DefaultTrust changes

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>

You’re mixing Flags with Trust, and although they are related, having red flag (flag for breaking an agreement/contract) is likely way worse than 1 negative trust (which is what currently displays in your Trust profile). The issue you are facing is having a remaining negative trust from @Zepher, who is no longer with us (non-resolute debate on such circumstances here: If someone pass away, will their Trust feedback still exist permanently ? ).

Incidentally, I chipped-in on your thread on the topic (BTCtalk help me), but I never removed any red Flag nor negative Trust, since I had not placed any on your account to begin with.

[1713468846]

1713468846

[Rux]

@icopress wow such hate for something so worthless for me.

generosity? for what? something i got for nothing!

First, when i gave those "merits" i didn't realized what they were, because i was away from BTT when i created my own community.

You want some merit? does your life depends on it? omg

@DdmrDdmr  thanks for answer, now it makes sense.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

But i still have "orange" flag? how can i remove that

There are good reasons why this is not possible...
In general, it is strange that you are legendary, and that you have not seen this topic.

It is also quite unusual to see such excessive generosity... Considering that the average time between publications is 6 minutes. 

Those ‘newbies’ seemed to be very familiar with him & how he definitely did not sell his account 

[Rux]

Truth to be told, those are my newborn crypto fans from my community.

After i told them what happened some of them registered just to state their point, but true, it looks awfully shady   

When they came to my forum, they didn't knew about BTT importance, and i showed them "the path".

Sorry if i disturbed anyone here, sometimes i wish i had sold my account and be gone with it, but it was all a big mess in end...

icing on the cake was that merit giveaway haha

[Vod]

After i told them what happened some of them registered just to state their point, but true, it looks awfully shady   

It does. 

[JollyGood]

That screenshot is quite effective as evidence. Amazing how the newbies can vouch for him  

But i still have "orange" flag? how can i remove that

There are good reasons why this is not possible...
In general, it is strange that you are legendary, and that you have not seen this topic.

It is also quite unusual to see such excessive generosity... Considering that the average time between publications is 6 minutes.  

Those ‘newbies’ seemed to be very familiar with him & how he definitely did not sell his account

[Rux]

I just told some of them, thanks for making me look like a f scammer 

[Timelord2067]

I just told some of them, thanks for making me look like a f scammer 

Paying 20 merits per vouch makes *you* look like the scammer all by yourself.  No one else can be held to blame for that one...  You made the conscience decision to squander your only merits (which were air-dropped merits at that).

[hulla]

I just told some of them, thanks for making me look like a f scammer 

No hard feels but you should understand that newbies vouch will raise a red flag and looking at the issue, a single vouch message in exchange for 20 merits is more than telling them about the movement cause it seems like a done bargain and such a vouch shouldn't be count as reasonable.

[LoyceV]

No hard feels but you should understand that newbies vouch will raise a red flag and looking at the issue, a single vouch message in exchange for 20 merits

Although true, this happened 2.5 years ago:

Merit sent by Rux from January 24, 2018 until October 02, 2020 (source)


   11. Fri Aug 30 19:46:25 2019: 1 (118) to Rose_btc Banned! (history) for Re: BTCtalk help me
   10. Mon Mar 26 00:17:43 2018: 1 (117) to MICRO (Trust list) (history) for Re: BTCtalk help me
    9. Sun Mar 25 23:49:28 2018: 20 (116) to kenzie95 (history) for Re: BTCtalk help me
    8. Sun Mar 25 23:44:04 2018: 20 (96) to davidrus123 (history) for Re: BTCtalk help me
    7. Sun Mar 25 23:27:25 2018: 20 (76) to CipherUno (history) for My Friend RUX
    6. Sun Mar 25 23:26:06 2018: 20 (56) to Brzina (history) for Re: BTCtalk help me
    5. Sun Mar 25 23:22:20 2018: 20 (36) to eBunny6 (history) for Re: BTCtalk help me
    4. Fri Feb 16 21:34:22 2018: 1 (16) to doktor83 (history) for D0miner V1.4 - Cryptonight miner with charity mining
    3. Fri Feb 16 21:19:09 2018: 5 (15) to denis-z12 Banned! (history) for &#128640;[ANN][ICO] Altair VR. Blockchain Sljedece generacije VR Wikipedija
    2. Fri Feb 16 21:16:53 2018: 5 (10) to denis-z12 Banned! (history) for [ANN] &#128309; Datarius &#128308; Prva Društvena p2p Kripto banka &#128309;
    1. Fri Feb 16 21:16:27 2018: 5 (5) to denis-z12 Banned! (history) for LitePay kartica za LiteCoin

None of the Newbies turned into a massive spammer after the 20 Merit they received. None of them sent even a single sMerit to another user. What Rux did was not the proper use of the Merit system, but there was no real harm either.

[Rux]

thanks @LoyceV, to many stuff happened because of my stupid moves.

Thing is, after i moved and created my own community, i realized it was just meant to be.

I contacted some of the users from my community to give back those merits, would that help anything?

@hulla no hard feeling taken, you are totally right.

Thanks guys for being positive

[suchmoon]

I contacted some of the users from my community to give back those merits, would that help anything?

They can't give the merits back (i.e. undo your sending of those merits). If they send their earned sMerits to you that would just compound the issue.

If you're planning to stick around you should read about the trust system (start with this thread we're in) and the merit system.

[Vod]

Thing is, after i moved and created my own community, i realized it was just meant to be.

I contacted some of the users from my community to give back those merits, would that help anything?

Thing is, if these guys are willing to do whatever you ask, how are they different from alts?  :/

[Timelord2067]

I contacted some of the users from my community to give back those merits, would that help anything?

They can't give the merits back (i.e. undo your sending of those merits). If they send their earned sMerits to you that would just compound the issue.

If you're planning to stick around you should read about the trust system (start with this thread we're in) and the merit system.

As @suchmoon said, sending the merits back to you *could* very likely be perceived as "back-scratching".

Thing is, if these guys are willing to do whatever you ask, how are they different from alts?  :/

Perhaps as a means of "getting rid" of those merits to totally random users, they visit this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093271.380 I've gone back five pages to April this year, (perhaps go back in that thread even earlier) and gift any posts that are suggested as being merit worthy give *just* *one* merit per user.

Having gone back six months ensures they don't just seed that thread with their own recommendations and one merit per post suggested per user will ensure the merits are cast to the winds in a very random fashion.

Assuming @Rux wants to make amends for past indiscretions.  ??

What Rux did was not the proper use of the Merit system, but there was no real harm either.

[Rux]

Today one of the "receivers" will spread 20 Merits to those who earn it on that thread

Thanks for idea @Timelord2067

[suchmoon]

I can sorta kinda understand the rationale for allowing excluded DT1 members to "cast a vote" on other DT1 members but how about this:

If someone has been excluded from DT1 for e.g. 6 months, suspend their eligibility until they get enough support to be included again. Perhaps this could have a threshold lower than -1, e.g. -5.

So:

• If you have 0+ DT1 inclusion/exclusion balance you stay in DT1 and vote for DT2 members, as usual.
• If you have -1 to -4 you can no longer vote for DT2 members, but can vote for DT1 peers, as is the case now.
• If you have -5 or less for up to five months - same as above.
• If you have -5 for six consecutive months you can no longer vote for DT1 peers until you get to -4 or higher.

As the peloso example shows, one shithead can wreak havoc by immediately downvoting new users and/or soliciting mutual inclusions. Clear abuse of the system but there is nothing anyone can do about it.

[Timelord2067]

...

I've got a better idea:

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1.

I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.

Follow theymos' lead and settle your differences instead of carrying grudges against others year in and year out.

[suchmoon]

~

I don't use trust ratings for retaliation. I've used a custom trust list for years, well before most of current DT members knew what a trust list is. Your grudges go here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5278820

[Timelord2067]

~

I don't use trust ratings for retaliation. I've used a custom trust list for years, well before most of current DT members knew what a trust list is.

If you say so... 

What I actually said was:

Follow theymos' lead and settle your differences instead of carrying grudges against others year in and year out.

 

[nutildah]

So:

• If you have 0+ DT1 inclusion/exclusion balance you stay in DT1 and vote for DT2 members, as usual.
• If you have -1 to -4 you can no longer vote for DT2 members, but can vote for DT1 peers, as is the case now.
• If you have -5 or less for up to five months - same as above.
• If you have -5 for six consecutive months you can no longer vote for DT1 peers until you get to -4 or higher.

As the peloso example shows, one shithead can wreak havoc by immediately downvoting new users and/or soliciting mutual inclusions. Clear abuse of the system but there is nothing anyone can do about it.

The only problem with this is any DT1 member is statistically unlikely to be in DT1 for more than 5 months. There are ~140 qualifying members each month. 100 / 140 = 71.43% chance of a qualifying member getting on DT for the month... Let's just round it up to 72%. So anybody who is qualified for 5 months is actually only 19.3% likely to stay on for all 5 months in a row. After 6 months that drops to 14%. So basically chances of anyone remaining in DT1 for that long of a time are pretty low. If you're saying the monthly count remains even after they are selected out of DT1, well that's one thing, might be pretty hard to keep track of internally.

Ideally, we should be putting pressure on those who include Peloso, but some of those who include him genuinely think he deserves to be there, so...