DT1 list alternation: add me on it

[Anduck]

If you have specific suggestions for alterations to the current DT1 list, then make a topic about it. I think that the system is structurally flawed as it is now, though.

Here's my specific suggestion: Add me to DT1.

Why?

If DT exists, I would want it to be a list of people who are unlikely to scam others, and nothing more. My DT2 additions would not be ultimately trusted people, but just people that I feel are trustworthy enough to be unlikely scammers. I've been in this scene for years and have seen many kinds of scammers and people in general, also having moderated bitcoin IRC channels for years and recently bitcoin subreddit too.

So in other words, I would want to decrease the "legitimacy" of the DT list as an "elite, highly trusted people" list. This would encourage people to make their own lists. I would be adding loads people I've got to know over the years, and I am sure that many do not find them trustworthy to e.g. do trades, even though I do. It should merely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, and that's how I would treat it.

Additionally, add bunch of current DT2 members to DT1 so the DT1 gets "diluted" as it should.

Edit:
Some of my thoughts related to DT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080581.msg48502686#msg48502686

[1715155671]

1715155671

[1715155671]

1715155671

[suchmoon]

It's great to see that you're still using the same kind of sketchy logic that earned you your current trust rating. Great job Vod & Salty.

[OgNasty]

I don’t believe any DT1 member has ever asked to be a DT1. This would be a new approach.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don’t believe any DT1 member has ever asked to be a DT1. This would be a new approach.

I haven't been here as long as the old-timers, but I haven't seen anyone request that status yet.  It's particularly odd coming from a member who was just barking about how the DT system should be abolished because he has a beef with Vod.  And a member who believes bidding on his own auctions is acceptable--yeah, just the kind of person this forum needs on DT1.

Regardless of what happened with the PM and posting exchange between Anduck and Vod, Vod's feedback is correct.  You either set a reserve on your auction or you let the real bidders decide what the item should go for.  You don't bid on the auction yourself.  It's the same reason shill bidding is wrong, too.  Anduck doesn't seem to grasp what he did wrong, and he certainly shouldn't have any influence as to who gets added to DT2.  Bad idea, dude.

[Anduck]

I haven't been here as long as the old-timers, but I haven't seen anyone request that status yet.  It's particularly odd coming from a member who was just barking about how the DT system should be abolished because he has a beef with Vod.  And a member who believes bidding on his own auctions is acceptable--yeah, just the kind of person this forum needs on DT1.

Vendor bids are a common practice around the world. Ebays and such have made people think that all auctions are "get stuff for cheap" forced sale auctions, while in reality such "no reserve" auctions are always stated to be as such -- except here in bitcointalk. I did a vendor bid once, got taught the bitcointalk way of auctioning and have done all my auctions without any complaints since that.
And yes, DT should be abolished. Not because Vod misuses it, but because it gives Vod's opinion/misuse/whatever way too much power. Apply this to every DT user.

Theymos asked for specific suggestions to DT1. My non-specific suggestion would be to add loads of new DT1 members so the status of DT would get diluted heavily. And you know my opinion of the whole DT thing..

[Altrust]

Which one of them would you like to alternate with?

[suchmoon]

Theymos asked for specific suggestions to DT1. My non-specific suggestion would be to add loads of new DT1 members so the status of DT would get diluted heavily. And you know my opinion of the whole DT thing..

DT sucks except if you could use it for your own goals, e.g. to exclude Vod. Gotcha.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Vendor bids are a common practice around the world.

You keep making that argument, but people on this forum keep telling you it's not acceptable.  

I would suggest you not try to auction anything on bitcointalk and stick with those auction houses where they allow you to bid on your own auctions.  It's either that or there needs to be a rule put in place in the Auctions section that this practice is acceptable.  I think there need to be some guidelines put in place there anyway since it's basically a free-for-all right now.  And believe you me, I would never bid on anything auctioned on this forum should that rule come into effect--not that I bid on anything now.

Giving you any sort of power, e.g., adding you to DT1 would be an idiotic move on Theymos's part, and although I don't understand some of the decisions he's made thus far, the man is not an idiot.  Just forget about your suggestion--and about this battle, because it's pretty clear it's not one you're going to win.

Edit: Anduck, don't PM me, and I'm not derailing your thread.  You're requesting to be added to DT1, so any discussion of why you shouldn't be would seem to be fair game here.

[suchmoon]

Giving you any sort of power, e.g., adding you to DT1 would be an idiotic move on Theymos's part, and although I don't understand some of the decisions he's made thus far, the man is not an idiot.  Just forget about your suggestion--and about this battle, because it's pretty clear it's not one you're going to win.

I don't think he's trying to win, he's gone full Quicksy now and will try to troll and discredit the system.

[cryptohunter]

I'll see your DT1 and also suggest I am added as global mod and the root admin.

Not that I am actually saying you should not be a DT1. I mean the entire way of how this seems to work looks like an insiders club.

I would love to see why exactly any person is on DT1 or DT2. What was the criteria they met? What things have they done since being a member here made them eligible?

There should be strict criteria to attaining any position that is meant to mean something.

[Anduck]

Edit: Anduck, don't PM me, and I'm not derailing your thread.  You're requesting to be added to DT1, so any discussion of why you shouldn't be would seem to be fair game here.

I PM'd you, because my PM is not related or relevant to this thread. But whatever, now that you're implying that I want to play unfairly -- whatever that means --, here's the PM I sent you, so others can read it too. (As anyone can see, this message I sent to The Pharmacist is not related to this thread at all and his implication of me "playing non-fair game" is a narrative pushed by him, who knows why.) Also you can see that I did not say that The Pharmacist is derailing, even though he claims/implies so.

Vendor bids are a common practice around the world.

You keep making that argument, but people on this forum keep telling you it's not acceptable.  

I would suggest you not try to auction anything on bitcointalk and stick with those auction houses where they allow you to bid on your own auctions.  It's either that or there needs to be a rule put in place in the Auctions section that this practice is acceptable.  I think there need to be some guidelines put in place there anyway since it's basically a free-for-all right now.  And believe you me, I would never bid on anything auctioned on this forum should that rule come into effect--not that I bid on anything now.

Giving you any sort of power, e.g., adding you to DT1 would be an idiotic move on Theymos's part, and although I don't understand some of the decisions he's made thus far, the man is not an idiot.  Just forget about your suggestion--and about this battle, because it's pretty clear it's not one you're going to win.

Hi. Wanted to Pm you to not derail the thread, and also this is a response to specifically you.

I want to clear this up: I've only done a vendor bid / self-bid in one auction, this was ~3 years ago or so. I learned from that that bitcointalk auctions are by default "no reserve" and self-bidding is not cool in here. I learned the bitcointalk auction standard, at least regarding that, from that auction. I've not had any complaints in my various auctions since that.

It's not about me not understanding that it's not acceptable on Bitcointalk. I fully acknowledge that. If you read what my actual complaints are, it's that some people call it scamming when it's not, which is simply a fact and not an opinion. It all depends on the auction standard, and the standard is (even in the U.S. law if you care about that) that auctions without any reserve are always stated to be as such. Default is that there's a reserve. But I fully understand that the default in bitcointalk is the opposite, and I'm fine with that.

Best,
A

Now let's stick to the topic.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Wanted to Pm you to not derail the thread, and also this is a response to specifically you.

There are two ways this sentence could have been interpreted, and now that I'm reading it again and reading your response to my response, I'll admit I misunderstood it.  I thought you were accusing me of derailing the thread, but I can see now that you weren't stating that.  My apologies.

[marlboroza]

Here's my specific suggestion: Add me to DT1.

One simple does not ask to be added to DT1.

DT sucks except if you could use it for your own goals, e.g. to exclude Vod. Gotcha.

It must be it. Just recently Anduck suggested that whole system should be removed:

you might have a chance at getting them to reduce their feedbacks to neutral as well.

This is exactly why DT list should be removed completely. The view of peoples trust they in practice portray to people is not accurate, as you can see. This would only be solved by removing DT list.

And now they want to be on that list, but they are not sure if it exist:

If DT exists

They knew DT exist and also suggested few times that system should be removed/deleted:

I hope theymos deletes DT.

I hope that theymos removes DT list.

Hoping that theymos removes the DT list completely. It's a bad bad thing.

And now they want to be part of that bad bad thing which maybe doesn't exist. It is so confusing.

[LoyceV]

I would love to see why exactly any person is on DT1 or DT2. What was the criteria they met? What things have they done since being a member here made them eligible?

I think this is a good description (by eddie13):

Adding someone to DT (I hope) means you trust their judgement on others situations, their honesty, morality, and believe they would always strive to do the right thing even when it may not be in their best interest to do so. That you think their judgment and ratings are beneficial to the community.

Now back to OP: I think it's obvious you want to be on DT for revenge or leverage.

[The Cryptovator]

Here's my specific suggestion: Add me to DT1.

I don't think anyone should suggest himself for DT member. Even you aren't on DT2 then how you expect to become DT1? It's more important from DT2. If you really deserve then it should suggest by other reputed member's or DT member's. It's not decent way to suggest yourself. I can't see you have tag scammer. You tagged Vod! Really he deserve red tag?

I have tag lots of scammer and I have exposed many corruption and scammers, it doesn't mean I can suggest me for DT. Same to you also. If some one from DT1 like you then may be there is chance to become DT2 but I don't think it will happen.

I would love to see why exactly any person is on DT1 or DT2. What was the criteria they met? What things have they done since being a member here made them eligible?

If I am not wrong DT1 directly selected by forum admin. And obviously he had selected what he thought right. DT2 selected by DT1, if DT1 put you on their trust network then you will become DT2. I don't think there is any specific criteria, it's depend on overall activity.

That's true there are few DT1 and DT2 became inactive. List should be refresh again.

[Anduck]

I'll see your DT1 and also suggest I am added as global mod and the root admin.

This nicely highlights the problem of DT. People treat it as an authoritative thing.

I would love to see why exactly any person is on DT1 or DT2. What was the criteria they met? What things have they done since being a member here made them eligible?

I think this is a good description (by eddie13):

Adding someone to DT (I hope) means you trust their judgement on others situations, their honesty, morality, and believe they would always strive to do the right thing even when it may not be in their best interest to do so. That you think their judgment and ratings are beneficial to the community.

In my opinion, that sort of way to use DT is wrong, because it's too constraining, paints a wrong view of the DT list and encourages people to not make their own lists.

Now back to OP: I think it's obvious you want to be on DT for revenge or leverage.

I want DT to be gone or be changed. I can help with the latter, but would prefer the former.

[LoyceV]

I think this is a good description (by eddie13):

Adding someone to DT (I hope) means you trust their judgement on others situations, their honesty, morality, and believe they would always strive to do the right thing even when it may not be in their best interest to do so. That you think their judgment and ratings are beneficial to the community.

In my opinion, that sort of way to use DT is wrong.

Can you explain why you think this is wrong? I can't think of a single reason why a trustworthy judgement and doing the right thing wouldn't be what we need on DT.

[pugman]

That is so NOT how DT works or is supposed to work. Why would anyone add you in DT1 when you clearly hate the system, but also want to game the system by trying forcing to be a part of it. And your lack of understanding scenarios isn't helping either. Adding you into DT1 will result only in one thing: You going beyond desperate levels to remove salty spittoon and vod from DT, so your trust score looks better.


Try again!

[Anduck]

I think this is a good description (by eddie13):

Adding someone to DT (I hope) means you trust their judgement on others situations, their honesty, morality, and believe they would always strive to do the right thing even when it may not be in their best interest to do so. That you think their judgment and ratings are beneficial to the community.

In my opinion, that sort of way to use DT is wrong.

Can you explain why you think this is wrong? I can't think of a single reason why a trustworthy judgement and doing the right thing wouldn't be what we need on DT.

When DT1's are expected to only add people they're personally vouching 100%, or near that, the DT list gains a status it shouldn't have. I am arguing that DT should only be used as a list of people unlikely to scam. Or in other words, DT should be diluted a lot and the status of it should be decreased. Something about this:

1) People are supposed to make their own trust lists. Having a default trust list, people often choose to not alter their own trust list to be able to see the trust score and "trusted feedback" as others likely see it.
2) The perceived trustworthiness is not always matching reality. Big scammers have been on DT. In any case, DT1 is the view of theymos and DT2's are the view of DT1's. More DT'ers, more views, more decentralization, less (perceived) authority and trust for the correctness of DT. This would be good as it encourages people to make their own lists. It would still protect people from getting scammed (at least small scams) and the list would "heal" itself a lot quicker than it does currently.
3) Diluting the status of DT to a list of just unlikely-to-scam users, people are encouraged to make their own trust lists. There should not be any other qualifications to get on the DT.
4) DT users, especially DT1's, are getting a lot of heat, because there are so little of them. Also due to the same reason, they can't verify and dig in to all the stuff happening. This enables small scale wrongdoing as curators have much bigger stuff to do.
5) Con men always know their ways in to whatever list. If it only takes "good judgement" for few years and posting sensible stuff for a couple years, they'll do exactly that if the gained reward is worth it. We've seen this happening in the scene. Because of this, there's no point in even trying to build an universal list of super trusted users (which is what DT is trying to be currently). If everyone made their own lists, con men wouldn't have a clear target.
6) Having a public "highly trusted" status being on DT, it only boosts the effect of the scams they can pull. Now what are the upsides of having people with such status?

[Vod]

I am arguing that DT should only be used as a list of people unlikely to scam.

I would make DT1 then.  And you hate me.