DefaultTrust changes

[JayJuanGee]

These users have never been excluded from DT1 (number of DT1 inclusions since March 2019):

Code:

Lesbian Cow   18

This doesn't seem right. March 2019 through July 2020 - that's only 17 months. Where is the 18 coming from?

Looks like you are doing my same error I did back in January, when LoyceV corrected  me!
LoyceV has stated the official counting paradigm, and I just adjusted to that.

Basically: in March 2019 it was the first reshuffle, but elected members got spent 2 months in DT1!

I'm still not following. LoyceV's numbers start from January 2019, in which case 18 would make sense (if LC was in DT1 in Jan or Feb 2019). But if you're saying "number of DT1 inclusions since March 2019" then it can't be 18. You should say "since January 2019" or not count before March 2019.

Sorry for nitpicking, this has inflamed my OCD.

You need to take a chillpill, suchmoon; I heard that it is amongst the best of treatments for uninflammening OCD, and wear a mask, too.

[1714598265]

1714598265

[1714598265]

1714598265

[1714598265]

1714598265

[Timelord2067]

(Just a thought bubble here)  Perhaps if there are 100 links that also have archived links and you were to randomly choose five out of those 100 references, then (statstically speaking) wouldn't it stand to reason if you could randomly verify five to be valid, then more if not all references would be valid.

If those 5 are enough for conclusive evidence, then yes. But if that's the case, the other 95 could have been omitted from the post to make it much easier in the first place. As an example: for this scam accusation, I could probably have written 20 times more if I spent several days going through all the evidence. Instead, I posted enough to confirm there was a scam, and left a small heading "There's much more" to point readers to some of the other shady things without showing the details.

I see.

If I were to post five items that are conclusive instead of being thorough and posting a hundred items of proof, would that be more convincing?  That's probably not the best way to ask it, what I'm wondering is if I were to post five items of proof not one hundred, do you think more people would verify what I said is correct in relation to a scammer?

[LoyceV]

DT update!

Removed:
     1. Donator CanaryInTheMine (Trust: +30 / =0 / -0) (42 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Legendary Anduck (Trust: +18 / =2 / -1) (68 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary A-Bolt (Trust: neutral) (410 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Legendary ibminer (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (779 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary TookDk (Trust: +25 / =0 / -0) (41 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary figmentofmyass (Trust: neutral) (804 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Legendary jeremypwr (Trust: +17 / =2 / -0) (388 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary by rallier (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (315 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Staff dbshck (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (381 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary EcuaMobi (Trust: +16 / =0 / -0) (429 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Hero Member Lydian (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (157 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Copper Member minerjones (Trust: +113 / =1 / -0) (1176 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Staff sapta (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (194 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Legendary tmfp (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (713 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. Legendary o_solo_miner (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (169 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. Legendary LoyceV (Trust: +28 / =2 / -0) (5532 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. Legendary The Pharmacist (Trust: +26 / =2 / -0) (2532 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. Legendary DarkStar_ (Trust: +52 / =1 / -0) (1356 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. Legendary TheFuzzStone (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (911 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. Legendary Jet Cash (Trust: +4 / =1 / -0) (1415 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. Hero Member bobita (Trust: neutral) (574 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. Hero Member imhoneer (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (494 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. Legendary Steamtyme (Trust: +8 / =2 / -0) (1630 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. Legendary Veleor (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (1435 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. Legendary o_e_l_e_o (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (4355 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. Hero Member gospodin (Trust: neutral) (819 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. Legendary asche (Trust: +7 / =1 / -0) (1161 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    28. Hero Member DdmrDdmr (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (3880 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    29. Hero Member Bthd (Trust: neutral) (741 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    30. Legendary madnessteat (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (1027 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Added:
     1. Staff HostFat (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (96 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Legendary TECSHARE (Trust: +36 / =7 / -3) (913 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary Balthazar (Trust: +4 / =1 / -1) (315 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Legendary yxt (Trust: +7 / =0 / -0) (48 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary fronti (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (189 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary babo (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (639 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Legendary Mitchell (Trust: +40 / =1 / -0) (506 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary vizique (Trust: +37 / =0 / -0) (522 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Legendary yogg (Trust: +30 / =0 / -0) (1500 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary arulbero (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (603 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Legendary buckrogers (Trust: +29 / =0 / -0) (138 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Legendary owlcatz (Trust: +45 / =0 / -1) (344 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Legendary nutildah (Trust: +7 / =1 / -0) (2372 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Legendary Royse777 (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (889 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. Legendary sandy-is-fine (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (107 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. Legendary SFR10 (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (437 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. Legendary TryNinja (Trust: neutral) (1827 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. Legendary bob123 (Trust: neutral) (1582 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. Legendary johhnyUA (Trust: +0 / =1 / -2) (800 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. Legendary Lafu (Trust: +12 / =1 / -0) (1027 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. Sr. Member polymerbit (Trust: +12 / =0 / -0) (297 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. Legendary Yatsan (Trust: +4 / =2 / -0) (584 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. Hero Member JollyGood (Trust: +11 / =0 / -0) (657 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. Hero Member xenon131 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (594 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. Legendary Coin-1 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (918 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. Legendary taikuri13 (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (1266 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. Hero Member lovesmayfamilis (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (1198 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    28. Copper Member DireWolfM14 (Trust: +20 / =1 / -0) (1752 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    29. Hero Member 1miau (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (2300 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    30. Hero Member YOSHIE (Trust: +4 / =1 / -0) (611 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

If I were to post five items that are conclusive instead of being thorough and posting a hundred items of proof, would that be more convincing?  That's probably not the best way to ask it, what I'm wondering is if I were to post five items of proof not one hundred, do you think more people would verify what I said is correct in relation to a scammer?

I can't speak for other people, but I'm more likely to read 10 short posts than 1 long post.

[suchmoon]

You need to take a chillpill, suchmoon; I heard that it is amongst the best of treatments for uninflammening OCD, and wear a mask, too.

I don't know about that... I had a few beers (some of the best anti-OCD medicine I'm aware of) and it still didn't look right. I think I'll just wait for page 119 so that I don't see it anymore.

[LoyceV]

This doesn't seem right. March 2019 through July 2020 - that's only 17 months. Where is the 18 coming from?

I'll satisfy your OCD: Theymos started his DT update log on March 5, 2019. Theymos made 17 posts in that topic, each with 2 categories: "Old" and "New". That means "Old" in his first post is a list of DT1-members from the month before March 5, 2019. And that brings the total to 18.

I just noticed only 128 users were eligible this month, 12 less than last month.

[fillippone]

Who's in?
These users have never been excluded from DT1 (number of DT1 inclusions since March 2019)

Update for the number of months each (former?) DT1-member has been on DT1:

Code:

    
     12 Lesbian Cow

<...>

This happened in January '20

13 February
14 March
15 April
16 May
17 Jun
18 July

I think first reshuffle with new algorithm was in March '19, so in March it was the second month of inclusion as LC ws aleady in DT1 in February.

Now, while you are reading this, you have to think of myself actually finger counting months....

EDIT: LoyceV beated my by seconds, his time machine is getting more efficient!

[suchmoon]

This doesn't seem right. March 2019 through July 2020 - that's only 17 months. Where is the 18 coming from?

I'll satisfy your OCD: Theymos started his DT update log on March 5, 2019. Theymos made 17 posts in that topic, each with 2 categories: "Old" and "New". That means "Old" in his first post is a list of DT1-members from the month before March 5, 2019. And that brings the total to 18.

So it's "since February 2019" then? Because the "old" in that first post was from February 2019. Right? RIGHT??

#firstworldproblems

[fillippone]

This doesn't seem right. March 2019 through July 2020 - that's only 17 months. Where is the 18 coming from?

I'll satisfy your OCD: Theymos started his DT update log on March 5, 2019. Theymos made 17 posts in that topic, each with 2 categories: "Old" and "New". That means "Old" in his first post is a list of DT1-members from the month before March 5, 2019. And that brings the total to 18.

So it's "since February 2019" then? Because the "old" in that first post was from February 2019. Right? RIGHT??

#firstworldproblems

"Since March 2019 reshuffle which confirmed users already in DT1 during February 2019"

#firstworldproblems
#nitpicking
#fingercounting
#needanotherbeer

[suchmoon]

~

Most humans have ~20 fingers&toes... so I'll be here, watching if your math starts getting wobbly after September.

#needanotherbeer

I'm technically at work now so can only consume beverages that don't look like alcohol on camera.

[fillippone]

~

Most humans have ~20 fingers&toes... so I'll be here, watching if your math starts getting wobbly after September.

I can count to 31 with only one hand.
So I think I am ok for the first 1,023 months with two hands. It's well into the next century: it's a lot of OCD and beers until then!
 

[JayJuanGee]

You need to take a chillpill, suchmoon; I heard that it is amongst the best of treatments for uninflammening OCD, and wear a mask, too.

I don't know about that... I had a few beers (some of the best anti-OCD medicine I'm aware of) and it still didn't look right. I think I'll just wait for page 119 so that I don't see it anymore.

I personally usually try "all naturale" remedy attempts like banging my head against the wall (or a tree)... or some grass.. (the grass usually works the best and does not leave as much swelling.. Oh?  making snow angels work pretty well, but it is such a season-dependent remedy), and really has not worked very well for me, so I was just going by what I "heard" might work...

I will retract my advices, except for the snow angels part or maybe rolling in some dirt might work.  I will try the rolling in the dirt approach, and let you know how it goes.  

~

Most humans have ~20 fingers&toes... so I'll be here, watching if your math starts getting wobbly after September.

I can count to 31 with only one hand.
So I think I am ok for the first 1,023 months with two hands. It's well into the next century: it's a lot of OCD and beers until then!

We should try not to be speciesists, here. 

It might help to reduce our stress levels.. (and OCD to the level that we might have it) #justsaying.

[Timelord2067]

~

Most humans have ~20 fingers&toes... so I'll be here, watching if your math starts getting wobbly after September.

I can count to 31 with only one hand.
So I think I am ok for the first 1,023 months with two hands. It's well into the next century: it's a lot of OCD and beers until then!

Totally off topic, I think it was the ancient Mayans Mesopotamians who counted the individual bones in the fingers (4X3) then double that as there are two bones in a thumb makes 24. (It may have been the Mayan's who used the two thumb bones to give 24)...

[nutildah]

all the manipulations are just a defensive reaction due to the massive manipulations by the Elk, Suchkamun, Lauda, Lafu, Tman and other gandons who excluded me
in my case, you need to look for causal relationships

exclusions and the all trust system does not affect my relations with partners and in the trade, no one of them interested feedback, they trusted and continue to trust me.
In theory, this may affect potential partners of newbies, but the specifics of my activity are such that me don't need newbies

so the trust system is very corrupted game system

In your opinion, do you think you use the trust system properly?

[LoyceV]

I noticed something I forgot I even implemented:

  432. 2526732: This user's information will be added next week. Until then, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2526732
  439. 2709246: This user's information will be added next week. Until then, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2709246

This is caused by 2 users who where added to DT2, while they didn't even have any Trust-list-relations in theymos' last data dump (which was this morning). Digging further, I stumbled upon Trust selfscratching by CryptopreneurBrainboss. Yesterday, he had (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0). Now it's (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) after he added those 4 users to DT2:

(image source: BPIP)

All of those 4 users have left positive feedback to CryptopreneurBrainboss. I don't consider this correct use of the Trust system, especially from someone on DT1.

[JollyGood]

There are so many examples of users not using the Trust system in an incorrect manner.

Just look at those reciprocating Trust between the handful of hate spreading minority of users from the otherwise excellent Turkish board. Vispilio has been outed as having DragonDance as an alt-account but from when I last checked he was still a Merit Source even after being one of the most divisive trouble-making hate spreading low-life users in the forum.

Being on DT really does mean users should be somewhat careful about how they (including myself) - conduct ourselves. Adding members on the basis of positive feedback alone or reciprocating Trust is absolutely not a correct use of the Trust system.

I am not sure why CryptopreneurBrainboss added those users, only he can explain the reasons behind his decision. I hope he does post here because he is (to my knowledge) a Merit Source too and even though we have not interacted for many months as we rarely post in the same threads, he seemed an approachable nice person who articulates himself very well and contributed regularly in a positive manner to the forum.

I noticed something I forgot I even implemented:

  432. 2526732: This user's information will be added next week. Until then, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2526732
  439. 2709246: This user's information will be added next week. Until then, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2709246

This is caused by 2 users who where added to DT2, while they didn't even have any Trust-list-relations in theymos' last data dump (which was this morning). Digging further, I stumbled upon Trust selfscratching by CryptopreneurBrainboss. Yesterday, he had (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0). Now it's (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) after he added those 4 users to DT2:

(image source: BPIP)

All of those 4 users have left positive feedback to CryptopreneurBrainboss. I don't consider this correct use of the Trust system, especially from someone on DT1.

[Vispilio]

~jollygood

DragonDance must have opened a gaping hole in your duplicitous crooked ass of astronomical proportions, that you still can't fill it up even after injecting it with toxic propaganda day after day...

[Timelord2067]

I noticed something I forgot I even implemented:

  432. 2526732: This user's information will be added next week. Until then, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2526732
  439. 2709246: This user's information will be added next week. Until then, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2709246

This is caused by 2 users who where added to DT2, while they didn't even have any Trust-list-relations in theymos' last data dump (which was this morning). Digging further, I stumbled upon Trust selfscratching by CryptopreneurBrainboss. Yesterday, he had (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0). Now it's (Trust: +6 / =1 / -0) after he added those 4 users to DT2:

(image source: BPIP)

All of those 4 users have left positive feedback to CryptopreneurBrainboss. I don't consider this correct use of the Trust system, especially from someone on DT1.

If you start at the current week 77 and go backwards through the weeks, you will see CryptopreneurBrainboss adds a user then the week prior he was added by that user. Around six months ago it was the opposite; CryptopreneurBrainboss would add first then the other user would add them. I haven't looked at this extensively, however some of the users who participate in this trust-for-trust seem to be also participating with others.

CryptopreneurBrainboss is also adding a half dozen in one week then removing the same subset a few weeks/months later. Naturally if he is adding and being added this can only mean the other side are also complicit in this action.

Disclaimer: I participated in one of the Signature Campaigns that CryptopreneurBrainboss administers and he is very well liked.  I hadn't interacted with him prior to, or since my few weeks in the 777coin campaign.


@LoyceV - If you haven't already seen this post I believe there is a voting block or possibly even alts voting up one or two UID's.

(and I notice LV8 never got tagged by you)

There are so many examples of users not using the Trust system in an incorrect manner.

Double negative.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I am not sure why CryptopreneurBrainboss added those users, only he can explain the reasons behind his decision.

I noticed something I forgot I even implemented:

That's a mistake from my part and it has been corrected, I'm fun of rotating my custom trust list every now and then (if you monitor my list you'll noticed that). I Have a draft where I copy the name from and paste on my trust settings. If you observed properly, all or most of the newly added users were once on my custom trust list, which were also removed as a result of my list rotation.

Just edited my list to correct that and some of those that were newly added to my custom trust list had been removed then new members will replaced them (from DT1 probably to strengthen my CTL). My selection is made on my personal criteria and not having a custom list of yours isn't part of the criteria. I too was included in the DT list weeks before I even had a custom list.

Thanks for the observation.

[Timelord2067]

That's a mistake from my part and it has been corrected, I'm fun of rotating my custom trust list every now and then (if you monitor my list you'll noticed that). I Have a draft where I copy the name from and paste on my trust settings. If you observed properly, all or most of the newly added users were once on my custom trust list, which were also removed as a result of my list rotation.

Just edited my list to correct that and some of those that were newly added to my custom trust list had been removed then new members will replaced them (from DT1 probably to strengthen my CTL). My selection is made on my personal criteria and not having a custom list of yours isn't part of the criteria. I too was included in the DT list weeks before I even had a custom list.

Thanks for the observation.

I see you've already removed three users:



Just a quick heads up adding and removing then adding (then removing) looks a little odd.  It's always good to sweep out the cobwebs, I've done it twice myself (once recently of the trust list, the other a while back of my distrust list).  People take great interest in the DT comings and goings.

[hacker1001101001]

That's a mistake from my part and it has been corrected, I'm fun of rotating my custom trust list every now and then (if you monitor my list you'll noticed that). I Have a draft where I copy the name from and paste on my trust settings. If you observed properly, all or most of the newly added users were once on my custom trust list, which were also removed as a result of my list rotation.

Just edited my list to correct that and some of those that were newly added to my custom trust list had been removed then new members will replaced them (from DT1 probably to strengthen my CTL). My selection is made on my personal criteria and not having a custom list of yours isn't part of the criteria. I too was included in the DT list weeks before I even had a custom list.

Thanks for the observation.

I see you've already removed three users:



Just a quick heads up adding and removing then adding (then removing) looks a little odd.  It's always good to sweep out the cobwebs, I've done it twice myself (once recently of the trust list, the other a while back of my distrust list).  People take great interest in the DT comings and goings.

I agree here, being firm and solid at your trust list selections is more humanly and ethical use of the DT system than changing it frequently.

Anyways, I don't think CryptopreneurBrainboss indented to game or abuse the trust list though.

There are so many examples of users not using the Trust system in an incorrect manner.

Mirror on your butt.