The chaos on the forum! Judge, please

[IvanBerkut]

Whenever a new feature, like merit or the feedback system is added, it takes the community a few weeks or months to figure out what is or isn't acceptable. I'm personally of the opinion that merit issues aren't related to feedback, and you shouldn't get negative feedback even for "abuse" of the merit system, whatever that ends up meaning.

Its kind of a rough position to be in, but you shouldn't worry about it too much.

Ironically the merit system was introduced to try prevent people from leaving negative feedback on poor posters. It's a tricky situation to police but people shouldn't be allowed to trade merit or leave it for their alts as it's deceptive and defeats the purpose of the system in the first place. I can't really see any other way than negative really but users shouldn't be allowed to get away with it otherwise everyone will just do it. At least if there's the threat of negative for users caught engaging in it then most people will think twice about it. If there's nothing to lose by attempting to trade merit then the practice will become rife.

I dont think the merit and trust system are all that closely related. I'm under the impression that the merit system is to replace the old activity system, and nothing more. Saying that ranking up an account is solely for account farmers and spammers isn't accurate. Plenty of people not involved in ad campaigns or account sales will want to rank up their accounts to lift their posting limits, to be able to post images, just for grins, etc. Of course, the new system is designed to prevent spam just for the sake of raising (activity) an account's rank.

More than anything, I really think it comes down to whether or not its typically acceptable to tag owners of multiple accounts with negative trust, just because they own multiple accounts. Second comes whether or not trading/selling merit is generally acceptable, and to what extents.

The general consensus between the remaining active DT members that do attempt to  *improve* the forum (not the DT members that are active and don't really do anything in that regard) is yes. It was explained properly over here:

untrustworthy behavior = negative tag
asking for/buying trust/reputation = untrustworthy behavior
buying accounts = trying to buy reputation
begging for merit = trying to ask for reputation

These correspondences should be accepted by all members... but unfortunately, some do not view it this way (typically account traders).

Non malicious false positives are going to occur in pretty much every system. As long as the rate is very low, it is fine.

As for actmyname's quote above, I follow until the last statement. I agree with the bolded, but disagree with the underlined statement. As I just said a moment ago, I don't think there is a very strong link between reputation and merit. And I don't think the non malicious false positives are going to be low, let alone very low. Mixing the two systems is a pretty slippery slope. Begging for merit is obviously annoying, but there are a lot of unknowns with what is acceptable.  

The value of 1 merit point is widely different to each person. If someone posted something and say I gave them 1/10/25/50 merit points, everyone might think that is extreme, but maybe its been a point I've been trying to get across for years, and seeing someone else say what I've been thinking gave me an overwhelming feeling of joy, hence the reward. Now, that guy is my friend/alt whatever allegedly, or I sold them merit. So I've now got a red mark for what is essentially my opinion.

The merit system should slow down spammers and account farmers, will it stop them completely? No, but if it helps cut down on them, the moderation staff should be able to handle the ones that slip through the cracks.

Thank you for your feedback! Maybe you can help me get a positive trust?

[Lauda]

Thank you for your feedback! Maybe you can help me get a positive trust?

We just literally said that asking for positive trust = receiving negative trust.

asking for/buying trust/reputation = untrustworthy behavior

[athanz88]

I already see the post for the sMerit they give each other, im not a russian native speaker,  but for a post like that he got 15+28 merits? Wow, that is a great number. I made a statistic with chart for my thread on how does people feel about merit system in the first week of it (with the data gathered from poll and from my thread) and i only gathered 4 points up till now since i post the infographic update, life is really have a lot of unfair things. I guess if the post is really good, then it will atract more people to give merits, not just by 2 people who gives a big amount of merits.

[pugman]

We just literally said that asking for positive trust = receiving negative trust.

I think he meant something else. Since actmyname is not answering and OP clearly acted like a jackass here. He nagged and annoyed actmyname so much that too before his 3 day rule, so now that actmyname has blocked him, he wants other DT members to give him "green trust" to nullify his rating, I don't know why this kid thinks that such a thing will ever happen.

I already see the post for the sMerit they give each other, im not a russian native speaker,  but for a post like that he got 15+28 merits? Wow, that is a great number. I made a statistic with chart for my thread on how does people feel about merit system in the first week of it (with the data gathered from poll and from my thread) and i only gathered 4 points up till now since i post the infographic update, life is really have a lot of unfair things. I guess if the post is really good, then it will atract more people to give merits, not just by 2 people who gives a big amount of merits.

Stop whining. Wait for some more time for the merit system to be in place and let users get used to the newly implemented system.
Seriously what's up with such whining, "I'm not receiving merits, I'm going to die in a garbage can."

[Zackgeno96]

I think OP should have some patience, there is no need to irritate someone by sending continuous messages. I am aware that you have been tagged and you want to remove the red mark so can't be remain silent. You have made your point; now give some time to actmyname, he is the only person who can remove your negative rating.

[IvanBerkut]

We just literally said that asking for positive trust = receiving negative trust.

I think he meant something else. Since actmyname is not answering and OP clearly acted like a jackass here. He nagged and annoyed actmyname so much that too before his 3 day rule, so now that actmyname has blocked him, he wants other DT members to give him "green trust" to nullify his rating, I don't know why this kid thinks that such a thing will ever happen.

What else was I supposed to do? Imagine the situation: You go to the forum BTT, and for some strange reason is a red trust. Your action? Despite the fact that you are still involved in the company for more than a month and can be excluded from it. You would have sat and waited?

I think OP should have some patience, there is no need to irritate someone by sending continuous messages. I am aware that you have been tagged and you want to remove the red mark so can't be remain silent. You have made your point; now give some time to actmyname, he is the only person who can remove your negative rating.

As you consider how much time should pass, that would actmyname change your mind? Day? week? Can be a month? or a year? As you consider how much earnings I will lose while I wait for actmyname?

[IvanBerkut]

I can't understand how you can always have a negative trust of the people in certain "merit"? This function is just implemented, people (especially Russian-speaking) do not know why it is needed and how to use it correctly, and give you red trust. If "merit" serious, well, do the first and last warning to the person who broke the rules, but don't ruin his profile on BTT immediately. It's not fair!

[Quickseller]

We just literally said that asking for positive trust = receiving negative trust.

I think he meant something else. Since actmyname is not answering and OP clearly acted like a jackass here. He nagged and annoyed actmyname so much that too before his 3 day rule, so now that actmyname has blocked him, he wants other DT members to give him "green trust" to nullify his rating,

This guy gets it.

One person leaving negative trust does not speak for the entire community, and as such others who disagree with a particular negative rating can counter said negative rating with a positive rating of their own. This is a basic feature of the trust system.

I would not find it unreasonable for someone to ask for help with a problem, especially when the person being asked is sympathetic to their issue.

Perhaps Lauda's pill addiction makes it difficult to understand this. 

[IvanBerkut]

We just literally said that asking for positive trust = receiving negative trust.

I think he meant something else. Since actmyname is not answering and OP clearly acted like a jackass here. He nagged and annoyed actmyname so much that too before his 3 day rule, so now that actmyname has blocked him, he wants other DT members to give him "green trust" to nullify his rating,

This guy gets it.

One person leaving negative trust does not speak for the entire community, and as such others who disagree with a particular negative rating can counter said negative rating with a positive rating of their own. This is a basic feature of the trust system.

I would not find it unreasonable for someone to ask for help with a problem, especially when the person being asked is sympathetic to their issue.

Perhaps Lauda's pill addiction makes it difficult to understand this. 

They do everything that would a person who received a red trust for no reason, could not return it. If you put a red trust, then you:
1. Do not have to write to the person who put it to you.
2. Do not ask to return the trust.
That's their whole policy! They do not care at all. They do not want to understand

[hilariousetc]

I dont think the merit and trust system are all that closely related. I'm under the impression that the merit system is to replace the old activity system, and nothing more. Saying that ranking up an account is solely for account farmers and spammers isn't accurate. Plenty of people not involved in ad campaigns or account sales will want to rank up their accounts to lift their posting limits, to be able to post images, just for grins, etc. Of course, the new system is designed to prevent spam just for the sake of raising (activity) an account's rank.

But the reasoning is if you cheat merit then you're likely not a very trustable person as it's deceptive/questionable behaviour. Merit isn't really a system to replace activity but an add on to it because anyone can cheat activity just by logging on once a fortnight to make any old sort of spam post but this stops that.

The merit system should slow down spammers and account farmers, will it stop them completely? No, but if it helps cut down on them, the moderation staff should be able to handle the ones that slip through the cracks.

It will slow them down for sure and mass account farming just probably isn't worth the time or effort now unless people find ways to easily trade merit under the noses of the community, but not punishing those that are caught doing so is a slippery slope. If it becomes nonpunishable to trade or sell merit then the practice will become rife and defeat the entire purpose of the system in the first place and that's what I worry about not handing out punishments for people.

[pugman]

This guy gets it.

One person leaving negative trust does not speak for the entire community, and as such others who disagree with a particular negative rating can counter said negative rating with a positive rating of their own. This is a basic feature of the trust system.

I would not find it unreasonable for someone to ask for help with a problem, especially when the person being asked is sympathetic to their issue.

Perhaps Lauda's pill addiction makes it difficult to understand this. 

Come on.. Everyone has different views and opinions.
Tagging users who may or may not be *abusing* the merit system isn't required now. Probably, we should let time pass through, let people get to use the merit system normally. And if they abuse, then corrective action shall be taken. Theymos is probably right on his behalf, as not all cases of sending and receiving merits may be abusal, this may further infuriate users and kind of scare them of not using their merits at all.
And please take your ridiculously ridiculous dispute somewhere else.

They do everything that would a person who received a red trust for no reason, could not return it. If you put a red trust, then you:
1. Do not have to write to the person who put it to you.
2. Do not ask to return the trust.
That's their whole policy! They do not care at all. They do not want to understand

I understand that it is hard to take such ratings for something that is not  exactly your fault. You admitted your mistake, and due to various reasons, actmyname rechecked his ratings and he removed yours. Now enjoy and remember not to nag anyone via pms.

[rus23kav]

I asked the user IvanBerkut to write in the topic I created, I asked if he wrote Hypnosis or actmyname, he said that he was writing actmyname he said that he wrote asthmatic but he does not answer and he said that he will not respond within 72 hours and Ivan Berkut said he will wait for 72 hours.
I wrote astminte all the time in telegrams, too, he did not seem to block me, but today he also does not answer. This is considered the norm in this forum. Painting the trust to people and not even to answer for their deed!
I wrote to theymos and he does not react - how to ask for justice!
There is such a thing as the presumption of innocence!
The administrator can look at the logs and compare the accounts that astiminates accused of carting and the history of the logs will see that there is nothing in common with us !!! Maybe we are from different countries or at least cities.
As Ivan also said in the Russian locale, not many are familiar with the rules, since they are not in Russian. I saw a new chip - I experienced it, but I did not sell my merits, just sent as much as I wanted.
In principle, I used everything for the purpose and suffered for it as a pioneer.
Not only an actmyname can remove the red trust, the administrator having understood the problem can remove it or say do it.
I am surprised at the indifference of these people to the injustice of the forum.
It really sells and exchanges merits, and we suffered for honest quotations without malicious intent!

[rus23kav]

This guy gets it.

One person leaving negative trust does not speak for the entire community, and as such others who disagree with a particular negative rating can counter said negative rating with a positive rating of their own. This is a basic feature of the trust system.

I would not find it unreasonable for someone to ask for help with a problem, especially when the person being asked is sympathetic to their issue.

Perhaps Lauda's pill addiction makes it difficult to understand this. 

Come on.. Everyone has different views and opinions.
Tagging users who may or may not be *abusing* the merit system isn't required now. Probably, we should let time pass through, let people get to use the merit system normally. And if they abuse, then corrective action shall be taken. Theymos is probably right on his behalf, as not all cases of sending and receiving merits may be abusal, this may further infuriate users and kind of scare them of not using their merits at all.
And please take your ridiculously ridiculous dispute somewhere else.

They do everything that would a person who received a red trust for no reason, could not return it. If you put a red trust, then you:
1. Do not have to write to the person who put it to you.
2. Do not ask to return the trust.
That's their whole policy! They do not care at all. They do not want to understand

I understand that it is hard to take such ratings for something that is not  exactly your fault. You admitted your mistake, and due to various reasons, actmyname rechecked his ratings and he removed yours. Now enjoy and remember not to nag anyone via pms.

So it is, now users will be afraid to give merits to others!
In our locale is already written, especially people with accounts, a legend and heroes.

[pugman]

So it is, now users will be afraid to give merits to others!
In our locale is already written, especially people with accounts, a legend and heroes.

No. No. No.
I used the word, "may". You don't have to be scared. The system has just been introduced. Give it some time.
You can send merit to any body who deserves it and anybody who you think is worthy of receiving merits and is under rated.

[Jet Cash]

You can send merit to any body who deserves it and anybody who you think is worthy of receiving merits and is under rated.

If you can find them.

[pugman]

You can send merit to any body who deserves it and anybody who you think is worthy of receiving merits and is under rated.

If you can find them.

There actually exists a lot, I have seen some in the past, a few weeks ago but when you go witch hunting for good posts, you'll see spammers everywhere, which ticks you off. There are lot of people who actually post constructive comments with required content. Campaigns have caused shitposting but there are campaigns which motivates users to post constructive comments which is very much knowledgeable, take chipmixer for example.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Thank you for your feedback! Maybe you can help me get a positive trust?

We just literally said that asking for positive trust = receiving negative trust.

asking for/buying trust/reputation = untrustworthy behavior

But you said it in English, and it required him to read it, both of which he's demonstrated a problem with.   Maybe if you wrote it in Bazwakahili he'd at least have half a chance of getting the point.

you'll see spammers everywhere, which ticks you off.

I'm actually starting to become OK with the level of shitposting now.  We've got the merit system in place which should take care of a lot of this.  It'll take a while, but shitposters are going to realize that there's little reward for posting garbage.

[ibminer]

More than anything, I really think it comes down to whether or not its typically acceptable to tag owners of multiple accounts with negative trust, just because they own multiple accounts. Second comes whether or not trading/selling merit is generally acceptable, and to what extents.

The general consensus between the remaining active DT members that do attempt to  *improve* the forum (not the DT members that are active and don't really do anything in that regard) is yes.

Any hidden alt is shady in my book and warrants some type of feedback for awareness, negative or neutral may depend on the situation. My issue has been how much proof is required to reasonably match someone as an alt. I try to conform myself to a community standard that I thought was in play but others seem to cross that line unchallenged, so I'm not sure why I'm holding back. I do not want to dampen any progress that may be getting made but I see a lot of these unusual merit links as hunches because they aren't really based on any hard proof, unless there are other links between the accounts that can be found in addition to the unusual merit activity.

I've been led to believe that it is not safe to conclude someone is an alt based solely on potential shared wallets... which I would think is a more decent link than sending merits to another account, but again, my impression is that this isn't enough to reasonably link accounts. That being said, it is hard for me to ever conclude that it would be ok to accept someone as an alt because they sent X amount of merits to someone... even though my gut feeling says otherwise in some of the cases.

[Lauda]

That being said, it is hard for me to ever conclude that it would be ok to accept someone as an alt because they sent X amount of merits to someone... even though my gut feeling says otherwise in some of the cases.

Take a look at this case and read the part that I quoted from elsewhere (+ the original post which contains a lot more):

USER PROFILE : RichDaniel
MERIT SUMMARY : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=886352
PROOF: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2857163.msg29379539#msg29379539
MISCELLANEOUS: Has received 283 merit in one hour, standing actually on the 7th place for Top-merited users

Probably farmed accounts and almost certainly belong to the same user as RichDaniel. If you look at the accounts every single one of them has the exact same activity/post count which is usually indicative of farming.

I was unable to trivially find connecting addresses, however the pattern is definitely there and that amount of merit is in no way natural. Therefore, we have one of following:

• Probable cause:  On the face of things (at first sight, “prima facie”), the accused probably did it.
• Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt:  The only way he didn’t do it is if space aliens[1] did it instead.

I think the trouble with this merit system is people are going to probably spend more time searching and investigating people abusing the system than actually giving merit.

Indeed.

There is absolutely no way that the user has received 283 legitimate merit in 1 hour for their shitposts.
This should, hopefully, get you to reconsider.

[rus23kav]

I do not know what that user was doing, let him justify his actions, and in our topics let's solve our problem.
If to speak by the rules then when I sent my merits for messages that you do not consider to be interesting, but I found that they are interesting to me - my right and not who can not judge and punish me for it.
And if the administration checks that all three of us are not multi-accounts of the same user, then there was no violation either - so?
That's why I say that we have nothing to hide, the administration can easily prove that we are not multi-accounts and withdraw charges from us.
How can I paint the trust without evidence, I think this is a violation of the rules of the members of the forum.