DefaultTrust changes

[H8bussesNbicycles]

Is stingers still a merit source?

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. Only because he was a source, I effectively undid those merit sends. If he had not been a merit source, I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans.

I hadn't read into the thread deeply enough to see that stuff. Those are better arguments against the trustworthiness of H8bussesNbicycles & co., but note that the current negative-trust-ratings were sent long before that. Before February, the thread looks like politics to me

Theymos I agree with your statement and promise that I will not buy any merits to vote against lauda and the cult. Though I have mentioned it I will refrain.
I might state that merits given toward the cause are helpful but I promise I will not buy any merits. I did not solicit Stingers for merits but only after he showed up point him to where merits would help.
I did not know he was a source until suchmoon or someone pointed it out.
It is fine with me that you rescinded those merits.

That said, using selfmod topics in a deceptive way can be an appropriate reason for negative trust.

 
I do not believe that I have used selfmod topics in a deceptive way.
I have only kept their signature spamming and merit whoring out of my thread and kept it to the topic.
Many of their quotes are still there for all to read whoever responded to them. If I was trying to hide their statements I would have deleted them too.

[1714497609]

1714497609

[1714497609]

1714497609

[1714497609]

1714497609

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So to receive the right to buy an alt without getting a negative feedback is that you need to know that user.
Seems very centralised to me.How many of all users do you know on that forum to make a proper judgement ?

Um, no.  I don't know any of those members personally.  The judgement comes from their overall trust, i.e., the decentralized trust system.  Gleb has a neg right now, but I disagree with that one and thus haven't tagged him.

Edit:

counter it then pussycat

Sorry, not a fan of giving counter-feedback.

[xtraelv]

taikuri13
WhiteManWhite

What are these people doing in DT1? Looks like the ruskis have succesfully colluded their way into DT1.

I have been working with Taikuri13 for quite some time. If you look at some of his posts and my posts you will see that he has done translations for me regarding some of the historic topics and scam warnings. He has helped me a lot behind the scenes and is a highly merited user on the Russian forum. I don't see any collusion there.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

Gleb has a neg right now, but I disagree with that one and thus haven't tagged him.

counter it with a positive then pussycat

[Thule]

So to receive the right to buy an alt without getting a negative feedback is that you need to know that user.
Seems very centralised to me.How many of all users do you know on that forum to make a proper judgement ?

Um, no.  I don't know any of those members personally.  The judgement comes from their overall trust, i.e., the decentralized trust system.  Gleb has a neg right now, but I disagree with that one and thus haven't tagged him.

I thought you are against account sales?This account has been clearly being offered for sale and suchmoon is now under control of it.
Do you support account sales in any form that you are not tagging this one ?I thought account sales are being discouraged ?

So how does it come that new accounts which have no negative trust gets instantly a negative feedback when trying to buy an account and a known account doesnt if the overall trust is ok ?

So why did you tagged me ?I have an account which is several years old .Never had a negative feedback only positiv ones.Why did you tagg me negativly ?I mean the overall trust was positiv ?Wasn't it ?

counter it then pussycat

adding me more negative feedback won't change anything.He knows it

[cryptohunter]

However if he tried to actually "game" the system to his advantage (not saying he did) should THAT be tagged?

With gaming the system I mean influencing DT list for his own sake or agenda and not for legitimate reasons. See Thule et al.

If the "gaming" takes the form of strategically sending a lot of merit, creating sockuppets, and stuff like that, then no. That sort of gaming might get me to blacklist people, in fact. But if it looks more like politics, then that's OK, and that's what H8bussesNbicycles's thread looks like to me.

Is stingers still a merit source? Sending merits to pad H8's gang to 10 merits so that they would have votes. Not sure if that counts as "strategic".

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.msg49590110#msg49590110

How can you say those merits are simply not deserved? merits are subjective and posts fighting dishonest untrustworthy practises are most deserving. Like people being rewarded for busting scams or other "possible" shady dealings.

I say looking at your bpip and your "friends" bpips these look very "strategic" hence why you are all on in a position to strategically include each other on DT1

There is no rules at all for giving merit is all subjective nonsense. I have proven certain posts are nothing but false assumptions and merely politically motivated faux and empty rebuttals. Yet still they get a ton of merit and the correct and valuable posts get nothing.

This entire merit thing is a sham.

You get into a debate with any of the merit cyclers and regardless of whom is correct or which are the valuable posts they just allocate merit to posts that follow their political views or ideologies. That is why I was trying to define an objective set of criteria that could define a valuable post. Of course none of the merit cyclers wish for that because that stops people like fox pup firing out merit just for any reason. I mean jet cash gave out some the other day because he said he was bored of hearing the same facts being presented against the same person or some rubbish like this.

Merit is the most damaging thing here and now it is tied to DT with this ludicrous 250 earned cycled merit threshold (they all boast about and taunt others saying you will never be able to touch us because we will not allow you to have the merits needed) .. i mean i have asked loyce bring me a some of your great thought inspiring or even very interesting posts (not stats  copy and paste) he brings nothing, I ask tman bring me some of your greatest posts and contribution for debate.... nothing. I mean a handful can present some Okay posts ...nothing of any real importance or that look like a lot of thought went in to them. This main merit circle gang produce nothing but a constant rehash of their own ideologies and parroting support for them for merits. 

Political reasons for meriting are far more common that from analysing the content of the post for the purposes of reaching an optimal solution or outcome.

Now I notice some says okay I agree politically with your views and i will look for a post supporting those views that was well written and expresses clearly the issues with the current status quo and some possible solutions for reaching an optimal outcome in terms of fairness and equality for all and ..............suchmoon starts crying about it and of course those merits need to be removed at once.

Lets start going through all of their posts and see which deserve merits on the basis of the quality and value they provide. You will find significant amounts are awarded during each debate simply for their views aligning with the politics of other cyclers and nothing to do with the logical argument provided and nothing to do with reaching the optimal solution or even reaching the truth.

Let's introduce some criteria for what is a valuable posts and if merit sources are found awarding and cycling merits outside of that then they are removed like stingers. Fox pup awards merit like sweets to his pals for usually nonsense posts or just taking the piss.
How did this person even get so many merits to hand in vast amounts to so many of the same people that all include themselves on dt?

[TECSHARE]

Is stingers still a merit source?

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. Only because he was a source, I effectively undid those merit sends. If he had not been a merit source, I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans.

Regardless of how justifiable it is, this is not helping your "I wanna do this hands off" argument.

[mikeywith]

Regardless of how justifiable it is, this is not helping your "I wanna do this hands off" argument.

he differently can't let everything 100% under user control, look at the mess and you will understand, manual intervention is always needed. stingers is clearly merting those guys to get himself a clean profile again, if the other "party" has any similar proof of merit abuse against their "opponents" - they should present it, whining does not get anybody anywhere, proofs usually do.

don't get me wrong i agree with your logic, i personally disagree with the the way that many DT members use the trust system to non-trust related subjects, but this does not mean their rattings that are based on trust are not accurate, if we let a new group take over the trust system overnight then tons of scammers will be set free, these changes have to be done in fair manner, changing for better must be slow,steady and logical, if not ,then we will create a worse mess, i rather see current DT members re-think their negs, focus on trust only subjects, this will solve 90% of the current issues.

[JayJuanGee]

Is stingers still a merit source?

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. Only because he was a source, I effectively undid those merit sends. If he had not been a merit source, I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans.

I hadn't read into the thread deeply enough to see that stuff. Those are better arguments against the trustworthiness of H8bussesNbicycles & co., but note that the current negative-trust-ratings were sent long before that. Before February, the thread looks like politics to me

Theymos I agree with your statement and promise that I will not buy any merits to vote against lauda and the cult. Though I have mentioned it I will refrain.
I might state that merits given toward the cause are helpful but I promise I will not buy any merits. I did not solicit Stingers for merits but only after he showed up point him to where merits would help.
I did not know he was a source until suchmoon or someone pointed it out.
It is fine with me that you rescinded those merits.

That said, using selfmod topics in a deceptive way can be an appropriate reason for negative trust.

 
I do not believe that I have used selfmod topics in a deceptive way.
I have only kept their signature spamming and merit whoring out of my thread and kept it to the topic.
Many of their quotes are still there for all to read whoever responded to them. If I was trying to hide their statements I would have deleted them too.

My 6 posts in that thread that you deleted, H8bussesNbicycles, were relatively innocuous.  They were not signature spamming (I have no signature) and they were not merit whoring because I have plenty of merits and I was just attempting to make experiential observations on the topic, and even largely substantively neutral posts, since I was not trying to get deeply involved into the politics.

I am a bit skeptical about your deletion of my posts, whether that rises to the level of deception on your part or merely a heavy deletion finger remains somewhat unanswered, at least from my perspective.

[Timelord2067]

Archived for future reference: http://archive.fo/prEh6#selection-1905.0-1941.187

[quote author=theymos link=topic=5095156.msg49600801#msg49600801 date=1549393068]
[size=5pt]I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.[/size][/quote]


So theymos...

I take it you're going to sit down and write a letter to all the persons who've given me negative trust (an small example of which is contained in the screen shot below) and demand they remove it to follow your guide-lines?




What about the DT Trolls ^TM who've either bullied others to remove their trust of me or given me negative DT trust because they simply didn't agree with my findings on a handful of [color=#0a80b1]Known Alts of any-one[/color] cases, but neither had the courage nore the ability to voice their concerns in the forum or in a PM?

[Timelord2067]

Being also called a scammer by suchmoon each time i represent facts about his abuse and he has no more arguments.

I asked him like 100 times to show me a single person i scammed in my 7 years and still got no answer.

Seven years eh? http://archive.fo/PJCev#selection-3987.53-3987.77

Code:

Name: 	Thule

Position: 	Sr. Member
Date Registered: 	15 July 2014, 01:35:37

[suchmoon]

demand they remove it to follow your guide-lines?

I think the idea is that we either use DefaultTrust according to "guidelines" (which are very lax really... not to use it for disagreements and other petty squabbles) or it will be taken away from us. This strategy is often used (and mostly doesn't work) with toddlers but at least some us are supposedly adults so maybe there's hope.

So there's not going to be enforcement that you're expecting. Those users are not in DT anyway.

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=The Pharmacist link=topic=5095156.msg49603350#msg49603350 date=1549407915]
[quote author=Thule link=topic=5095156.msg49602986#msg49602986 date=1549405035]
So why did he get tagged  ?
If you tagg him you should also tagg the accounts of suchmoon such as glem or tagg any other known alt.
[/quote]
Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales.  Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted.  Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.

Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it.  Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on.  Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.
[/quote]

Most people have failed to notice that I have for more than a year taken a mostly hands off approach to my participation in BCT (check the known alts thread if you don't believe me) - any accounts I've given negative trust to in that time I've only done so at the request of the finder of said alts and have given -ve when they themselves have also given red trust.  You would (should) also recall that I've repeatedly stated that a person should give known alts negative themselves instead of calling on others on the DT list to do their work for them.  I even started a poll on the 06 February 2016, 23:40:33 and have given trust wall trust based on the consensus gained in that on going poll.

The DT Trolls ^TM have time and again stated they'd have me on their DT list if I didn't get the odd one or two cases wrong - so I'm still calling all DT Trolls ^TM out - which ones? Where did I get it so wrong?

The DT Trolls' bullying of others to remove me from their DT list is trust abuse.  I call that out.

*edit*

I never -ve tagged suchmoon's account for acquiring bruno

[img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob7284db243e4a8fbb.jpeg[/img]

and I don't recall ever slapping any of Bruno's accounts with negative.

[img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob9f19cc7eb8e434de.jpeg[/img]

[cryptohunter]

So why did he get tagged  ?
If you tagg him you should also tagg the accounts of suchmoon such as glem or tagg any other known alt.

Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales.  Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted.  Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.

Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it.  Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on.  Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.

Most people have failed to notice that I have for more than a year taken a mostly hands off approach to my participation in BCT (check the known alts thread if you don't believe me) - any accounts I've given negative trust to in that time I've only done so at the request of the finder of said alts and have given -ve when they themselves have also given red trust.  You would (should) also recall that I've repeatedly stated that a person should give known alts negative themselves instead of calling on others on the DT list to do their work for them.  I even started a poll on the 06 February 2016, 23:40:33 and have given trust wall trust based on the consensus gained in that on going poll.

The DT Trolls ^TM have time and again stated they'd have me on their DT list if I didn't get the odd one or two cases wrong - so I'm still calling all DT Trolls ^TM out - which ones? Where did I get it so wrong?

The DT Trolls' bullying of others to remove me from their DT list is trust abuse.  I call that out.

*edit*

I never tagged suchmoon's account for acquiring bruno and I don't recall ever slapping any of Bruno's accounts with negative.

Sounds like collusion.... you can come on DT if you change your red tags to suit us. They will throw in some merits too perhaps? Also if they notice you including anyone on your dt list that may not fit in with their agenda then you will be again refused entry so better have a good look over your list. I notice ~myself so that is one good plus for you there.

I would guess for a start you best not have red trust Huge Black Woman aka The Pharmacist. That will not have gone down well. You didn't did you? that would be a mistake if you are looking for DT1 status.

[Timelord2067]

Sounds like collusion.... you can come on DT if you change your red tags to suit us. Haha great system. They will throw in some merits too perhaps?

I would guess for a start you best not have red trust Huge Black Woman aka The Pharmacist. That will not have gone down well. You didn't did you?

Don't delude yourself; I won't be removing my Red Paint ^TM, it's an indication of who I trust, or not as the case may be.

[cryptohunter]

Sounds like collusion.... you can come on DT if you change your red tags to suit us. Haha great system. They will throw in some merits too perhaps?

I would guess for a start you best not have red trust Huge Black Woman aka The Pharmacist. That will not have gone down well. You didn't did you?

Don't delude yourself; I won't be removing my Red Paint ^TM, it's an indication of who I trust, or not as the case may be.

Well then you will not get on to DT anytime soon. This is a tight knit crew. You don't red trust Huge Black Woman and get on DT right now.

[suchmoon]

Where did I get it so wrong?

Am I one of the DT Trolls? I think I may have said something unpleasant about your ratings once or twice. I know that when I had you in my list some users lit up red for no good reason. I'll take a look at it again but it's gonna take some time.

[Timelord2067]

demand they remove it to follow your guide-lines?

I think the idea is that we either use DefaultTrust according to "guidelines" (which are very lax really... not to use it for disagreements and other petty squabbles) or it will be taken away from us. This strategy is often used (and mostly doesn't work) with toddlers but at least some us are supposedly adults so maybe there's hope.

So there's not going to be enforcement that you're expecting. Those users are not in DT anyway.

What I actually said was:

So theymos...

I take it you're going to sit down and write a letter to all the persons who've given me negative trust (an small example of which is contained in the screen shot below) and demand they remove it to follow your guide-lines?

cutting a sentence into parts more often than not changes the context.  Please refrain from doing so again.

Where did I get it so wrong?

Am I one of the DT Trolls?

Have you pressured others into removing their DT trust of me?

I think I may have said something unpleasant about your ratings once or twice. I know that when I had you in my list some users lit up red for no good reason. I'll take a look at it again but it's gonna take some time.

Thank-you, that's all I ask.

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=cryptohunter link=topic=5095156.msg49604971#msg49604971 date=1549423613]
[quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5095156.msg49604959#msg49604959 date=1549423496]
[quote author=cryptohunter link=topic=5095156.msg49604943#msg49604943 date=1549423308]
Sounds like collusion.... you can come on DT if you change your red tags to suit us. Haha great system. They will throw in some merits too perhaps?

I would guess for a start you best not have red trust Huge Black Woman aka The Pharmacist. That will not have gone down well. You didn't did you?
[/quote]

Don't delude yourself; I won't be removing my Red Paint ^TM, it's an indication of who I trust, or not as the case may be.
[/quote]

Well then you will not get on to DT anytime soon. This is a tight knit crew. You don't red trust Huge Black Woman and get on DT right now.
[/quote]

Heh, actually it's funny, I replied so quickly I thought I was replying to Thule...

What I wrote for you is:

[img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blobe5f77c5a81853810.jpeg[/img]

So no.  I probably won't be removing that post - as I said a couple of posts (half hour or so) ago.

I haven't given any of Bruno's alts negative trust wall trust as yet.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip>
I would guess for a start you best not have red trust Huge Black Woman aka The Pharmacist. That will not have gone down well. You didn't did you?

<snip>

I've never had any problem with Timelord2067.  On the contrary, he's been quite civil and tolerant of me in the handful of PMs he's sent me in the past couple of years, considering I know he does not care for my brand of humor.  He's a good guy, and the only thing that's kept him from being in my trust list is the fact that I think he's wildly off the mark on some of his account-linking.  I couldn't give a specific example, since I haven't given the matter much thought as of late, but I do recall him accusing multiple members of being alts of Quickseller that I thought were very wrong. 

He certainly has done a lot to help the forum, dedicating a lot of what must be his free time to doing detective work--that's a lot more than can be said for many others 'round these parts.