Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis.

[cryptohunter]

Theymos can you explain your reasoning on honest meriting of merit worthy posts by those that clearly announce their intentions vs those that are sneaky about it and report others whilst clearly doing it themselves?

This is not a criticism I want to understand how this even works here in your mind.... It is another long post but I feel that if you read it all and give a thorough explanation then this could start to push the systems of control in the correct direction faster and create less collateral damage along the way. Merit is the key to these newly introduced control systems.


Local rules - NO PERSON that does not substantiate their answer with facts and observable events may reply. If you wish to voice a groundless opinion which when called on it will not be able to provide evidence or corroborating events to back it up then I wish you to NOT post in this thread.

Anyone following those rules can post.


This is a system wide discussion of a topic that theymos commented on personally himself and made clear that political motivation for a post is not allowed and only the post value itself should determine the merit given.

So let's just discuss on the FACTS and reasonable conclusions we can substantiate with corroborating observable events.


If you were to take an objective view of the posts made by persons here below and merited by each other
(I will add others because actually I believe many many persons merit based on pure political agreement and do not even bother to analyse the post for VALUE that you can substantiate if they were called on it. Just claiming their opinion is valuable because it demonstrates a consensus with your own and strengthens your case (in your mind) is of course political in terms of discussing other members or issues relating to how the forum functions.)


         Foxpup -
         Lauda -
         The Pharmacist -
         marlboroza
         owlcatz
         suchmoon
         Coolcryptovator
         DireWolfM14
         Hhampuz
         Jet Cash
         LoyceV
         TMAN
         o_e_l_e_o
         xtraelv

You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement that confirms they subscribe to the same political (where the board is concerned - approval of or non approval of certain members regardless of whether they are proven scammers or not or on other political matters regarding the running of the board) views or have the same ideas as those meriting them.

You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here. This is merely political noise.

You will also notice these person withhold merit from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.

Their connection/collusion/political allegiance  is also clearly evident on the DT inclusions exclusions.

So we see here clearly that many merit sources here are meriting/not meriting on political grounds. However, they are just sneaky and would seek to deny it even though the evidence is there in black and white.
This actually makes them far less trustworthy than a person that says "okay i subscribe to these political views and I will scan those persons posts and find merit worthy posts that are objectively worthy of merit and then allocate them merit"

So not only have you (in my opinion) on suchmoons (provable double standards and highly politically motivated merit cycler) guidance punished an honest person regarding his intentions you have removed merit from merit worthy posts that present factual information of great value in the removal of stingers and his correctly applied (from an objective pov) merit . This is not wise in my opinion because...

The merit should have only been removed if the posts themselves were clearly not merit worthy else that is demonstrating the system is nothing to do with the objective post quality. Motive can have no influence over the objective value of the post. That is a fallacy of the ad hominem variant.

Post quality should be judged on its own merits. You should analyse a post, and to your best ability pick it apart for useful relevant information that can be seen to contribute to the optimal outcome.


If a merit score is supposed to represent the true value of a post then we have just punished an honest person and rewarded a sneaky person for complaining about the same actions he takes, but he is too devious (or not as blatant) about announcing it, but his actions clearly demonstrate this as do the actions of most other merit sources from his circle.


I say the merit system is broken and damaging greatly this board now that you have once again pushed (possibly by the same circle I am referring to here) to raise the DT threshold to something that suites them nicely ie 250 earned and self awarded (in a nice little circle of pals) to each other.

Punishing someone who announced their intentions honestly to find merit worthy posts and merit them from persons who subscribe to his personal political views on this board at the behest of a circle that are doing that in plain sight and making jokes about it is quite a bad move. I mean just look at the merit back scratchers and back stabbers joke threads the complainer suchmoon is nearly at the top of both of those?? I mean this is making a mockery of the merit system.

Surely there can not be one rule for one side of this political rift and not for the other can there?

I mean surely you can see they are meriting based on political shared views rather than on the actual post value (many of which have zero value and are misleading)? also are withholding merit on this same basis??

Or do you deny this is happening? You actually are going to tell me that these people are objectively analysing posts and allocating merit in this way free of politics and prior interactions with other members? Please try to be really look at this situation deeply and objectively.

I have clearly said before that I do believe you want what is best for the board and that is your only concern. I still believe this even in light of the curious and strange answers that you gave last time which I would still love to debate with you and I am sure that I could alter your views.

However, i am speculating that you are willing to take some collateral damage to innocent persons to achieve an eventual result that is more fair than the path that leads to that.  This i understand, but I feel that just a bit of analysis of what I have said here and some strong words to those committing WORSE than what stingers got punished for could speed up to the eventual result that you are looking for. I am however happy you have spoken out on DT lately and said that should be for scammers only to get red trust. This is a great announcement and should now allow person to voice their love or hate of lemons more freely.

I mean if you tell me that these people are objectively meriting posts on their value and that they are not guilty of WORSE than stingers (because he made efforts to merit only merit worthy posts and openly announced his intentions) whilst they merit posts of zero value and low effort but will not admit they do it for political reasons and ignore valuable posts of the same basis. If you tell me that then I will know then that there is no further point to try to discuss things with you and help this board in this way.

I am genuinely interested in a real discussion on this very important matter since now the DT is directly a merit dependant system. I have no idea why merit would equal trust anyway because it is allowing persons with a very short history here to be put into positions of trust where legends with years of observable history demonstrating no dishonest or untrustworthy actions is verifiable. I also see CLEAR discussion by those with the 250 earned merits commenting on other person trust lists and cherry picking if THEY consider that therefore makes them ripe for inclusion or exclusion.

These new systems are quite risky if you do not mind me saying. I have had legends and other old members tell me in pms (which you can probably see them) that they are scared to support some of my views because although they share some of them they are afraid of reprisals from the gangs that those systems have allowed to form. This is a clear clear illustration of free speech being crushed along the way.

This i say again is not a direct criticism of you personally other than to say the systems need some tweaks in my mind to prevent those things I have described happening. I think you should listen less to the suchmoon group and really investigate and consider the concerns of the opposing group here who only want a fair and equal system for all persons. Surely that is what you want to is it not?

Please can you just give some criteria for merit and red trust that ALL persons must abide by equally from now on. Also consider lowering earned merit too 150 and entering an activity of 1500 therefore the person has longer history to check against and has a more senior account to risk here from untrustworthy actions.

[1715111336]

1715111336

[1715111336]

1715111336

[1715111336]

1715111336

[TECSHARE]

This is what happens when you have ambiguously and selectively enforced rules Theymos. Every time.

[ac2eugenio]

Theres no such rules with these people,if they are meriting each other's posts,giving trust to each other it is okay but if someone has given merits,trust or even multiple accounts you will get red tagged even if you are doing something which isnt violating any rules you will get red paint.Abusive people does have double standards when it comes to their friends or enemies,i pitty this forum even the admins cant handle this type of abusive people.

[qwk]

So let's just discuss on the FACTS and reasonable conclusions we can substantiate with corroborating observable events.

So this is about facts?
I somehow fail to see that you live up to your own standards:

I will add others because actually I believe many many person merit based for pure political reasons

Belief.

You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value

Significant?
Do you mean statistically? If so, that might be a fact.
If so, how did you measure it?

because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement

Any hint as to which posts precisely you're referring to, and how you established the "fact" that they are mere personal statements?

You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here all of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here.

"Groundless" is an evaluation by yourself.

You will also notice these person withhold merit

I wonder how one can "withhold" merit.
My understanding is that people are free to give or not give merit.

from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.

Not a fact. I doubt it.

Their connection is also clearly illustrated on the DT inclusions exclusions.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

So we see here clearly that many merit sources here are meriting/not meriting on political grounds.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

However they are just sneaky and would seek to deny it even though the evidence is there in black and white.

Where's the evidence?

This actually makes them far less trustworthy that a person that says "okay i subscribe to these political views and I will scan those persons posts and find merit worthy posts that are objectively worthy of merit and then allocate them merit"

Opinion.

So not only have you (in my opinion)
[...]
This is not wise in my opinion because...

Opinion.

Motive can have no influence over the objective value of the post.

Not a fact. That depends upon the definition of "value" in this case.

Post quality should be judged on its own merits.

Opinion.

You should analyse a post, and to your best ability pick it apart for useful relevant information that can be seen to contribute to the optimal outcome.

Opinion.

If a merit score is supposed to represent the true value of a post

"True value" is a strong word.
Care to elaborate how such a valuation might be established?

I say the merit system is broken and damaging greatly this board now that you have once again pushed (possibly by the same circle I am referring to here) to raise the DT threshold to something that suites them nicely ie 250 earned and self awarded (in a nice little circle of pals) to each other.

Opinion.

I mean just look at the merit back scratchers and back stabbers joke threads the complainer suchmoon is nearly at the top of both of those?

Opinion.

I mean this is making a mockery of the merit system.

Opinion.

I mean surely you can see they are meriting based on political shared views rather than on the actual post value

Opinion.

(many of which have zero value and are misleading)?

Opinion.

You actually are going to tell me that these people are objectively analysing posts and allocating merit in this way free of politics and prior interactions with other members?

That's an impossible standard you're applying.

However, i am speculating

Speculation.

This i understand, but I feel

Opinion.

not guilty of WORSE than stingers

Opinion.

I also see CLEAR discussion by those with the 250 earned merits commenting on other person trust lists and cherry picking if THEY consider that therefore makes them ripe for inclusion or exclusion.

I somehow fail to see the problem here, because that's precisely what is expected from DT1 members.
Discuss if someone should be on trust lists (and come to a conclusion).

Please can you just give some criteria for merit and red trust that ALL persons must abide by equally from now on.

Unachievable standard.

[cryptohunter]

So let's just discuss on the FACTS and reasonable conclusions we can substantiate with corroborating observable events.

So this is about facts?
I somehow fail to see that you live up to your own standards:

I will add others because actually I believe many many person merit based for pure political reasons

Belief.

You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value

Significant?
Do you mean statistically? If so, that might be a fact.
If so, how did you measure it?

because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement

Any hint as to which posts precisely you're referring to, and how you established the "fact" that they are mere personal statements?

You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here all of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here.

"Groundless" is an evaluation by yourself.

You will also notice these person withhold merit

I wonder how one can "withhold" merit.
My understanding is that people are free to give or not give merit.

from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.

Not a fact. I doubt it.

Their connection is also clearly illustrated on the DT inclusions exclusions.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

So we see here clearly that many merit sources here are meriting/not meriting on political grounds.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

However they are just sneaky and would seek to deny it even though the evidence is there in black and white.

Where's the evidence?

This actually makes them far less trustworthy that a person that says "okay i subscribe to these political views and I will scan those persons posts and find merit worthy posts that are objectively worthy of merit and then allocate them merit"

Opinion.

So not only have you (in my opinion)
[...]
This is not wise in my opinion because...

Opinion.

Motive can have no influence over the objective value of the post.

Not a fact. That depends upon the definition of "value" in this case.

Post quality should be judged on its own merits.

Opinion.

You should analyse a post, and to your best ability pick it apart for useful relevant information that can be seen to contribute to the optimal outcome.

Opinion.

If a merit score is supposed to represent the true value of a post

"True value" is a strong word.
Care to elaborate how such a valuation might be established?

I say the merit system is broken and damaging greatly this board now that you have once again pushed (possibly by the same circle I am referring to here) to raise the DT threshold to something that suites them nicely ie 250 earned and self awarded (in a nice little circle of pals) to each other.

Opinion.

I mean just look at the merit back scratchers and back stabbers joke threads the complainer suchmoon is nearly at the top of both of those?

Opinion.

I mean this is making a mockery of the merit system.

Opinion.

I mean surely you can see they are meriting based on political shared views rather than on the actual post value

Opinion.

(many of which have zero value and are misleading)?

Opinion.

You actually are going to tell me that these people are objectively analysing posts and allocating merit in this way free of politics and prior interactions with other members?

That's an impossible standard you're applying.

However, i am speculating

Speculation.

This i understand, but I feel

Opinion.

not guilty of WORSE than stingers

Opinion.

I also see CLEAR discussion by those with the 250 earned merits commenting on other person trust lists and cherry picking if THEY consider that therefore makes them ripe for inclusion or exclusion.

I somehow fail to see the problem here, because that's precisely what is expected from DT1 members.
Discuss if someone should be on trust lists (and come to a conclusion).

Please can you just give some criteria for merit and red trust that ALL persons must abide by equally from now on.

Unachievable standard.

I'm on vaction but reserve this post to answer each of those points that you raise. When i get sensible opportunity to give you post the consideration it deserves.

However, I am looking forward to a full debate with your qwk and on this occasion I hope that you will not be shy and tell me that you do not WISH to review evidence that I will supply to validate my "opinion"s.

I will make an effort to reply to your post if you will promise me now not to "shy away" from hard evidence that I will provide and give an opinion on ALL evidence i bring forth. Will you make that PROMISE qwk? Then I will certainly thrash out all of the "points" that you bring up. I have only been asking for someone to debate these with me for quite some time.

Yes or NO qwk do you promise to review and give your public opinion on all evidence that I provide to substantiate my OPINIONS that you call into question? YES OR NO?  no half debating then this time vanishing or saying you do not wish to review or comment. Or that it was a typing error. This time please check the entire post you made for anything that seems incorrect before I spend time with you debating the points in the OP.

Also can you make it clear if you are in agreement with items you have branded "opinion" as if they are groundless and can not be backed or supported by observable events? You are saying you disagree or agree? please revisit your post and clarify. Don't agree or agree. I will not waste time on debating if you already agree because it will require more effort to bring forth the case than is needed if you already accept my opinion. I hope you understand what I mean.

But you must agree to answer everything that I ask you and visa versa... else the debate is one sided.

I like you qwk and look forward to this. Almost want to miss out my afternoon partying later just to focus on this.

[qwk]

Yes or NO qwk do you promise to review and give your public opinion on all evidence that I provide to substantiate my OPINIONS that you call into question? YES OR NO?  no half debating then this time vanishing or saying you do not wish to review or comment.

Just for starters: I don't like being forced to simple "yes or no" answers, I consider myself a person of differentiation.

Unfortunately, I cannot answer this with a clear "yes" without certain limits being defined beforehand.
Otherwise, I'd put myself at your mercy when it came to a possibly never-ending text of yours, in which case it is obviously very much my right to deny you the satisfaction of an answer.

So, here's my conditions for a "yes":
- you create a single post with no more than 1,000 words (for reference: your OP has 1671)
- you limit yourself to a maximum of 5 examples / cases
- you provide links and quotes that support each case
- you establish facts, when you call them that(1)
- you grant the persons in each case the right to also make a post in response under the same conditions
- you keep the text "readable"(2)
Under these circumstances, I swear to provide you with a satisfactory(2) and concise(2) reply, outlining my opinion on each and every single case in your posting.
I cannot guarantee a timely answer, though, because that will depend upon factors like my "mood", "laziness" and factors outside of my personal influence. Usually, I'm pretty quick, though.

(1) I consider myself a sceptical person, so my standards for establishing facts on your behalf may be higher than you'd usually expect.
(2) by definition or obviously, that's not objectively measurable, so you'll have to trust my judgement on this.

[SaltySpitoon]

Are any of these people merit sources? Otherwise, merit "rules" don't apply.

[qwk]

Are any of these people merit sources? Otherwise, merit "rules" don't apply.

"Known" merit sources in bold:

Foxpup
Lauda
The Pharmacist
marlboroza
owlcatz
suchmoon
Coolcryptovator
DireWolfM14
Hhampuz
Jet Cash
LoyceV
TMAN
o_e_l_e_o
xtraelv

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4523027

[nutildah]

I'm on vaction

This is how you choose to spend your vacation??

Remember when you wanted me to point out to you one of your comments that looked like insanity?

Well this is it. Theymos already told you he's not going to read your long-winded diatribes, but you chose to double-down. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, so goes the great adage.

[cryptohunter]

Are any of these people merit sources? Otherwise, merit "rules" don't apply.

Can you briefly explain this statement or expand upon it.

Please don't come at me with more lemons nonsense which I now find that I should have called nonsense from the very start.

This post is actually a good example of exactly what I am talking about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086816.msg48752174#msg48752174

Foxpup one of the main political merit givers and cyclers gives you 2 merits for that pile of junk telling me liking lemons is quite a just reason for me getting red trust.

This has been proven to be nonsense as per theymos last post regarding DT and of course was a diabolical post that would render trust scores a complete joke.

Now he gives you 2 points for political reasons.

I await qwk to also tell if if all points where he has put "opinion" if he refutes or supports that opinion. Please edit your post so I can see which ones need full attention first. Because the ones if there are any you agree with are those I can leave until later.

Actually qwk if you disagree whilst I am away could you say if you disagree and why you do. So that I know what I can do to assist you to see it in a reasonable and objective way. Or that you may assist me to change my own opinions ...this is why it is great to debate things. It helps everyone and there are no losers. You just all get a more optimal view after all information is analysed.

@ nutildah please allow the adults room to discuss. I can't waste time on snakes like you. I notice you ran away from my last debate with you like a total pussy. Stop derailing this sensible and interesting thread with your politically driven rantings and childish pics.

Yes well I will be on vacation actually for long time so although I like to enjoy myself I will selflessly make time to defend the forum and persons right to free speech from snakes like yourself. Generosity like this may seem insane to someone like yourself.

[SaltySpitoon]

Can you briefly explain this statement or expand upon it.

Merit sources are the only ones bound to rules, people are free to do whatever they want with their own merits if they are not a merit source. If User A wants to give User B 500 merits for liking lemons (sorry had to do it) they are free too, because they earned the SMerits they have. If they are using the Smerits given to them by the forum as a pillar of the merit system to award to people for reasons laid out before applying as a merit source, they are held to higher scrutiny.

Example: Merit sources cannot sell merit. Non merit sources can sell merit, but people will negative tag them.

[Foxpup]

This post is actually a good example of exactly what I am talking about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086816.msg48752174#msg48752174

Foxpup one of the main political merit givers and cyclers gives you 2 merits for that pile of junk telling me liking lemons is quite a just reason for me getting red trust.

This has been proven to be nonsense as per theymos last post regarding DT and of course was a diabolical post that would render trust scores a complete joke.

Now he gives you 2 points for political reasons.

Actually it was for good use of hyperbole for rhetorical effect. Nobody (well, nobody with a brain) would take the lemon example literally. In fact, nobody did: you got your red trust for reasons entirely unrelated to your liking of lemons. Exactly what political motives do you think I had?

[qwk]

I await qwk to also tell if if all points where he has put "opinion" if he refutes or supports that opinion.

In most cases, I simply couldn't care less and have no measurable opinion of my own
I was just pointing out where you don't follow your own requirement of a "fact" based post.
Opinions are by definition not facts.

Please edit your post so I can see which ones need full attention first. Because the ones if there are any you agree with are those I can leave until later.

I don't usually edit my posts (well, tbh, I actually often edit them within the fist minutes of posting, to fix typos etc.).

Actually qwk if you disagree whilst I am away could you say if you disagree and why you do. So that I know what I can do to assist you to see it in a reasonable and objective way. Or that you may assist me to change my own opinions

I never felt compelled to change someones opinion.
If we disagree, we disagree, I'm okay with that.
As long as there's a respectful exchange of ideas, I'm a happy cat.

[qwk]

Example: Merit sources cannot sell merit.

They can. They must not. I'm such a stickler for semantics

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If they are using the Smerits given to them by the forum as a pillar of the merit system to award to people for reasons laid out before applying as a merit source, they are held to higher scrutiny.

I'm still waiting to be accused of giving merits to lower-ranked accounts as a means of somehow politically influencing them to be on "my side".  That accusation hasn't come yet, but it seems to be the next logical step for cryptohunter and the rest of the trolls.  The members on that list of his are never going to do anything right in the trolls' minds, regardless of what those members do.

         Foxpup -
         Lauda -
         The Pharmacist -
         marlboroza
         owlcatz
         suchmoon
         Coolcryptovator
         DireWolfM14
         Hhampuz
         Jet Cash
         LoyceV
         TMAN
         o_e_l_e_o
         xtraelv

These members are all pretty good posters overall, and there are many others too.  It shouldn't be surprising that they've earned quite a bit of merit for their efforts.  I'd also point out (again) that the number of sMerits I've given to these members as a percentage of the total amount I've given out is, I think, relatively small.  I have not done the math and am only speaking for myself here.

Most of the merits I've given have not been source merits, either.  The vast majority of sMerits I've given to anyone on the above list have been ones I've earned.  I only got made a merit source a few months ago, and my allotment was pretty small to begin with.  And take a look at the number of members who aren't on this list that I've merited; you'll hardly see evidence of abuse.

[Jet Cash]

If Theymos had a "political" bias, then he would have banned Crypto Hunter.

I admit that I have a subjective approach to the awarding of merits - I only award them to people that I think are contributing to the forum in a positive way. I apologise to Crypto Hunter that I don't include him in that category.

I am also aware that I am awarding sMerits to posters in threads that I have started, and I would like to reduce this, and spread the merits to a wider range of posters. I would be grateful if Crypto Hunter ( and others)  could start some quality threads about Bitcoin and the new government backed cryptos. The proposed gold backed Iranian one could be a good start.

[Alone055]

Did anyone else also skipped the thread after reading the first paragraph and started reading the comments to get a glimpse of what is the point of all this? 


P.S: Does anyone from that list need this? Let me know.

[cryptohunter]

If Theymos had a "political" bias, then he would have banned Crypto Hunter.

I admit that I have a subjective approach to the awarding of merits - I only award them to people that I think are contributing to the forum in a positive way. I apologise to Crypto Hunter that I don't include him in that category.

I am also aware that I am awarding sMerits to posters in threads that I have started, and I would like to reduce this, and spread the merits to a wider range of posters. I would be grateful if Crypto Hunter ( and others)  could start some quality threads about Bitcoin and the new government backed cryptos. The proposed gold backed Iranian one could be a good start.

I understand that you believe that fighting for an transparent objective and fair system renders me negative to the way you wish things to continue.

Where as I can demonstrate clearly that you are terrified to review observable fact of a lie by another DT member and comment on it. Once again that is far more telling and far more net negative that fighting for clear and transparent criteria that ensures fair treatment for all.

Alone55 please refer to my local rules.

Your attempts to call anything trolling that does not fit with your politics is quite evident and revealing.

[Hhampuz]

Interesting post cryptohunter, I had you on ignore but had to take it off so that I could reply in here.

Would you mind pointing out on what sort of posts I've received substantial (Out of my 645 earned merits) amounts of merit due to political views? I'd truly appreciate that.

Considering you are all about facts this shouldn't be hard for you to supply.

[r1s2g3]

Did anyone else also skipped the thread after reading the first paragraph and started reading the comments to get a glimpse of what is the point of all this? 

I am not even reading the comments too. I lost the interest in reading whatever the CH is alleging and whatever other are defending.
I think it is now become a cycle.

I am just trying to find if Theymos replied or not.