DefaultTrust changes

[El duderino_]

Don't worry. The people with the hats are all that you really need. When it comes to cycling merits, the people with the hats do it the best. 

You forget, I've already turned one of them; don't count on the rest to protect you.

Bones261 will stay a HAT member 

And a highly respected one, why not turning Loyce into that fox cycling AVATAR and you take a QR-code/FOX hat from XhomerX
wouldn't that be something lol 

[1714530618]

1714530618

[1714530618]

1714530618

[1714530618]

1714530618

[1714530618]

1714530618

[TECSHARE]

Oh look, here we are months later an all the same bad actors in control of the trust system again, only more of them. Much better.

[Hhampuz]

Oh look, here we are months later an all the same bad actors in control of the trust system again, only more of them. Much better.

More users really need to set their trust lists, DT is increasing at a very slow pace right now and looking at a few different users custom lists DT should be larger than it is right now.

[OgNasty]

Oh look, here we are months later an all the same bad actors in control of the trust system again, only more of them. Much better.

The Administration isn't blind, but they are busy.  I assume at some point they will step in if things continue to go this way.  Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID.  It's really blatantly obvious that the new users are working hard to gain control by teaming up to damage the reputation of anyone they feel stands in their way.  When I look at my trust settings list, nearly all the older members are included, while nearly all the newer members are excluded.  This goes way beyond coincidence.

[LoyceV]

More users really need to set their trust lists, DT is increasing at a very slow pace right now and looking at a few different users custom lists DT should be larger than it is right now.

Although I agree more users should make a custom list, I don't think DT has to grow much bigger. I'm working on an overview of who's on DT2 now, and it's a very long list.

[TECSHARE]

Oh look, here we are months later an all the same bad actors in control of the trust system again, only more of them. Much better.

The Administration isn't blind, but they are busy.  I assume at some point they will step in if things continue to go this way.  Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID.  It's really blatantly obvious that the new users are working hard to gain control by teaming up to damage the reputation of anyone they feel stands in their way.  When I look at my trust settings list, nearly all the older members are included, while nearly all the newer members are excluded.  This goes way beyond coincidence.

At this point I am just leaning towards getting rid of the default trust entirely as at this point is is nothing but a system of ball-washing, not a system to show who is trustworthy. It has always from day one been vulnerable to abuse by a small handful of individuals, now they don't even have to explain themselves and they just stack up exclusions of anyone who is critical of them.

[EcuaMobi]

Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID

If the list gets too big and the limitation is automatic then it would make much more sense to increase the minimum required amount of total inclusions a member must have: +2 or +3 instead of the current zero for example.
Or it could be manual with explicit white- and blacklists.

[OgNasty]

Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID

If the list gets too big and the limitation is automatic then it would make much more sense to increase the minimum required amount of total inclusions a member must have: +2 or +3 instead of the current zero for example.

That would certainly help the manipulators, so I can see why you'd propose it.  I think it runs counter to my point though, as that would only make the problem of centralization bigger, and eliminate any potential improvement in this new system over the old one.

[teeGUMES]

I want to address this from a thread in the collectibles section:

If allowable, i’d Like to cancel my bids.  As someone I trusted and used to have a lot of respect for, I am sorry that the feeling isn’t mutual.  If not, I will still honor my bids through a mutually agreeable escrow.  

Rmc, you are free to cancel your bids, no worries. Regarding trust network and inclusions/exclusions, it is nothing personal but as it stands right now (you know the history between me and og) I had to exclude you from mine. If you still want to bid, I'll happily use any mutually agreeable escrow to sort out final bids etc. Another thing about the trust system is that I never saw you as someone being active in that department with either giving out ratings or taking part in those discussions. Sorry if you feel offended.

Bold emphasis mine.

You gave Rmcdermott927 ONE day before you excluded him based off of his "affiliation" with OgNasty. The bolded part in the quote is a cop out. You should have at least given him one cycle of DT1 and ~May 1 you could review if the jump to DT1 had given inspiration and a desire for Rmcdermott927 to more actively take the step towards handing out ratings and taking part in Meta/Scam Accusations/Reputation discussions. The reason DT1 cycles like this is to add some fresh new faces every once inawhile.. it does not break the system, it instead might inspire a user that doesn't normally do what you suggested, end up doing just that. Then there is a reason to maybe add him to your own trust list. But an exclusion after one day? Fuck out of here.

He used to be a lot more active until you guys/girls in the OgNasty vs Lauda/TMAN/etc labelled him as an enemy. Time to drop that utter bullshit of a feud.

Give the man a chance to prove he is DT1 worthy, because right now you have taken all the wind out of his sails and that most certainly won't improve his desire of participating with ratings/discussion.

[Hhampuz]

I want to address this from a thread in the collectibles section:

If allowable, i’d Like to cancel my bids.  As someone I trusted and used to have a lot of respect for, I am sorry that the feeling isn’t mutual.  If not, I will still honor my bids through a mutually agreeable escrow.  

Rmc, you are free to cancel your bids, no worries. Regarding trust network and inclusions/exclusions, it is nothing personal but as it stands right now (you know the history between me and og) I had to exclude you from mine. If you still want to bid, I'll happily use any mutually agreeable escrow to sort out final bids etc. Another thing about the trust system is that I never saw you as someone being active in that department with either giving out ratings or taking part in those discussions. Sorry if you feel offended.

Bold emphasis mine.

You gave Rmcdermott927 ONE day before you excluded him based off of his "affiliation" with OgNasty. The bolded part in the quote is a cop out. You should have at least given him one cycle of DT1 and ~May 1 you could review if the jump to DT1 had given inspiration and a desire for Rmcdermott927 to more actively take the step towards handing out ratings and taking part in Meta/Scam Accusations/Reputation discussions. The reason DT1 cycles like this is to add some fresh new faces every once inawhile.. it does not break the system, it instead might inspire a user that doesn't normally do what you suggested, end up doing just that. Then there is a reason to maybe add him to your own trust list. But an exclusion after one day? Fuck out of here.

He used to be a lot more active until you guys/girls in the OgNasty vs Lauda/TMAN/etc labelled him as an enemy. Time to drop that utter bullshit of a feud.

Give the man a chance to prove he is DT1 worthy, because right now you have taken all the wind out of his sails and that most certainly won't improve his desire of participating with ratings/discussion.

I never considered anyone an enemy besides og, for good reason. If he is not in DT1 I don't see any reason to exclude him as it is when he gets on DT1 that he gets the extra voting power, should not be too strange.

Not to mention that not only I hold the power the exclude someone, others are more than free to include him as that is the beauty of the system with voting.

[Lauda]

What we really need to figure out now is whether Lauda's gang or Foxpup's club is controlling the DT.

I control the merit system, Lauda controls the trust system. Together, we fight crime.

Do I smell a romance between foxes and kitties? Things keep getting better with reach rotation.

[JayJuanGee]

What we really need to figure out now is whether Lauda's gang or Foxpup's club is controlling the DT.

I control the merit system, Lauda controls the trust system. Together, we fight crime.

Do I smell a romance between foxes and kitties? Things keep getting better with reach rotation.

A cartel.   

[EcuaMobi]

Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID

If the list gets too big and the limitation is automatic then it would make much more sense to increase the minimum required amount of total inclusions a member must have: +2 or +3 instead of the current zero for example.

That would certainly help the manipulators, so I can see why you'd propose it.  I think it runs counter to my point though, as that would only make the problem of centralization bigger, and eliminate any potential improvement in this new system over the old one.

Wow. Now you just attack me without any other intentions.

What I'm saying (in case you're interested in an input and didn't just mean to say "I want to be in DT1 and whoever distrusts my feedback should be removed") is it wouldn't make sense to automatically grant DT1 status to older members versus newer ones, as you suggested. Being an old member doesn't necessarily mean being trusted or being impartial when leaving trust or choosing DT2 users. It would make more sense to grant that status to those trusted by more users.

That, or we return to the previous system where theymos picked DT1 members. Or we get a hybrid system.

[Quickseller]

Oh look, here we are months later an all the same bad actors in control of the trust system again, only more of them. Much better.

The Administration isn't blind, but they are busy.  I assume at some point they will step in if things continue to go this way.  Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID.  It's really blatantly obvious that the new users are working hard to gain control by teaming up to damage the reputation of anyone they feel stands in their way.  When I look at my trust settings list, nearly all the older members are included, while nearly all the newer members are excluded.  This goes way beyond coincidence.

I suspect that there are at least one or two accounts that have been farmed and are being used by one or more of controversial players in DT that is currently in DT.

I find it difficult to believe that certain fairly new people have become so well known in a short time to have enough trust inclusions to be in DT1.

Personally, I'm hoping that once DT fills up, the older more knowledgeable members of the forum will be given precedence in the system by their userID

If the list gets too big and the limitation is automatic then it would make much more sense to increase the minimum required amount of total inclusions a member must have: +2 or +3 instead of the current zero for example.
Or it could be manual with explicit white- and blacklists.

I don’t think the root cause of issues is the number of people, but rather that the current system is vulnerable to manipulation.

[LoyceV]

Or we get a hybrid system.

I like it! This might actually work: force users to choose:
Option 1: Use theymos' DT1 selections and use the system as it was last year.
Option 2: Set your own custom Trust list and use the system we have now.

[OgNasty]

I never considered anyone an enemy besides og, for good reason. If he is not in DT1 I don't see any reason to exclude him as it is when he gets on DT1 that he gets the extra voting power, should not be too strange.

This is a good quote for you.  It isn't strange at all and clearly shows how you and others are teaming up to control the system.  You distrust users that get added that you don't like their inclusions to remove them from DT1 and only let them back in when they've made the changes to their list as you see fit or when you realize it's hopeless (if you've been added to DT1 and you had me included on your trust settings, you know this is true).  Users get excited about their new status and don't want to lose it, so they obey you.  I've been watching this happen to one user after another as your little crew does everything you can to scare users from including me.  It's sickening, and you/TMAN/Lauda doing this to Rmcdermott927 while alleging that I did something wrong is despicable.  I have been nothing but honest and protected millions of dollars on this forum, yet you distrust me because your ego got hurt I didn't know or care you made coins...  Absolutely pathetic and a perfect example of the level of maturity now in control of the forum's trust system.  

[Hhampuz]

I never considered anyone an enemy besides og, for good reason. If he is not in DT1 I don't see any reason to exclude him as it is when he gets on DT1 that he gets the extra voting power, should not be too strange.

This is a good quote for you.  It isn't strange at all and clearly shows how you and others are teaming up to control the system.  You distrust users that get added that you don't like their inclusions to remove them from DT1 and only let them back in when they've made the changes to their list as you see fit or when you realize it's hopeless (if you've been added to DT1 and you had me included on your trust settings, you know this is true).  Users get excited about their new status and don't want to lose it, so they obey you.  I've been watching this happen to one user after another as your little crew does everything you can to scare users from including me.  It's sickening, and you/TMAN/Lauda doing this to Rmcdermott927 while alleging that I did something wrong is despicable.  I have been nothing but honest and protected millions of dollars on this forum, yet you distrust me because your ego got hurt I didn't know or care you made coins...  Absolutely pathetic and a perfect example of the level of maturity now in control of the forum's trust system.  

I have never asked Rmc to remove you so that "I can let him back in", where are you getting this from?

If you are going to start coming after me again I'll end the discussion here and put you back on ignore.

[EcuaMobi]

I don’t think the root cause of issues is the number of people, but rather that the current system is vulnerable to manipulation.

Yes, probably. Finding some logic to fix this issue you mention would be much harder than limiting the size of the list. Just favoring the one with most votes won't do it, much less so the one with the older account.

Or we get a hybrid system.

I like it! This might actually work: force users to choose:
Option 1: Use theymos' DT1 selections and use the system as it was last year.
Option 2: Set your own custom Trust list and use the system we have now.

That could be an option, except newbies would be basically choosing at random.
But really what I meant with a hybrid system is mainly the current system plus a black list plus a white list.
So some users would always be on DT1 (unless theymos removes them, as with the old system), others would never be there (regardless of how many votes) and all the others would depend on votes. More factors could be added too.

Edit: Maybe it would help adding some obscurity or hidden randomness to the system, so it's more difficult to manipulate it by adding someone knowing that will have desired effects. We should add people whose feedback (and the feedback left by users added by him) we trust and that's all. Maybe we shouldn't know every detail of the whole system.

[OgNasty]

I never considered anyone an enemy besides og, for good reason. If he is not in DT1 I don't see any reason to exclude him as it is when he gets on DT1 that he gets the extra voting power, should not be too strange.

This is a good quote for you.  It isn't strange at all and clearly shows how you and others are teaming up to control the system.  You distrust users that get added that you don't like their inclusions to remove them from DT1 and only let them back in when they've made the changes to their list as you see fit or when you realize it's hopeless (if you've been added to DT1 and you had me included on your trust settings, you know this is true).  Users get excited about their new status and don't want to lose it, so they obey you.  I've been watching this happen to one user after another as your little crew does everything you can to scare users from including me.  It's sickening, and you/TMAN/Lauda doing this to Rmcdermott927 while alleging that I did something wrong is despicable.  I have been nothing but honest and protected millions of dollars on this forum, yet you distrust me because your ego got hurt I didn't know or care you made coins...  Absolutely pathetic and a perfect example of the level of maturity now in control of the forum's trust system.  

I have never asked Rmc to remove you so that "I can let him back in", where are you getting this from?

If you are going to start coming after me again I'll end the discussion here and put you back on ignore.

Do you think that you ignoring me is a bad thing in my eyes?  I can't figure out why you keep mentioning me as an enemy and distrust anyone who trusts me that you think you can bully.  All this because I wouldn't buy your coins, really?  That makes as much sense as TMAN's feud against me because I agreed with Blazed that a Kialara auction was overpriced (How much BTC was lost at that price compared to today's value again?  Do I get an apology?  Did anyone care that TMAN only cared because he was manipulating an auction that minerjones was putting on for him and allowing the manipulation of?).  This is exactly why older more established members should be in charge of the trust system.  Newcomers like you don't know the history, and are easily manipulated into not knowing who is trustworthy and who is scratching your back to use your account for their own manipulative purposes.

[Hhampuz]

More users really need to set their trust lists, DT is increasing at a very slow pace right now and looking at a few different users custom lists DT should be larger than it is right now.

Although I agree more users should make a custom list, I don't think DT has to grow much bigger. I'm working on an overview of who's on DT2 now, and it's a very long list.

Copy that, I thought there were like 50 DT1 members and thought it could be nice to have around 100 or so but that is based off of nothing and DT2 is probably just as sufficient. Looking forward to that overview!