There should be a public general elections on the DTs

[tmfp]

I don't really understand the logic behind selecting DT members or having an election in the first place. It's very easy you see, you spend some time on the forum...

I think it's an attempt by Theymos to make relevant and dynamic the Default Settings that newbies see.

[1715157296]

1715157296

[gwsukabokepjepang]

All i can say is he will continue to scam more people.
If you don't believe, come back again next month with a proof of his sally transactions.

I don't know how could you think "VINSIN" will continue his scam. But i can assure you here in the bitcointalk it will be so much tough for him mate.

Active DT team and trustworthy members are always here to keep our users safe from scammers. There's no way if you don't give him money for free.  

My post is constantly getting deleted.

[HCP]

My post is constantly getting deleted.

You do realise that not all DT members are moderators right? Moderators are directly appointed by Theymos. There is not way to be "voted" in as a moderator like their is with DT(2).

If your posts are being deleted by a moderator, then you are more than likely breaking one of the posting rules (multiple posts in a row/off topic/trolling etc). I've had plenty of my posts deleted over the years don't take it personally.

If you have posted in a self-moderated thread, the thread creator is free to delete posts as they see fit...

[shasan]

My post is constantly getting deleted.

Your posts should be deleted because you are breaking forum rules. And you should know forum rules breaking post should not stay live. For reference see my quoted post below:

And i find it suspicious that the admin starts to delete some of my feedback.

Your posts are getting deleted because you're breaking the rules. Tends to be a common trait among those who whine a lot about how unfair this forum is to them.

[2double0]

I don't really understand the logic behind selecting DT members or having an election in the first place. It's very easy you see, you spend some time on the forum, find a few members who you consider trustworthy or reliable or rational and then add them to your list? You can remove everyone else from the list that you don't trust. Instead of changing the system, change your trust settings babe.

I don't find anything wrong with the elections logic of some users here, but it should be limited to DT and some other highly trusted users only to vote for a new member to be included in DT (understand my words clearly, I said new member and not newbie).

What I'm trying to say is there should be a list compiled by DT members themselves which must be made public, and it should be restricted to DT and highly trusted members only to make them only capable of voting for a new user they think can add more value to the forum. I mean anyone who is helping the forum in any way should be considered to take part in DT elections.

[actmyname]

I don't find anything wrong with the elections logic of some users here, but it should be limited to DT and some other highly trusted users only to vote for a new member to be included in DT (understand my words clearly, I said new member and not newbie).

What I'm trying to say is there should be a list compiled by DT members themselves which must be made public, and it should be restricted to DT and highly trusted members only to make them only capable of voting for a new user they think can add more value to the forum. I mean anyone who is helping the forum in any way should be considered to take part in DT elections.

I disagree. Your proposal increases centralization and is based on subjective whims. These cannot be categorically identified and are they will only be propagated by those of current-DT status which is a feedback loop you don't want to see.

[2double0]

I disagree. Your proposal increases centralization and is based on subjective whims. These cannot be categorically identified and are they will only be propagated by those of current-DT status which is a feedback loop you don't want to see.

Don't you think you are putting too much weight on the word 'centralization' here? I'm talking about DT and highly trusted members' votes only. And if you think that they will do it based on their personal emotions over this, then I ask you that who will vote to whom and why? Do they personally know each other? Will they vote under the influence that the member belongs to their country, caste, creed, race or whatever? Well, if this is to happen and if that's what you call 'centralization' here, I can say that even DT members can't be trusted then because based on your words, some of them may also be corrupt. Am I correct?

[actmyname]

Don't you think you are putting too much weight on the word 'centralization' here?

Absolutely not.

I'm talking about DT and highly trusted members' votes only. And if you think that they will do it based on their personal emotions over this

Essentially, you want DT to select future DT members.

I don't like that idea.

[2double0]

I'm talking about DT and highly trusted members' votes only. And if you think that they will do it based on their personal emotions over this

Essentially, you want DT to select future DT members.

I don't like that idea.

Which is why I'm asking this again and again that can't even DT members be trusted for this? Nonetheless, nothing will happen based on what we say and what we think, it's the admins' decision we will be following. Still, I think there is nothing wrong in asking their opinion on whom to be added to the DT members list, may it be public or in an encrypted format and only be seen by the admins.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Which is why I'm asking this again and again that can't even DT members be trusted for this?

It's not a question of trust. It's a question of bias. Even if you completely trust me (for example) to vote/select users based on what I think is best for the forum, I am more likely to select users whose views more closely align with my own than those whose views significantly differ. Everyone holds biases, intentional or not. Multiply that up a couple of times, and you are left with DT becoming an echo chamber of self-reinforcing ideas. This is not an optimal solution.

Still, I think there is nothing wrong in asking their opinion on whom to be added to the DT members list, may it be public or in an encrypted format and only be seen by the admins.

These data are already available by looking at each DT1 user's personal trust list here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt

[cryptohunter]

I'm talking about DT and highly trusted members' votes only. And if you think that they will do it based on their personal emotions over this

Essentially, you want DT to select future DT members.

I don't like that idea.

Which is why I'm asking this again and again that can't even DT members be trusted for this? Nonetheless, nothing will happen based on what we say and what we think, it's the admins' decision we will be following. Still, I think there is nothing wrong in asking their opinion on whom to be added to the DT members list, may it be public or in an encrypted format and only be seen by the admins.

This already happens most DT1 are the only ones that have cycled enough merits to vote (key votes) who stays in the trust system.

If you have 10 merit then you have some pseudo influence.

If you want an election process then the entire board needs to be able to vote (except proven/strongly suspected scammers)

DT is not really the issue. self awarded cycled merit is the problem that breaks the entire systems of control here. If merit was given based on strict criteria for valuable posts then that would help. However, I am still not sure wtf merit has to do with trust. This should be based on persons that have done 100x of trades and not scammed when they may have had prior opportunity to do so.

[endlasuresh]

Here election is also major worse since a ballot can be tampered by our well known DT scammers. It's a waste of time as so many had multiple accounts for voting scammers.
Nothing works unless the admin is in real mood.

[actmyname]

Here election is also major worse since a ballot can be tampered by our well known DT scammers. It's a waste of time as so many had multiple accounts for voting scammers.
Nothing works unless the admin is in real mood.

The pot is always blacker on the other side.

Wait...

[HCP]

So many pots... so many kettles... not nearly enough popcorn!

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So many pots... so many kettles... not nearly enough popcorn!

My thoughts exactly, and I miss the peace and quiet we've had for the past couple of weeks.  And I also think it's been pointed out that there already is a voting mechanism in place--the problem is that it doesn't please everyone.  But Theymos would be insane to try to make everybody happy when that can't be done.  He made the voting/DT as fair and as beneficial to the forum as he could, so the naysayers need to just suck it up or try to earn as many merits as they can. 

The constant bitching isn't doing much of anything except making scunter et al look like buffoons, but they don't see that.  If the community at large really felt strongly in their favor, they'd have no problem getting those merits, but that hasn't happened.  That should tell you something.