DefaultTrust changes

[Timelord2067]

After not being active for a while and trying to understand the new default trust I'm just to the point where it doesn't really matter. I'm just going to keep on doing what I've always done. If you're a scammer you'll get red tagged and if you're genuine and trustworthy you'll be green. Simple.

Even if it means Red Painting ^TM a Global Moderator - hilariousandco and his sock puppet one of many alts ie hilariousetc ?

Literally you won't get tagged until you are cheating same campaigns with multiple accounts.

What's the source of this information before you mislead someone into doing this and end up getting all account red tagged. From what I read theymos only meant for opinions that users don't want associated with their main account. Participating in different campaign with alt account isn't that abuse of the system since you're taking advantage of alt account and can possible lead to spamming the forum just to meet up posts counts?

You want source?

One of the global moderator hilariousandco wearing signature for stake.com and his alt account hilariousetc is in the Chimixer campaign,so he is participating in two different campaigns because it is allowed.

Theymos never mentioned about multiple accounts in signature campaigns but if you go through rules of every campaign you can find that

No alt accounts allowed. If you've been found out of enrolling with an alt you'll be removed without payment.

which is untrustworthy behaviour and DT members will tag you for that.

So it means you can participate on different campaigns with your two different campaigns.

http://archive.fo/5czSU#selection-557.0-861.3
http://archive.fo/y0yk2#selection-571.0-911.21

[1714224149]

1714224149

[1714224149]

1714224149

[LoyceV]

I made a Weekly Trust list overview in Human Readable Format, updated with this morning's data. This should make it easier to view someone's Trust list.

[Qulian]

Even if it means Red Painting ^TM a Global Moderator - hilariousandco and his sock puppet hilariousetc ?

Being a moderator doesn't matter. If he were a scammer he should be tagged without hesitation. If you're implying he is then say so.
It's very strange calling "sock puppet" a secondary account he's explicitly informed is his alt account to be used in unsecured environments.

[suchmoon]

I agree that contacting a person is fine to discuss situations but giving them an ultimatum is sketchy..

Say you include Darkstar, and darkstar included zazarb, but you don't like zazarbs ratings..
You can simply exclude zazarb and not threaten to remove/exclude darkstar unless he removes zazarb, for example..

Or whoever in dt1 included zazarb..
You don't have to go to the DT1 and threaten them to remove zazarb from DT2. Just exclude zazarb yourself and leave them alone..

I really don't consider that a threat or an ultimatum, whichever direction it goes. If someone told me that they'll exclude me as long as I have X, Y, and Z in my list I think I'd say "thank you for letting me know".

I've also explained my exclusions in roughly the same terms to some other users who asked about it. I don't particularly like all this, but the fact is that the vast majority of these discussions ended up revealing misunderstandings of the way the system works (most common being the confusion between trust ratings and trust lists) so I consider it net positive.

[cryptohunter]

I agree that contacting a person is fine to discuss situations but giving them an ultimatum is sketchy..

Say you include Darkstar, and darkstar included zazarb, but you don't like zazarbs ratings..
You can simply exclude zazarb and not threaten to remove/exclude darkstar unless he removes zazarb, for example..

Or whoever in dt1 included zazarb..
You don't have to go to the DT1 and threaten them to remove zazarb from DT2. Just exclude zazarb yourself and leave them alone..

I really don't consider that a threat or an ultimatum, whichever direction it goes. If someone told me that they'll exclude me as long as I have X, Y, and Z in my list I think I'd say "thank you for letting me know".

I've also explained my exclusions in roughly the same terms to some other users who asked about it. I don't particularly like all this, but the fact is that the vast majority of these discussions ended up revealing misunderstandings of the way the system works (most common being the confusion between trust ratings and trust lists) so I consider it net positive.

I would consider that more of a threat than someone saying they will encourage others to look into their post history. I mean excluding you in DT could be seen as a negative response to some action you have taken. Where as saying you will encourage others to review their post history is only negative if you have something to hide in your past  that is clearly evident within your post history.

The fact you would not consider the above scenario that you  mentioned a threat is debatable.

[Chris!]

After not being active for a while and trying to understand the new default trust I'm just to the point where it doesn't really matter. I'm just going to keep on doing what I've always done. If you're a scammer you'll get red tagged and if you're genuine and trustworthy you'll be green. Simple.

Its almost like the trust system is so convoluted it is completely useless for the intended purpose of protecting noobs and should be used explicitly for ratings involving trade. Who knew?

I don't really trust anyone unless I've had to trust them with money. Words are cheap. Anyone can act trustworthy. When it comes down to money, they have a chance to take something and they don't, I trust them. Everyone else is neutral to me for the most part.

After not being active for a while and trying to understand the new default trust I'm just to the point where it doesn't really matter. I'm just going to keep on doing what I've always done. If you're a scammer you'll get red tagged and if you're genuine and trustworthy you'll be green. Simple.

Even if it means Red Painting ^TM a Global Moderator - hilariousandco and his sock puppet hilariousetc ?

IMO most situations are black and white, but when they're not they're either a very light or very dark grey. You just do what you feel is right

[vit05]

Is there any possibility of Neutral Feedback being displayed? I mean, without the need to go to the user's profile?

I believe that in many situations neutral feedback about the user becomes necessary, but almost nobody will know that it exists.  Knowing that there is an investigation, discussion or even doubt about that user can be very useful in several situations.

[tranthidung]

Welcome to my topic, namely Tracking the difference of merit circulations with Default Trust Changes
In short:

Two weeks later:
(1) There is no outliers within two weeks after Default Trust changes. Only one day (09/01/2019) comes closer the the outlier-identifying threshold.
(2) Median and mean of the intraday merits twoo weeks after Default Trust Changes are higher than the figures of before period at 31.8% and 23.2%, respectively.
- Median: +31.8%
- Mean: +23.2%

Let's see when the effects of Default Trust changes tails off.

[Timelord2067]

Even if it means Red Painting ^TM a Global Moderator - hilariousandco and his sock puppet hilariousetc ?

Being a moderator doesn't matter. If he were a scammer he should be tagged without hesitation. If you're implying he is then say so.
It's very strange calling "sock puppet" a secondary account he's explicitly informed is his alt account to be used in unsecured environments.

I've corrected my grammar to read:

Even if it means Red Painting ^TM a Global Moderator - hilariousandco and his sock puppet one of many alts ie hilariousetc ?

given Hilarious has at least two alts that he admits to...  

[Deena]

Ah, I only today noticed this.

Let me summarize a couple of facts regarding this matter.

Fact 1: Theymos expressed several times his discomfort with the centralisation of trust on this forum.

Fact 2: During the whole period where Lauda had positive (DT) trust, where trust was centralized around Lauda, Theymos never took action for decentralization of trust.

Fact 3: It is only after Lauda got negative (DT) trust that Theymos decided to change the trust system.

Fact 4: After changing the trust system Lauda has again positive (DT) trust.

Fact 5: Theymos did not fully decentralize trust, but decentralized it only as much as was needed to get Lauda again in positive (DT) trust.

Fact 6: With full decentralization of trust Lauda would have had negative (DT) trust again, but Theymos did not fully decentralize trust.

I expressed it before; this forum is no less corrupt than many of the crypto scams that are advertised on it. It is no wonder that more and more serious projects ignore Bitcointalk. People are getting aware of the corruption and being associated with Bitcointalk nowadays gives projects a bit of a shady reputation.

Bye bye.

[Lauda]

-snip-
Bye bye.

Go away already. Thermos is my master.

-snip-

Code:

mexxer-2

Code:

shorena

Shorena's ratings are fully covered. Mexxer-2 halfway. Will be done soon.

[LoyceV]

Let me summarize a couple of facts regarding this matter.

You're late to the party, this was confirmed by theymos 19 days ago:

Damn, I'm found out. While personally training Lauda in the dark arts of forum moderation, we fell deeply in love. I couldn't bear to see her endure the torture of trust drama while doing unspeakable deeds for me, so I invented this complicated algorithm as an excuse to add her back in even though I could've just unilaterally added her to DT at any second. Truly, my cowardice knows no bounds.

[TECSHARE]

Ah, I only today noticed this.

Let me summarize a couple of facts regarding this matter.

Fact 1: Theymos expressed several times his discomfort with the centralisation of trust on this forum.

Fact 2: During the whole period where Lauda had positive (DT) trust, where trust was centralized around Lauda, Theymos never took action for decentralization of trust.

Fact 3: It is only after Lauda got negative (DT) trust that Theymos decided to change the trust system.

Fact 4: After changing the trust system Lauda has again positive (DT) trust.

Fact 5: Theymos did not fully decentralize trust, but decentralized it only as much as was needed to get Lauda again in positive (DT) trust.

Fact 6: With full decentralization of trust Lauda would have had negative (DT) trust again, but Theymos did not fully decentralize trust.

I expressed it before; this forum is no less corrupt than many of the crypto scams that are advertised on it. It is no wonder that more and more serious projects ignore Bitcointalk. People are getting aware of the corruption and being associated with Bitcointalk nowadays gives projects a bit of a shady reputation.

Bye bye.

Some times I question if his intent is to decentralize the trust system, or just give the appearance of decentralizing it.

[Quickseller]

-snip-
Bye bye.

Go away already. Thermos is my master.

-snip-

Code:

mexxer-2

Code:

shorena

Shorena's ratings are fully covered. Mexxer-2 halfway. Will be done soon.

I don’t think you can give negative trust to yourself.

Further if you are going to be mirroring his ratings, while excluding him, then the exclusion is solely to protect your own reputation.

[asche]

Further if you are going to be mirroring his ratings, while excluding him, then the exclusion is solely to protect your own reputation.

Adding some context.

If DarkStar_ was genuine in removing UID's simply because they were inactive, he'd remove UID's such as

[Conasse]

Say you include Darkstar, and darkstar included zazarb, but you don't like zazarbs ratings..
You can simply exclude zazarb and not threaten to remove/exclude darkstar unless he removes zazarb, for example..

Hey guys, I have a question and taking the quote above just as an example
If I don't want to add so many users with ~
I can set the "Trust depth" to 1

Am I correct?

Also, I saw someone with "Satoshi" in his trust list, what's the use to include someone who will never come back and has never left any feedback o.0

edited: english error ^^

[Lauda]

I don’t think you can give negative trust to yourself.

Shorena's rating on me is fake and a result of him working with you for many years prior to any of this. Going through all his ratings (many of which are effectively useless) has given me more information about the history.

I can set the "Trust depth" to 1

Am I correct?

Yes.

Also, I saw someone with "Satoshi" in his trust list, what's the use to include some who will never come back and has never left any feedback o.0

Many people in DT still have no idea what they are doing.

[peloso]

Hey guys, I have a question and taking the quote above just as an example
If I don't want to add so many users with ~
I can set the "Trust depth" to 1

Am I correct?

yes you correct but you also can delete DT1 at all ( i recommend you ) and build your own DT0 list with members that you trust
because DT1 untrustworthy today and there is too much liars

[cryptohunter]

I don’t think you can give negative trust to yourself.

Shorena's rating on me is fake and a result of him working with you for many years prior to any of this. Going through all his ratings (many of which are effectively useless) has given me more information about the history.

Really. That sounds a lot like you, tman and owlcatz giving me fake red trust. We all know how you 3 like to extort work together under cover.

I have proof you have nothing.

[owlcatz]

I don’t think you can give negative trust to yourself.

Shorena's rating on me is fake and a result of him working with you for many years prior to any of this. Going through all his ratings (many of which are effectively useless) has given me more information about the history.

Really. That sounds a lot like you, tman and owlcatz giving me fake red trust. We all know how you 3 like to extort work together under cover.

I have proof you have nothing.

You are fucking delusional. You earned those ratings you wackjob fuck.

Also, you have nothing, no proof of shit - because nothing ever happened, you fool.

Anyone use coinsource lately???

What? Wrong thread, knucklehead....