is without foundation. I see many posts of I have developed this analysis tool and that analysis tool. This one should be equally as simple to create could be magnitudes more important if you consider the implications. Also where to find the metric for what boards demonstrate the most merit activity? Is it an offense to offer merit here for things to be done for the good of the board? for instance if one was to offer 25 or 50 merit points for the first person to create such an analysis tool. To be applied say 5 per month as long as the application stays active and live? |
|
|
|
Thank you these are a good start. I would certainly be willling to give merit to any person here developing a dynamic website that could evaluate this data and produce some tight stats and graphical presentations for it. To do this manually and get it 100% correct would be quite a substantial task. I'm sure many would be willing to merit such a worthy application that helps to ensure board does not become a centralised backslapping circle jerk of merit hogs. Not that I have any specific analysis that allows me to say that it has as yet. |
|
|
|
I see only those that have the most merit. That does not show me who is awarding the top 50. I want to see if the top 50 is mostly awarding itself. Or am I not seeing where this comparison and analysis can be looked at on that website? I would like to also apply that to the top 100 and right down to the top 10. |
|
|
|
I am wondering about 2 things on this forum regarding merit. 1. that high merit receivers are not those that have contributed the most to this board and the spirit of decentralised trustless projects. (that is not what I want to study in this thread but that the first thing I want to make clear that I believe and that people should investigate full post histories to get an idea of the person they are dealing with)2. That high merit receivers/givers are circle jerking and backslapping each other and not seeking out lower rank members who are worthy of merit to enable them to legitimately move up ranks. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SAi_b3umCcFJO2dMoLYjWCjNz1JhOLWrsRHhYQK-nb8/edit?usp=sharingthis to me can be the source of much discussion.... probably almost the most revealing merit guide here if you can interpret it well. this was provided by r1s2g3 on this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5067161.0Who here can provide some analysis of this for presentation. I would like to analyse the top 50 merit receivers on this board and see if the majority of their merit comes from other members of that 50. We could drill that down to the top 25 or expand to the top 100. I would be interested to see the results. I have never taken much interest in this part of the board but due to some strange deletes lately, also due to some strange decisions I see happening in here and on the reputation board. I worry there is forming here a clique that is starting to act with impunity and in an unfair manner. This is not in the spirit of decentralisation and trustless arena we are trying to create. I would also like to see which boards get the most merit action. This is very important too. I am not encouraging discussion here of ANYTHING outside the scope of this OP. Anything other than the analysis of the merit given and received by the top 100 or less is OFF TOPIC. This is not a thread that should really garner much opinion until the statistics are compiled and presented. Then we can discuss what it all means. Who can whip up some nice charts to graphically visualise this?? This is not an accusation of wrong doing this is simply an exercise to see how the merit system is working out thus far. |
|
|
|
Convenient after you post something it all of a sudden is a joke.
I saw the post and I figured it was a political statement about rape claims, the #metoo movement, or something of the sort. But you know what? It wasn't appropriate and not everyone would interpret the accusation as a joke or something other than its face value. It's amazing to me that TECSHARE was actually on DT at one point. I've said before that the evidence shows that he's an honest businessman, and I would trust him as a trading partner (not that that's ever going to happen), He has collected quite a bit of trust simply for selling items. But take a look at his merit and you can conclude how respected he is here. :/ Not that I am taking sides but merit here means very little. Give me a list of the top 20 merit awarded persons on this board. I will believe I will demonstrate clearly that they have done NOTHIING of major note on this board in terms of making a big difference in this arena compared to many that have picked up little to no merit. To the point that if they had never been members nothing of note would really be any different here in the slightest. This is not a mud slinging competition, just a pure analysis to demonstrate most merit is handed out in meta between a tight little group that mostly stick together back slapping each other over having similar points of view or creating some various ways of analysing board mertrics. This is a pointless waste of merit which should be used to help level up lower rank users who deserve it. This is my suspicion anyway. I could be wrong. I would praise and value far more highly those that were FIRST to highlight huge scams and spend a lot of time battling with hordes of scammers trying to make these projects seem legitimate and changed the attitudes of 1000's of investors. Or people here who have made huge technical advances in this arena and work hard for the advances in decentralised and trustless projects. Or people that have helped others make vast amounts of money by sharing information non selfishly that they have attained by hours of study and experience trading. You personally did help me to regain my account so I am not essentially applying this to you (to my knowledge) have not demonstrated a moral compass of questionable accuracy. However the same can not be said for all of those with high merit. Merit means practically zero here. Most people have no in depth knowledge of this board and the members here and their post/contribution histories. Most people are generally weak and simply get in line with those they perceive to be the most powerful. That leads to centralisation of power and is not in the spirit of this forum. We should encourage people to examine the facts and make their own decisions. Again this is not a matter of opinion this is a matter of being able to demonstrate the users that have historically made the biggest differences in a positive way are not major merit holders. Therefore there is no direct correlation between merit and respect at all. There is of course different ways to evaluate this. There is a small clique of users backslapping each other to the point of abusing what the merit system is for to create a faux authority here far from the most notable in this arena. As for saying those that have accumulated less merit here is indication of less worth/respect is completely wrong. Merit was introduced I would imagine after and as a result of the board getting turned into a 99% financial milking cow for the bottom feeders of icos. That have no real conscious interest in seeing the world become more decentralised and trustless... they just want to grab some bucks. This has resulted in the main boards especially the main alt discussion board become unusable for most of the best posters and contributors who seem to have left. I would call for an analysis tool for the top 100 merit receivers/givers to be examined and see how much this backslapping circle jerking is taking its toll. Actually i think that is my next thing to do. |
|
|
|
I see no exact method of correctly referencing source in the rules. Is it not enought to clearly say I found these guides on the net and provide them here for others to look at??
They way he did it was very clearly not enough. If you were writing a paper for school and used information from an academic journal, for instance, do you think it'd be sufficient to say "I found this in a journal, here you go"? Nope, and even though bitcointalk doesn't have guidelines on source citation, it should be obvious that you need to (at the very least) reference where you're quoting material from. The best way to do it IMO is provide a link and put the quoted text inside a quote box just as if you were quoting a bitcointalk post. If you look at this post history he would appear to be very helpful to new traders over quite a long period.
I think your estimation of the helpfulness of his posts and your definition of "a long period" are vastly inflated. He registered in March of this year and most of his posts are straight-up gibberish. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to hear from staff. I'm not trying to give you a hard time but DT trust comes with responsibility to make the right call. There is sometimes no need for opinion when it is there in black and white. No amount of staff can change observable fact. You said and I quote "You passed off all that "helpful" information as your own words." This is observably incorrect. You then said "They way he did it was very clearly not enough. If you were writing a paper for school and used information from an academic journal, for instance, do you think it'd be sufficient to say "I found this in a journal, here you go"? " So you are now saying okay he did not claim it as his own but you do not believe that just sticking by rule 33 is enough (not claiming it as your own work) and you believe one should follow one of the academic bodies guides for citing a reference. These are totally different claims and are actually mutually exclusive. The only reasonable explanation for making 2 totally different and mutually exclusive claims is simply when someone reported it as plagiarism you just missed his statement clearly saying at the top of his post stating "I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading."Having now seen this statement.. you have changed the charge from claiming it as his own work to claiming it is other peoples work but not being specific enough. These are totally different claims . Even though as you say this would not satisfy any college to reference in that way you would not be said to be committing plagiarism. Your tutor would likely just give you a guide to follow the next time and you would receive no marks or credit. For example someone once said -- From error to error one discovers the entire truth "From error to error, one discovers the entire truth.” Sigmund Freud (following perhaps some dating, and other info I can't locate right now) The second will contribute to attaining extra marks the first will simply be ignored as insufficient detail. Neither will get you accused of taking the work for yourself or plagiarism and certainly neither will get your made a pariah or kicked from the course. It's okay to make a mistake but digging heels in waiting for other DT or staff to say it's okay may work but is not the right course of action. Your red trust statement of "This account will hopefully be banned, but in the off chance it doesn't, this member is a plagiarizer and doesn't even seem to understand what plagiarism is."
seems totally out of proportion to the alleged breaking of the rules - which to anyone taking the rules at face value seem to have been adhered to. I don't see how staff can alter any of the observable events here and back up the desire to have him banned. Bitcointalk is going down a dark path if a few people can start to push such hardline action. I have nothing personal against you or any of the DT trust people really that i know of. I have never encountered an issue before with any of them. Bitcointalk is a place which has displayed a very laissez faire approach over the years. It is sad now that financial gain has motivated the destruction of that approach working as well. Incidentally, I had never really heard of nor paid attention to Default trust before. Where can I find a list of these DT members? how were they selected for such a responsibility? Even the "rules" say unofficial?? how can one be banned from a forum if these are not the official rules. They are guides to be used as per common sense because official rules would need a lot more clarity or constant moderation by ONLY the person who runs the board. This is a separate issue I guess and not one we need to open now anyway. |
|
|
|
Looks like the original thread Rambotnic posted that was the basis for the plagiarism report was deleted, because I can't view it anymore. I'm assuming a mod deleted it, but I'm wondering why he wasn't banned for plagiarism. I don't recall reading a post by a mod on this issue, and I'd like to know what the deal is.
Having said that, when I hand out red trust wrongly I usually get dissenting opinions by trusted members (DT or otherwise), and that's definitely not the case here. Most of them saw what Rambotnic wrote as plagiarized content just like I did--and I wasn't even one of the people who reported it to the mods. The feedback is completely justified IMO, though I'd still like to hear a mod's opinion on this.
He clearly said at the top of his post "I found few different sources that are legitimate and decided to share them with the community for safe trading."So 1. are you saying that was not there when you looked at it or 2. you are saying that it was there but still you believe he was trying to claim this work as his own? I see no exact method of correctly referencing source in the rules. Is it not enought to clearly say I found these guides on the net and provide them here for others to look at?? If you look at this post history he would appear to be very helpful to new traders over quite a long period. Removing the red trust would seem the only fair thing to do. There is no way that anyone would consider it fair he was going to get banned. That would be completely insane. There are proven scammers on this board that are not banned and don't even have red trust. |
|
|
|
|
Are the bullion nodes still in testing.... how are they coming along?
Is elambert around?
|
|
|
|
All will have different opinions on what is best. My opinion is simply to keep as many people happy as possible so we can build a strong community.
Hmmm...   I never heard the answer to my question, * * * Don't you like the idea of integrating into discord or Slark? I like the idea. I will see later how to do a bytes tipbot for slack Whilst that pic of you is very fetching- - I think it displays the fact that you don't fully understand building a united and strong community is needed to gain traction. There are several types of leadership the most successful form through keeping the majority happy. If you are a leader and believe your way is really the best way forward then thorough debate can only reinforce this in the minds of the community and once they understand they will help you not fight against it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
