DefaultTrust changes

[Thule]

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

Theymos gave already the answer its legit if it comes from free will of real users.
Stinger has posted that he have been abused in the past in his opinion and wishes changes.To achieve changes some people need to get voted up.If sending Merit to people you wish to move up would be forbidden how do you ever wanna implement a communities DT list when majority of merit is being hold by a very small group.

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.

I might not understand when self-moderation is appropriate.  

I have no problem with your (theymos) conclusion that "H8bussesNbicycles's thread looks like [politics] to me", but isn't there a bit of a problem with the self-moderation aspect of certain kinds of threads, especially when dealing with seemingly meta issues?  

For example, I had 6 posts deleted from that thread (so of course, now I don't even attempt to participate or pay attention, since I could not even contribute if I wanted to, except if I were to exclude Lauda from my trust list, then they might allow my posts), and I thought that my posts were innocuous, even though obviously the contents of my posts distracted from the message that they want to promote in that thread (inaccurate as some other members might find such thread messages).

Nobody would delete your post if you would have Lauda in your trust list.
Posts have been deleted which were bashing the action OP started.


You just need to look at my trust feedback.

Having 5 negative feedbacks for the try to support people into DT list which will lead execute the DT responsibility like me and hopefully the majority of forum members see.
If we wouldn't be allowed to support our view what sense would it make that theymos created a decentralised voting system.
Current DT members have already the advantage of high merits and sticking togther.

Here the 5 people who tagged me for that thread

Timelord2067: Conspiring to manipulate DT for a personal vendetta at the risk of leaving other users vulnerable to known scammers.
yogg: Conspiring to manipulate DT for a personal vendetta at the risk of leaving other users vulnerable to known scammers.
TMAN: Conspiring to manipulate DT for a personal vendetta at the risk of leaving other users vulnerable to known scammers.
Foxpup: Conspiring to manipulate DT for a personal vendetta at the risk of leaving other users vulnerable to known scammers.
asche: Complete moron. Basically defends anyone speaking up against any DT member hoping to fuel his attempt to actually manipulate the system.
This user has his own agenda. Do not trust him.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

TMAN gave me a year a false negative tagg being the alt of Quickseller.I PM'ed him a few days ago asking him to remove the false negative tagg since after a year he should clearly see i have no relation to quickseller and also offered to remove my negative tagg for tagging with a false reason.
His response was an additional negative tagg.

Thats the kind of actions which is frustrating the community.And TMAN even laughing and making jokes he gave me a negative tagg with the explanation that i might be an alt of Quickseller.

So he has completly no evidence at all.I guess everyone can clearly see there is no relationship and when getting asked to remove the false tagg he adds just for his vendetta on me a second one claiming i run a vendetta on all DT.
Thats just a lie but you don't belive i'm going to support a DT member like TMAN who proofed his negative actions in the past ?

[asche]

Theymos gave already the answer its legit if it comes from free will of real users.
Stinger has posted that he have been abused in the past in his opinion and wishes changes.To achieve changes some people need to get voted up.If sending Merit to people you wish to move up would be forbidden how do you ever wanna implement a communities DT list when majority of merit is being hold by a very small group.

All this doesn't change that you should merit post that are actually worth it and not send merit solely for the purpose of gaming the system.

It would still be merit abuse.

[suchmoon]

Diff between new and previous DT1. No comment means the status hasn't changed.

theymos
dooglus - removed, perhaps due to inactivity
HostFat - added but excluded, vote balance is -5
gmaxwell
TECSHARE - added but excluded, vote balance is -2
phantastisch - added
OgNasty - no longer excluded, vote balance is 0
SebastianJu
qwk
Vod
mprep
Dabs - added
Cyrus
monkeynuts
Welsh
ibminer - removed, perhaps due to not having a trust list
TMAN
Lauda
TookDk - removed, perhaps due to inactivity
Mitchell
vizique
Blazed
yogg
TheNewAnon135246 - added
greenplastic
hilariousandco
EcuaMobi
Lesbian Cow
cryptodevil
suchmoon
achow101
owlcatz
JohnUser
minerjones - removed, perhaps due to not having a trust list
sapta - added
tmfp
BitcoinPenny
yahoo62278
zazarb - still excluded, vote balance is -3
bill gator - added
LoyceV
actmyname
WhiteManWhite - added
The Pharmacist
LeGaulois - added
DarkStar_
TheFuzzStone - still excluded, vote balance is -3
Jet Cash
marlboroza
Lafu
Gunthar - added
Hhampuz
xtraelv
krogothmanhattan
Halab
theyoungmillionaire - added
o_e_l_e_o - added
iasenko
coinlocket$
asche
Alex_Sr - added
taikuri13 - added
Coolcryptovator
ICOEthics

[JayJuanGee]

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

Theymos gave already the answer its legit if it comes from free will of real users.
Stinger has posted that he have been abused in the past in his opinion and wishes changes.To achieve changes some people need to get voted up.If sending Merit to people you wish to move up would be forbidden how do you ever wanna implement a communities DT list when majority of merit is being hold by a very small group.

Theoretically speaking:  Merit sources have some different integrity rules than regular members, especially in the arena of quid pro quo, which could also be a problem is they are using their source merits for personal agendas (which in that regard could be considered a kind of selling, even if not direct).  Factually speaking:  I know very little about Stinger, except what was described in these recent posts, so I, personally, would not have enough information to conclude that any kind of merit source abuse would have been taking place, specifically in regards to that situation.

[asche]

phantastisch - added

- is also german mod, but is AWOL for over 3 months if I recall.

Excluding him might be a good idea.

My bad I'm stupid. You can't become DT1 if you are inactive.

Happy that he is back.

[LoyceV]

phantastisch - added

- is also german mod, but is AWOL for over 3 months if I recall.

Inactive users don't qualify for DT1:

- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.

[qwk]

phantastisch - added

- is also german mod, but is AWOL for over 3 months if I recall.

He's back.
Thats probably also the reason why he's been added now.
Most likely he was "qualified" before, but not included due to inactivity.

[Thule]

Theymos gave already the answer its legit if it comes from free will of real users.
Stinger has posted that he have been abused in the past in his opinion and wishes changes.To achieve changes some people need to get voted up.If sending Merit to people you wish to move up would be forbidden how do you ever wanna implement a communities DT list when majority of merit is being hold by a very small group.

All this doesn't change that you should merit post that are actually worth it and not send merit solely for the purpose of gaming the system.

It would still be merit abuse.

You want me to show you where current DT members got their merit from ?

Maybe you should start reading how they defended their merit from BS posts.

Theoretically speaking:  Merit sources have some different integrity rules than regular members, especially in the arena of quid pro quo, which could also be a problem is they are using their source merits for personal agendas (which in that regard could be considered a kind of selling, even if not direct).  Factually speaking:  I know very little about Stinger, except what was described in these recent posts, so I, personally, would not have enough information to conclude that any kind of merit source abuse would have been taking place, specifically in regards to that situation.

If he thinks a movement on BCT is a good idea which in his opinion brings improvement to BCT where is the problem to give for that action merits ?
You are not forced to only give merits for quality posts but also actions.

[asche]

phantastisch - added

- is also german mod, but is AWOL for over 3 months if I recall.

He's back.
Thats probably also the reason why he's been added now.
Most likely he was "qualified" before, but not included due to inactivity.

Was just editing my post, but you were faster.

Obviously he couldn't have become DT1 while being inactive. Let's just be happy that he is back

[asche]

You want me to show you where current DT members got their merit from ?

Maybe you should start reading how they defended their merit from BS posts.

Actually I would be curious if you have some good read for me  

Edit: Am I included in you "current DT"?

[Foxpup]

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.

I respectfully disagree. While I figured their scheme would never work and that you would blacklist the lot of them if it did, I really don't see it being attempted for any reason other than to scam people, or to help other scammers, hence my feedback. This is way more than just politics, even if they try to make it appear that that's all it is. I stand by my feedback, and invite anyone who disagrees with it to exclude me from their trust lists. It's all right; I've never given negative trust simply for disagreeing with me, and I'm not about to start now.

[LoyceV]

You want me to show you where current DT members got their merit from ?

Edit: Am I included in you "current DT"?

No.

I'm taking this opportunity to promote my Trust list viewer, which is received well by the community, but I think most users don't know it exists. And it was quite some work to create, so use it

[bill gator]

I find it extraordinarily strange that members like minerjones and philipma1957 have found themselves no longer part of DT1. That doesn't seem appropriate and I hope it changes soon.

[asche]

You want me to show you where current DT members got their merit from ?

Edit: Am I included in you "current DT"?

No.

This wasn't the meaning of my question. But I guess you know that?

I wanted to know if I am part of his DT merit investigation 😂

Not if I am part of his own not DT trust list

However your viewer is bonkus thanks again for the tools you are offering to the community

[LoyceV]

I find it extraordinarily strange that members like minerjones and philipma1957 have found themselves no longer part of DT1. That doesn't seem appropriate and I hope it changes soon.

It's really up to them:

- Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries.

More than enough users included them, but they didn't include enough users by themselves:

Trust list for: philipma1957 (492 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (BPIP)
Back to index (created 2019-02-03 Sun 00.08h)

philipma1957 Trusts:
-ck (154 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
buysolar (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
TookDk (15 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
HagssFIN (271 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
generalt (1 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
kilo17 (1 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
loshia1974 (29 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list for: minerjones (497 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (BPIP)
Back to index (created 2019-02-03 Sun 00.08h)

minerjones Trusts:
-

[bill gator]

In order to be on DT1, you need to have at least 10 people on your trust list. It appears that philipma1957 only has seven as of the 3rd. I'm not certain about minerjones.

I'm aware of what is causing them to no longer be part of DT1, but I am thinking about the strict requirements for users that are pretty unanimously agreed upon as solid additions to it. I can't think of a better alternative that would be fair, but it just seems out of place to me personally that these two were removed. It's possible that a user be a good addition to DT1 and not have a proper custom trust list, right?

[Thule]

You want me to show you where current DT members got their merit from ?

Maybe you should start reading how they defended their merit from BS posts.

Actually I would be curious if you have some good read for me  

Edit: Am I included in you "current DT"?

No you left a false feedback.Claiming that i have a personal vendetta against all DT members is a simple lie.I have issues with some DT members thats correct but that has nothing to do will all DT members in general.
I'm also coworked with some DT members in the past and never had a problem with them.Its just the small group who basicly turned an ant into an elephant because of their abuse,arrogance and ignorance which i'm trying to change.
However when i see double standards being holden up by DT members i got an issue with that.
As you know german have a very high level of "Gerechtigkeitssinn" and don't tolerate these kind of abuse.

I wanted to know if I am part of his DT merit investigation

No you arent.I have not the time to check everyone.Community would see it if you would abuse it sooner or later.

Like i posted above you have a wrong understanding that i have a personal vendetta against DT in general.Thats wrong what the small group implemented into your brain by writing this nonsense endless times into my threads.Its just about them and their abuse.Not about DT in general.

 

[KingZee]

In particular, in my view:
 <snip>

Just wanted to thank you for giving some guidance as far as feedback-giving goes.  What I get from your input is that trust feedback really should be about trust, but we've all got different standards on that.  TECSHARE wants trust to be solely about documented trades and such, whereas I tend to not trust account sellers/buyers.  The message I'm taking from this is that you don't approve of leaving negs for differences of opinion or politics, but I'm wondering whether you specifically disapprove of account dealers being tagged--not necessarily your opinion on the matter, but whether you'd consider that an inappropriate use of the trust system.

It's not a moderator issue since there's no rule for it, and it harms the forum overall so I'd argue that DT ought to be able to tag them.

If I were to give my best answer (this might not align with what theymos thinks), you should ask yourself the question : Does this person's action mean I EVERYONE shouldn't trust him with money?

For the dude advocating users to remove Lauda from the truat list, it technically says nothing about his trustworthiness as a trade party. His hate for Lauda  (not just his, it seems like a whole gang of people want to exclude her from DT..) is a very subjective opinion, and more of a "politicial" issue as theymos put it.

Account trading on the other hand, can objectively be considered as manipulation of trust. Since a high ranked account, possibly one with trust, being sold to someone else, means that account is not a reflection of the new owner's trust rating.

It kind of goes both ways when you think about it. Why is Lauda allowed to manipulate trust by advocating inclusion or exclusion of specific members, while if someone else advocates for HER exclusoon, it's neg-trust. That's some double standards for you guys.

[bill gator]

It's really up to them

Is it though? It feels like they have to sign their names to other users and potentially be associated with their actions, and it's possible that nobody has met their criteria to be added onto their trust list. It doesn't seem fair that they should be excluded, because they are conservative with their trust list. Maybe I am being naive to the importance of this criteria.

[asche]

You want me to show you where current DT members got their merit from ?

Maybe you should start reading how they defended their merit from BS posts.

Actually I would be curious if you have some good read for me  

Edit: Am I included in you "current DT"?

No you left a false feedback.Claiming that i have a personal vendetta against all DT members is a simple lie.I have issues with some DT members thats correct but that has nothing to do will all DT members in general.
I'm also coworked with some DT members in the past and never had a problem with them.Its just the small group who basicly turned an ant into an elephant because of their abuse,arrogance and ignorance which i'm trying to change.
However when i see double standards being holden up by DT members i got an issue with that.
As you know german have a very high level of "Gerechtigkeitssinn" and don't tolerate these kind of abuse.

I wanted to know if I am part of his DT merit investigation

No you arent.I have not the time to check everyone.Community would see it if you would abuse it.

 

While it is debatable if my feedback deserves a neg the content of said feedback is 100% accurate.