DefaultTrust changes

[suchmoon]

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.

Either that or only months within DT1 are counted so if the user is not selected the counter is "paused" (edit: upon reading it again I think you're probably saying the same thing; another option would have been to calculate the score even in the "off" months the same way as if the user was selected into DT1). Of course there is also the possibility of the "score" changing with the month so you'd have to track some sort of high water mark probably. Maybe too complicated indeed.

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...

Aside from peloso, it's also quite possible that a similar situation could arise with cryptohunter's sockpuppets or some other shady group voting someone in, who would be even less receptive to pressure.

[Timelord2067]

...

You're confusing the selection of DT1's and the subsequent application of DT trust / distrusts by those that are eligible.

peloso etc.

The only way to ensure one UID = one vote would be to implement KYC for those candidates that qualify to be selected as DT1 on a month-by-month basis.

[LoyceV]

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.

Other DT1-members can upvote those new users again, but I'd be hesitant to do so with users I'm unfamiliar with.

The only problem with this is any DT1 member is statistically unlikely to be in DT1 for more than 5 months.

I can think of another problem: depending on the DT1-strength of the users who exclude someone, being blacklisted from DT1 can give them active power on DT2 again.

Maybe too complicated indeed.

I think so too.

[suchmoon]

I can think of another problem: depending on the DT1-strength of the users who exclude someone, being blacklisted from DT1 can give them active power on DT2 again.

My suggestion wouldn't be blacklisting from DT1. Just a full "mute" inside DT1. Wouldn't make the user eligible for DT2. If the user prefers to be blacklisted they could ask theymos.

[Timelord2067]

Has this user requested to be removed from DT1?



When I hover on their BPIP DT1 icon, it reads "DT1 strength: 6"

[dkbit98]

Has this user requested to be removed from DT1?

I just cleaned up my Trust list today

[LoyceV]

Has this user requested to be removed from DT1?

dkbit98 is on DT1.

When I hover on their BPIP DT1 icon, it reads "DT1 strength: 6"

It looks like a flaw in BPIP's DT Change Log.

I just cleaned up my Trust list today

That doesn't remove you from DT1, at least until theymos reorganizes DT1.

[suchmoon]

It looks like a flaw in BPIP's DT Change Log.

I've removed the entry but this one is a bit tricky. I will probably fail to recognize that dkbit98 is no longer in DT1 at the beginning of next month.

[eddie13]

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.

I say leave em alone and let em vote..
If enough users with enough merits elect enough DT1 to outvote whatever team you are on, you lose..

Oh yeah, this reminds me it all falls back to the almighty power of the merit..
Merit isn't just for good posts now is it? It is for giving users DT votes ultimately..

So I'm sure users can and do restrict giving merits to those who they would not agree with their votes they would eventually cast with them..

Merits: These are to be awarded to good posts, that are high effort, worth reading, or any other reason, not that you agree with that post..
But make sure not to give too many merits to anyone that doesn't vote your way in DT..

Bah..

How did peloso get on DT1?
Well, enough people who would vote for him got enough merits to make it happen..

[suchmoon]

If enough users with enough merits elect enough DT1 to outvote whatever team you are on, you lose..

Actually it's pretty much the opposite. I don't think this threatens any "team". This threatens users who otherwise don't have much support. Someone like peloso can kick them out or extort them, and that's whom he's mainly targeting at the beginning of each month. And he has no limit of DT1 down/up votes, which I think is also a flaw in the system. Limiting each user to 5 or 10 votes would solve some of the issues.

I don't know what your unhappiness with the merits is based on but if it's something I did - let me know

[eddie13]

I don't know what your unhappiness with the merits is based on but if it's something I did - let me know

No.. Not you..
By "Team" I mean whatever "clique" is in control of DT..
Right now it is mostly good oldschool users and the scambuster crowd, but could be overtaken by scammers, turks, russians, "CH alts", etc..
It's all about the merits..

What I dislike about the merits thing is that they are supposed to be for one thing (posts that aren't shitposts to rank up accounts), but also translate into the basis of all voting power..

I see a large incentive to withhold merits from great posters that one would otherwise not want to have a lot of voting power, and on the other hand to shower merits on not so great posters but whom one would want to increase their voting power..

I can think of atleast one user with a lot of merits that make very good posts and deserves them for the original intention of the merit system, but the thought of them having that much voting power because of them is scary..

For example, a merit source may not want to give many merits to a user who excludes them, but has incentive to send many merits to a user who includes them..

Not a me problem, a you problem, or anyone in specific problem.. I just think it corrupts what the concept of the merit system was originally intended for by adding power based strategy to the mix..

Actually it's pretty much the opposite. I don't think this threatens any "team". This threatens users who otherwise don't have much support. Someone like peloso can kick them out or extort them, and that's whom he's mainly targeting at the beginning of each month. And he has no limit of DT1 down/up votes, which I think is also a flaw in the system. Limiting each user to 5 or 10 votes would solve some of the issues.

If they have such little support that a single rogue actor can kick them out then maybe they need more support by those who don't think they should be kicked out?
Of DT2 or DT1? Either way..

Extortion is another thing entirely.. Anyone on DT I think should not want to be on DT so badly that they would allow themselves to be extorted by 1 DT1 vote..
Don't be threatened by one prick with one vote guys.. They should just do the right thing and not give in to it..
If they give in to the extortion of 1 vote, maybe they should get more downvotes just because..

If you would like to limit DT1 in/out votes, I think it would need to be done with a separate list specifically for that voting..

Limiting each user to 5 or 10 votes would solve some of the issues.

Limiting merit-based votes could be a thing too..
Ex-Any user can have up to 20 250 merit votes counting, but that's it..

It's a good thing that the current concentration of merit-power is in pretty good hands for the most part..
But concentration of power is still concentration of power..


I DO think the system has worked very well thus far though.. It's also pretty cool and fun to theorize/theoretically-strategize about..
Keeps things interesting..

[suchmoon]

If they have such little support that a single rogue actor can kick them out then maybe they need more support by those who don't think they should be kicked out?
Of DT2 or DT1? Either way..

Well, if the user qualified for DT1 but a rogue DT1 member kicks them out that's hardly fair. Also we shouldn't support such users just because they're being attacked by someone... we should only include users whose judgement we trust. So I can't just go ahead and bandaid it over by including everyone peloso is excluding.

I can think of atleast one user with a lot of merits that make very good posts and deserves them for the original intention of the merit system, but the thought of them having that much voting power because of them is scary..

That's the thing, the user should still get the merits. Trust abuse should be handled elsewhere, not by withholding merits. That's also part of what I'm trying to suggest. I should not feel guilty for meriting peloso if he makes a good post. He should be prevented from abusing the trust system within the scope of the trust system itself.

For example, a merit source may not want to give many merits to a user who excludes them, but has incentive to send many merits to a user who includes them..

Sending or withholding those merits is not helping the merit source, so there is no direct incentive for that. Besides there's 100 merit sources so if the user is a good poster they will get merits regardless of personal grudges.

Limiting merit-based votes could be a thing too..
Ex-Any user can have up to 20 250 merit votes counting, but that's it..

It's already limited to 2x250 and 8x10 merit inclusions. More high-merit users including someone (beyond the minimum of 10 required inclusions) won't make that included user any "stronger" with regards to DT.

Or are you saying the "includers" should have a limit of how many users they can vote for? That would probably make things worse. More and more users earn the required 250 and 10 merits, including those who vote for garbage like peloso, and they get the same chance as anyone else to get into DT1.

Some sort of activity limit perhaps would make sense. If you haven't been active and/or earned merits for the last 3 months maybe your inclusions should not count towards DT1 "election" anymore. Or only merits earned in the last 12 months count. That would exclude some one-time farmed merits (not a new idea; apologies to whoever brought it up first as I can't remember to credit it properly).

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=suchmoon link=topic=5095156.msg55430117#msg55430117 date=1603370445]
[quote author=LoyceV link=topic=5095156.msg55429769#msg55429769 date=1603367543]
It looks like a flaw in BPIP's DT Change Log.
[/quote]

I've removed the entry but this one is a bit tricky. I will probably fail to recognize that dkbit98 is no longer in DT1 at the beginning of next month.
[/quote]

Not to worry, looks like they are back again:



Interesting that a person can slip off of DT1 by removing their trust list (if I"m reading their post correctly) only to then be slotted back in by reactivating with new additions.

Perhaps this is a flaw?  If a person removes themselves they then have to sit out the rest of the month?  (no offense to @dkbit98 intended)

[marlboroza]

peloso

I am pretty sure there are more better candidates for DT1, peloso is wasting "lottery space" and someone who is trolling whole trust system:


(https://loyce.club/trust/2020-10-17_Sat_05.06h/787736.html)



...should be blacklisted, I am not sure why he isn't.

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=marlboroza link=topic=5095156.msg55435900#msg55435900 date=1603440696]
...
[/quote]

Perhaps you should get your own house of cards in order before you pass judgement on other people's Trolling.

You're still doing it as recently as this month:

[LoyceV]

Interesting that a person can slip off of DT1 by removing their trust list

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. I've (temporarily) wiped my Trust list just to test it. I don't expect bad consequenses for DT2 from this, the same thing happens when I lose the DT1-lottery.

(if I"m reading their post correctly) only to then be slotted back in by reactivating with new additions.

Perhaps this is a flaw?  If a person removes themselves they then have to sit out the rest of the month?

I'll update my findings later. I know dtview and trust networks aren't updated real-time.

The first thing I notice is that my own Trust score went from +24 / =3 / -0 (as seen from my account) to +25 / =1 / -0. That makes sense, the influence from my own Trust list is gone now.

BPIP DT Change Log shows: "LoyceV DT1 is no longer selected into DT1". Where does BPIP get this? If I check the Trust network using LoyceBot, it shows LoyceV on DT1.

Update:
I've restored my Trust list. I'll take my BPIP-question to the appropriate topic.
BPIP shows this again: "LoyceV DT1 is selected into DT1".

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=LoyceV link=topic=5095156.msg55435976#msg55435976 date=1603441511]
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. I've (temporarily) wiped my Trust list just to test it.
[/quote]

Interesting indeed.  I wonder what the time frame between DT list removal and BPIP noticing.  Or, was it indeed a Forum thing, and BPIP noticed the Forum's activity (removal from DT1) ??

*edit* I see you've edited your post after I posted

Here's a screen grab:

[marlboroza]

~

Are you trying to say that I left you negative, called you scammer and included you to my trust network? You are not making much sense, I can't even vote for DT1, spew your signature somewhere else and stop harassing me.

[Timelord2067]

~

Are you trying to say that I left you negative, called you scammer and included you to my trust network? You are not making much sense, I can't even vote for DT1, spew your signature somewhere else and stop harassing me.

Yes.

Your self moderated thread (which you have admitted deleting my posts that I defend myself) that you use as a platform to attack me, is a form of intimidation with it's "vote" to seek justification to (again) give me trust feedback distrust.

[dkbit98]

That doesn't remove you from DT1, at least until theymos reorganizes DT1.

I am obviously doing something.
Let me be clear, I am not so much bothered about DT1 or DT2 stuff but I wanted to clean up and update my trustlist.
After I deleted everything from my list I got removed from DT1, then after I entered new names I got back in DT1
Magic.