DefaultTrust changes

[Hhampuz]

I put a certain established poster here in my personalised trust list last night. I’ve signed into btctalk.org today & checked who trusts me etc & it seems the following users have distrusted me presumably as a result of putting said established poster in my trust list -

~snip

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t believe I’ve interacted with any of these cunts.
I now have more people distrusting me than people who trust me.

Anybody else been a victim of a ‘mass distrust’ in a short period of time despite being a perfectly honest member of the community?

I'm on their list too but not to worry. It's just a lot of noise over nothing as their trust lists matter about as much as what I had for dinner last night. I have not even bothered to put any of them on my distrust just due to the fact of how irrelevant they are. But, to each their own. Don't be discouraged

[1713557948]

1713557948

[1713557948]

1713557948

[1713557948]

1713557948

[nutildah]

I put a certain established poster here in my personalised trust list last night. I’ve signed into btctalk.org today & checked who trusts me etc & it seems the following users have distrusted me presumably as a result of putting said established poster in my trust list -

~snip

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t believe I’ve interacted with any of these cunts.
I now have more people distrusting me than people who trust me.

Anybody else been a victim of a ‘mass distrust’ in a short period of time despite being a perfectly honest member of the community?

I'm on their list too but not to worry. It's just a lot of noise over nothing as their trust lists matter about as much as what I had for dinner last night. I have not even bothered to put any of them on my distrust just due to the fact of how irrelevant they are. But, to each their own. Don't be discouraged

Me too. And to think the entire point of being able to customize your trust list was so that you could have a custom trust list 

Frankly I think its dumb to copy/paste trust lists in lieu of using one's own brain, but whatever... One of the great perks of the forum is that people have the freedom to be robots if they so choose.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I put a certain established poster here in my personalised trust list last night. I’ve signed into btctalk.org today & checked who trusts me etc & it seems the following users have distrusted me presumably as a result of putting said established poster in my trust list -

~snip

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t believe I’ve interacted with any of these cunts.
I now have more people distrusting me than people who trust me.

Anybody else been a victim of a ‘mass distrust’ in a short period of time despite being a perfectly honest member of the community?

I'm on their list too but not to worry. It's just a lot of noise over nothing as their trust lists matter about as much as what I had for dinner last night. I have not even bothered to put any of them on my distrust just due to the fact of how irrelevant they are. But, to each their own. Don't be discouraged

How much does it count against myself when it gets calculated?

Most of them are shitty butthurt newbies, how did they even get 10 Merit’s  

@Quickseller - Lauda does a lot of good things here as you do yourself. You were a brilliant scam buster, you self escrowed but I’m not going to ~ you because I feel you add positives here also.

[bill gator]

...

Perhaps this will shed a little light on the situation : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0

I've tried discussing with the people involved in that thread to no success. I have only had my posts deleted when trying to be productive and helpful.

I have already been a "victim" of their mass-exclusions as well, because it would seem they are rather indiscriminate and unwilling to contend with dissenting opinion.

They're meriting each other to get DT votes and it will begin to "count against" you if/when they make it into DT1. At least that's my understanding.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

...

Perhaps this will shed a little light on the situation : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0

I've tried discussing with the people involved in that thread to no success. I have only had my posts deleted when trying to be productive and helpful.

I have already been a "victim" of their mass-exclusions as well, because it would seem they are rather indiscriminate and unwilling to contend with dissenting opinion.

They're meriting each other to get DT votes and it will begin to "count against" you if/when they make it into DT1. At least that's my understanding.

That’s fucking terrible

[TECSHARE]

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.

I agree with this, the more people adopt this system the more it will balance itself. Initially it might appear a Cats vs Dogs drama, the more people adding their trusts/distrusts the more our personal "reputation" would form based on objective observations from the community. I might be able to plot with a bunch of people against Cats for 1 month, maybe 2/3/6 months, but the real value of cats and dogs will come out overtime. Personally I woudnt even give power to any DT level indeed: the sum of someone Trust would then come out based on the entire community feedback. Scary? Behave then...

I don't think that would work. Let's say I piss off a scammer by sending negative feedback, what would stop him from creating/using a bunch of alt-accounts to wreck my trust level? I like the idea of a non-DT system since the latest DT changes have caused a lot of childish behaviour.

If the standard is to present evidence with a negative rating, then since he has none it will be disregarded and they will be excluded by the community. The system I am proposing would be under a DT system but I am not opposed to just wiping the DT out completely as I feel it does more harm than good.

[nutildah]

...

Perhaps this will shed a little light on the situation : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0

I've tried discussing with the people involved in that thread to no success. I have only had my posts deleted when trying to be productive and helpful.

I have already been a "victim" of their mass-exclusions as well, because it would seem they are rather indiscriminate and unwilling to contend with dissenting opinion.

They're meriting each other to get DT votes and it will begin to "count against" you if/when they make it into DT1. At least that's my understanding.

That’s fucking terrible

Theymos actually engaged in the first un-meriting as far as I know due to this, wiping out a bunch of merits given by Stingers (who was also removed as a merit source).

From cryptohunter's merit history:



I think this is some kind of historical moment.

[qwk]

Perhaps this will shed a little light on the situation : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0
[...]
They're meriting each other to get DT votes and it will begin to "count against" you if/when they make it into DT1.

That’s fucking terrible

It's actually an interesting experiment.
If they were to succeed, that would be an example of where the current DT "voting system" fails.
An immediate remedial action could be blacklisting by theymos, so I somehow fail to see the "terror"
If such malpractice were to catch on, otoh, theymos might have to find a more permanent solution.

[bill gator]

There was a lot of merit-fixing that went on during the first week or so of merit being introduced, but you might be right as far as something like this is concerned.

The problem is that like a potent disease these users will adapt. The reasoning behind the removal can easily be skirted and it will likely not happen again in the future, even though clear manipulation will continue.

It's actually an interesting experiment.

Well, that I can agree with

[LFC_Bitcoin]

There was a lot of merit-fixing that went on during the first week or so of merit being introduced, but you might be right as far as something like this is concerned.

The problem is that like a potent disease these users will adapt. The reasoning behind the removal can easily be skirted and it will likely not happen again in the future, even though clear manipulation will continue.

It's actually an interesting experiment.

Well, that I can agree with

They should all be nuked, let’s face it they’re all scamming, shit accounts that add literally nothing to the community.

This is a really good quote -

‘The problem is that like a potent disease these users will adapt’.

[bill gator]

The problem with that is that they haven't done anything that would involve trading and Trust is meant to be a representation of your Marketplace Feedback. Theymos has pointed out that this, in his opinion, is an inappropriate usage of the trust system and probably believes more along the lines of what qwk has said; it would be evidence that the new system isn't doing it's job.

They're being public with their intentions and actions (for the most part). They're just playing petty politics in a disgusting manner. It is certainly harmful to the forum from where I'm standing, but in my opinion the most appropriate response would be excluding these users and allow the system to do what it is meant to do.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

The problem with that is that they haven't done anything that would involve trading and Trust is meant to be a representation of your Marketplace Feedback. Theymos has pointed out that this, in his opinion, is an inappropriate usage of the trust system and probably believes more along the lines of what qwk has said; it would be evidence that the new system isn't doing it's job.

They're being public with their intentions and actions (for the most part). They're just playing petty politics in a disgusting manner. It is certainly harmful to the forum from where I'm standing, but in my opinion the most appropriate response would be excluding these users and allow the system to do what it is meant to do.

That’s exactly what I’ve done. I’d advise everybody else reading this to -

~Thule (20 Merit earned)
~endlasuresh (3 Merit earned)
~DutchFinity (2 Merit earned)
~Danica22 (0 Merit earned)
~ac2eugenio (1 Merit earned)
~Bazinga442 (21 Merit earned)
~Deena (37 Merit earned)
~mr.creampie (10 Merit earned)
~chickinini (11 Merit earned)
~cryptorgasm (4 Merit earned)
~TinaMoran (10 Merit earned)
~Pablojob (10 Merit earned)
~PiningGarcia (10 Merit earned)
~PingGermoco (10 Merit earned)
~NilaMutac (10 Merit earned)
~cryptopov (4 Merit earned)
~poypototoy (10 Merit earned)
~Zin-Zang (10 Merit earned)
~H8bussesNbicycles (5 Merit earned)
~gwsukabokepjepang (0 Merit earned)

Edit - The above is what I can see so far but their numbers will possibly grow.

[TECSHARE]

The problem with that is that they haven't done anything that would involve trading and Trust is meant to be a representation of your Marketplace Feedback. Theymos has pointed out that this, in his opinion, is an inappropriate usage of the trust system and probably believes more along the lines of what qwk has said; it would be evidence that the new system isn't doing it's job.

They're being public with their intentions and actions (for the most part). They're just playing petty politics in a disgusting manner. It is certainly harmful to the forum from where I'm standing, but in my opinion the most appropriate response would be excluding these users and allow the system to do what it is meant to do.

The problem with that logic is if this standard were universally applied, it would also apply to lots of people already on DT. Of course every one knows there are no such thing as rules that apply to everyone around here...

[LoyceMobile]

I put a certain established poster here in my personalised trust list last night. I’ve signed into btctalk.org today & checked who trusts me etc & it seems the following users have distrusted me presumably as a result of putting said established poster in my trust list -

Assuming you used loyce.club/trust for the data: last night's action didn't cause this. The data is based on last Saturday's data dump.

Also, please use the BBCode to copy trust lists to the forum, it's much better!

[LFC_Bitcoin]

The problem with that is that they haven't done anything that would involve trading and Trust is meant to be a representation of your Marketplace Feedback. Theymos has pointed out that this, in his opinion, is an inappropriate usage of the trust system and probably believes more along the lines of what qwk has said; it would be evidence that the new system isn't doing it's job.

They're being public with their intentions and actions (for the most part). They're just playing petty politics in a disgusting manner. It is certainly harmful to the forum from where I'm standing, but in my opinion the most appropriate response would be excluding these users and allow the system to do what it is meant to do.

The problem with that logic is if this standard were universally applied, it would also apply to lots of people already on DT. Of course every one knows there are no such thing as rules that apply to everyone around here...

It harms those of us who are in the middle like myself.

I’m trusted by about 10 people. I put Lauda in my trust list & then BANG I check & I have 12 or so distrusting me.

Ridiculous.

Assuming you used loyce.club/trust for the data: last night's action didn't cause this. The data is based on last Saturday's data dump.

Also, please use the BBCode to copy trust lists to the forum, it's much better!

In which case there are probably more of the snakes distrusting me by now.

[LoyceMobile]

In which case there are probably more of the snakes distrusting me by now.

They're distrusting me too now. The irony: they trust the Trust Lists I provided, and use my data to decide they don't trust me
I guess logic is not their strong side.

[nutildah]

It harms those of us who are in the middle like myself.

I’m trusted by about 10 people. I put Lauda in my trust list & then BANG I check & I have 12 or so distrusting me.

Ridiculous.

Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it really doesn't matter until one of those 12 is on DT1, correct? Then your chances of making it to DT1 are theoretically lessened unless >1 person on DT1 has you in their trust list. I don't think any of those guys are ever making it to DT1. If they do their name will have a fat line through it.

~

What is the point of attaching tillde to those who don't have 250-merit support?

Because they could be a DT2. I've had some real weird negative scores pop up and had to ~ the offending account.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

In which case there are probably more of the snakes distrusting me by now.

They're distrusting me too now. The irony: they trust the Trust Lists I provided, and use my data to decide they don't trust me
I guess logic is not their strong side.

Kids living in their Mum’s spare bedroom. It’s almost guaranteed, I could draw a picture of these assholes.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong but it really doesn't matter until one of those 12 is on DT1, correct? Then your chances of making it to DT1 are theoretically lessened unless >1 person on DT1 has you in their trust list. I don't think any of those guys are ever making it to DT1. If they do their name will have a fat line through it.

You are correct. Their exclusions mean nothing to anyone except themselves unless they can get themselves on to DT1. To do so, they would need two 250+ merit voters for each one of them. Given that they don't even have a single member close to 250 merits, the chances of them getting two there are slim at best. Even if they did, the person who they voted on to DT1 would instantly be excluded by other DT1 members, and so again, their trust list and exclusions wouldn't matter.

For their "overthrow" to work, they would need a majority on DT1 to outvote all the current DT1 members. We are talking requiring somewhere in the region of 10k+ merit to achieve this. It's not going to happen.

Kids living in their Mum’s spare bedroom. It’s almost guaranteed, I could draw a picture of these assholes.

You can't discuss anything with them because they delete every post they don't agree with. Their exclusions literally make zero difference - they don't account against you unless they are DT1 members, which they never will be as I've explained above. Most of DT1 and a lot of DT2 are also excluded by them. It changes nothing for anyone else on the forum except the 20 or so of them.

You are best just ignoring them.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

@ o_e_l_e_o

Thanks for putting my mind at ease. It sounds sad but it pissee me off seeing all those posters distrusting me.