DefaultTrust changes

[peloso]

I think Lauda has paranoia. If she had suspicions without evidence, then the user will be painted. I would not be surprised if she painted me red. I want to add this here)))

Lauda despite paranoia extorts money from people
she so danger maniac

[1714496113]

1714496113

[1714496113]

1714496113

[1714496113]

1714496113

[madnessteat]

~snip~
IIRC you've been excluded by me for quite some time now, so the posts that you are quoting have nothing to do with this. My full list is public (despite the existence of those tools).

Thank you for finally understanding me! I just felt uncomfortable with the fact that I know that I was accused without a reason. Let's all together forget about the disputes and we will make our forum better! Satoshi would love it!

[stingers]

Is stingers still a merit source?

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality.

Awarding merits for political reasons, this is totally partiality while judging peoples here.

There are many examples of such merit abuse made by merit source and even some DTs to support a political opinion and you know that.

For example:
This post shows that there is a lot of efforts put into explaining a situation by a low-ranked member and receives zero merits for his effort-full post. On the other side, just an arrogant and unuseful answer to this here gets 11 merits. Also, the reply of rickbig4 suggests to an active person here to leave the forum, which is worth 0 merits.


There are many such cases of merits abuse happing to support the political discussion.

OO what I am saying there is a whole merit-circle out there, But still no action on the abuse from theymos. While I was removed from being a merit source within some hour of sending merits to the people who are working hard to stop the trust abuse. Great judgment

[JayJuanGee]

Is stingers still a merit source?

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality.

Awarding merits for political reasons, this is totally partiality while judging peoples here.

There are many examples of such merit abuse made by merit source and even some DTs to support a political opinion and you know that.

For example:
This post shows that there is a lot of efforts put into explaining a situation by a low-ranked member and receives zero merits for his effort-full post. On the other side, just an arrogant and unuseful answer to this here gets 11 merits. Also, the reply of rickbig4 suggests to an active person here to leave the forum, which is worth 0 merits.


There are many such cases of merits abuse happing to support the political discussion.

OO what I am saying there is a whole merit-circle out there, But still no action on the abuse from theymos. While I was removed from being a merit source within some hour of sending merits to the people who are working hard to stop the trust abuse. Great judgment

You seem to have just admitted the purpose of your sending the merit was in order that they would be able to vote on a forum issue? Perhaps?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This post shows that there is a lot of efforts put into explaining a situation by a low-ranked member and receives zero merits for his effort-full post.

It's a rant by a recently-uncovered scammer.  I'm not about to reward that shit with merits, and I don't care how hard he worked on it.  He also drew the wrong conclusion about why he sees a lot of the same members posting in the same threads.  It's not because we're all on a team but because we've been posting mainly in Meta and Reputation for a long time now.  This was true even before the merit system was implemented.

As far as rickbig41's post goes, it got merits because it was a good response to a whining post from someone who sees himself as a victim after he got discovered trying to scam someone and was caught making up excuses as he went along, trying to explain why he wanted to get money from a victim of an extortion attempt.  Hopefully that's Rambotnic's last post on the forum.  Rambotnic is a chronic shitposter who should not be ranking up with merits from merit sources.  That's the whole purpose of the system.

OO what I am saying there is a whole merit-circle out there, But still no action on the abuse from theymos.

There's no merit circle.  I happen to go out of my way to avoid meriting posts by Lauda, Vod, actmyname, and others even when their posts are much better than what's in the rest of a given thread.  I've tried to give as many merits to newcomers as possible, but it's difficult to find them in the sections I frequent. 

Didn't know you got removed as a merit source.  Maybe someone here can explain that.  Were you given a reason?

[stingers]

I don't care how hard he worked on it.

As a merit source, I think you should care.

I encourage people to give merit to posts that are objectively high-quality, not just posts that you agree with.

As far as rickbig41's post goes, it got merits because it was a good response

It was not a good response as his response and solution suggested to leave the forum.

Didn't know you got removed as a merit source.  Maybe someone here can explain that.  Were you given a reason?

Yes, got this reason from theymos in PM.

This is egregious abuse of merit, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. You are no longer a merit source, and your recent sends have been effectively undone.

[otrkid1970]

When will theymos lay the law down regarding these DT Members?  How many threads have to be made? How many complaiints have to made before theymos gets off his ass and lays down the law?

Why is the DT list made up of almost NO ONE who has traded a single $ on BCT?
The DT was implemented for trade reasons right?

DT was established so people who risk $$ on BCT knew who to trust or not to trust.

It has evolved to DT members Tagging accounts of "Shit posters" anyone who doesn't speak English well. Tagging ANYONE that the DT member Feels or "Thinks" may be an account buyer or seller.

It has become so degraded that theymos allows these DT members to drop the "I suspect" red paint hammer on anyone they feel has trust issues

Where does it stop? Where is the logic in this? When does Gut feelings or "Assumtions" end and facts take over?

Where the fuck are you theymos? put and end to this shit.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't care how hard he worked on it.

As a merit source, I think you should care.
<snip>

This is egregious abuse of merit, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. You are no longer a merit source, and your recent sends have been effectively undone.

It's still a rambling, poorly-written wall of text, and I don't reward posts like that.  He's lucky he didn't get banned because of that plagiarism incident, and I agree with rickbig41 that he ought to pack up and leave.  And hey, if other merit sources or anyone else with sMerits to give (including yourself) want to merit Rambotnic's post, you're absolutely free to. 

What was the egregious abuse of merit?  I don't remember that incident, who you gave merits to, etc.

[owlcatz]

Where the fuck are you theymos? put and end to this shit.

Did you read the OP before blasting off like this? Btw, there are many people on DT1 who have traded large amounts of btc or $$....

[otrkid1970]

Where the fuck are you theymos? put and end to this shit.

Did you read the OP before blasting off like this? Btw, there are many people on DT1 who have traded large amounts of btc or $$....

Did you read my post and understand what i typed?  Guess not! I said ALMOST no one on the DT list.  Read it again before you claim to "Blast off like this"   wtf does that mean anyways you British?

[otrkid1970]

Suchmoon logic which is on DT list

I trust 0gNasty unlike some others on the DT list. 0gNasy had a good trade reputation which is what the DT was meant for. I would trust him with $$ unlike MANY many of the DT list users that are on that list with ZERO trade rep. Fuck you if you don't like that answer.

OgNasty's exclusion doesn't prevent him from trading. It excludes his ratings from the default score and moves them down on on person's trust page, which is appropriate seeing how worthless many of his ratings are due to his extremely fragile ego.

Suchmoon logic has him Rating a TRUSTED member for a "Fragile Ego"   how is he on DT list?

[Lauda]

-snip-
Why is the DT list made up of almost NO ONE who has traded a single $ on BCT?
The DT was implemented for trade reasons right?

What is this nonsense? Most of the new DT1 members (at least from the collectibles section) have traded goods worth very large amounts of BTC. You may be talking about DT members from local sections; but that was the goal if I understood my master correctly.

[LoyceV]

Awarding merits for political reasons, this is totally partiality while judging peoples here.

The evidence was pretty clear:

You need 10 earned merits to vote right?

I can provide you with that to be eligible for voting. Not many but some of the supportive and abused, Jr.member and newbies can vote because of my help which is an honour for me.

Giving merit to a political post that's worth reading is okay, but (as a merit source) giving merit for voting rights is abuse.

[TECSHARE]

Awarding merits for political reasons, this is totally partiality while judging peoples here.

The evidence was pretty clear:

You need 10 earned merits to vote right?

I can provide you with that to be eligible for voting. Not many but some of the supportive and abused, Jr.member and newbies can vote because of my help which is an honour for me.

Giving merit to a political post that's worth reading is okay, but (as a merit source) giving merit for voting rights is abuse.

Yet more ambiguous rules that can be selectively enforced... this is looking less and less like a hands off decentralized system, and more and more like a system designed to give the appearance of decentralization.

[bill gator]

I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely hands off, because of the subjective contingencies lying within the rules as you have pointed out. To me, it certainly seems more decentralized than the old system, but I agree there is progress to be made.

TEC, do you believe the system would be better without the option for these judgement calls from staff (Or DT)? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts, and anyone else on this. It's difficult to delegate responsibility in a decentralized manner without ruining whatever that responsibility is there to maintain.

[Thule]

Somebody might explain to me why old members who have clearly participated a lot in the forum in the past are not allowed to have any voting rights if they didn't earn 10 merits ?

I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.

Why do they don't own a vote ?

Are they not considered as part of the community ?

it's a rant by a recently-uncovered scammer.  I'm not about to reward that shit with merits

But you are meriting a guy with a new account who is whoring for merit and received 80 merits for a short video made in 10 minutes which is  in your political few right?

I mean its so obvious that this account is not his first one as he clearly knows where and how to receive merits and you look his threads.
2 more videos of that low quality and he will be a DT1

DT1 in just a month thanks to short low quality videos which represents the political view of the abusers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105303.0


Didn't saw theymos reacting on that bullshit like the known merit cicle of Lauda and the rest......

Like i posted before .Imbalance and one sided decissions of theymos which result is that big part of the community stopped trusting anyone of you.

[cryptohunter]

Giving merit to a political post that's worth reading is okay, but (as a merit source) giving merit for voting rights is abuse.

Incorrect as usual - - that is if you want merit to become a real meritocracy

Motive even if stated is irrelevant -- only the posts actual content and its value should be analysed and then awarded merit based upon its contribution in relation to reaching the optimal solution.

You are suggesting an adhominem fallacy.

If we start using motives for removing merits let us start analysing bpips fans and receivers, trust lists and observable allegiances on this board. Any removal of merit without first providing a strong case the post itself does not warrant that merit is a political move and tampering.

Since merits are now trust in effect then we need to bring forth some criteria that ensures merit is given to valuable posts only. Why should persons proliferating provably incorrect / valueless information or even fighting against the formation of a fairer, transparent and more equal system for all even be considered trustworthy it the first place? makes no logical sense.

[Quickseller]

It seems like theymos doesn’t like merit being given for political purposes. I can’t really disagree with this, but realistically this happened prior to the new DT system was put in place.

The above begs the question if it is acceptable to *not* give merit for political purposes.

I am on the fence if this is currently happening, but is a question to discuss.

[LoyceV]

I mean i can show a lot of high ranked account who are activ on that forum and posting many updates about crypto but don't receive merit.

Why do they don't own a vote ?

I can think of a reason: the account farmers from before the Merit system shouldn't be able to use those accounts for voting power.

2 more videos of that low quality and he will be a DT1

Receiving Merit alone doesn't put him on DT1, it gives some voting power at best.
Last Saturday, nobody had included Crypto-DesignService, and he didn't create a custom Trust list either.

[TECSHARE]

I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely hands off, because of the subjective contingencies lying within the rules as you have pointed out. To me, it certainly seems more decentralized than the old system, but I agree there is progress to be made.

TEC, do you believe the system would be better without the option for these judgement calls from staff (Or DT)? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts, and anyone else on this. It's difficult to delegate responsibility in a decentralized manner without ruining whatever that responsibility is there to maintain.

At the end of the day the forum is Theymos's personal property, even if he and the community largely see it as something he is entrusted with on behalf of the community. The question is not if they will be able to interfere, ofc they will be able. I don't think they will need or want to for the vast majority of instances.

We already uphold certain standards for what is not acceptable to rate people for without staff intervention. Any disputes or judgement calls would be handled by community analysis and judgement in public as it always has been. This can be done with ratings, trust lists, and general ostracism.

The problem is no one except Theymos will ever be able to get such a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws in to effect, because it goes against the interest of those already in control of the system. He doesn't need to personally nit pick every case, or really any, but by setting a comparatively very objective standard for leaving a negative rating the VAST majority of conflict is simply avoided.

There will be no hindrance of stopping scammers, but in fact it will be easier to spot them as they don't blend in in a sea of red. Also people will feel more comfortable contributing to a community where they don't have to worry about everything being taken away over some petty squabble at any instant.