Who exactly told theymos to change the threshold to 250 cycled merits?

[cryptohunter]

Local rules - anyone can reply who can substantiate their post with observable events or facts. No person can voice opinion without presenting credible evidence to substantiate it. Else I would like their post removed like mine always are even when they are on topic, relevant and supported with credible evidence or observable events.


Originally I noticed the DT new mechanism hinged upon they key positions of 100 earned merits.

Who here told coaxed Theymos to up it to 250 earned merits?

My money is on suchmoon? seems to have too much influence here like instructing him to remove my merits from an objectively merit worthy post that stood worthy of merit (compared to most of the trash she merits) regardless of honest intent as specified by the merit source.

My question remains unanswered as to what the reasoning is on upping it to that level since we know that centralises it greatly to the same people that ride the merit-merry-go-round

What is the point of making a pseudo decentralised system that actually just centralises it and places firm control of DT into the hands of those that observably

1. cycle merits amongst themselves.
2. collude to include each other on DT
3. collude to exclude mostly the same members from DT
4. Can be seen discussing and colluding if key trust support should be pulled or given depending on others trust lists essentially cherry picking who they want in the trust system.
5. Wtf has merit got to do with trust? A long history here is far more important. Since if you have not done anything untrustworthy for 5 years then you are more trustworthy than those getting merits from proven untrustworthy persons for supporting their agendas and ideologies to me. Also that account is far more valuable since it will take years to replace -- no short cuts. So if you are risking something far more valuable then you are less likely to scam.


This is not decentralising it it is centralising it and at the same time allowing free speech to be crushed on this board.



I would like to know

1. who told theymos to raise to 250 merits?
2. why it would not be better to make it 100 earned merits + 1500 activity or even 2000 activity?
3. some trading history perhaps??

It would then

1. decentralised DT far more
2. take much longer to power up an account for DT hence giving more history to examine before trusting
3. make it harder to collude for the observable colluders in the merit-merry-go-round
4. free speech gets a break from the jack boot of the merit/dt colluders.
5. If you have been here years you are far more likely to be wealthy and not need to scam like noobs. Your account is also far far harder to replace now. You are talking years not just a few months like some DT have been here.


Let's revise it to 100 earned merits and 1500 activity. That is a much more important account to lose and will become more so over time.

I see a bunch of noobs on DT that have no place being there only to serve their merit merry go round masters and serve their direct will. They have no history to examine and their accounts are not worth much in terms of replication. Some are barely snr members?

The entire thing is observable ludicrous.

The old system was far better than this.

Even up it to 2000 activity hence if you are proven untrustworthy and black listed then that is going to be YEARS to replace that account under a sock.

Throw in the requirement for 50 successful trades if you want.  Although of course that can be gamed.

It can all be gamed to an extent it is just making it harder and harder to game that is the key.

I see ZERO improvement here so far using this new pseudo decentralised system for trust. Let's revise it to be truly decentralised. Let's get some sensible elder members on DT and those that have ZERO untrustworthy deeds in their OWN history here.

You don't have judges who are proven previous criminals do you? or proven liars? or those that clearly demonstrate sneaky and greedy actions for financial reward?? wtf is this board turning into?  These people should be the ones glowing red not the ones painting honest members accounts red and only allowing their "pals" onto DT to condone and add support to their wrongdoing.

I've been watching this and now that this bunch of colluders are firmly entrenched in the DT system there is no way to see them removed unless by their own will. Since they are all mostly "merit" sources too the entire thing is completely ludicrous.




 

[Jet Cash]

I like the concept of merit recycling, so I've changed my personal text to reflect this.

[DooMAD]

The original proposal was 100 earned merits.  The first time someone appeared to question the rationale behind that appears to be this post by LFC_Bitcoin.  Then o_e_l_e_o commented here that it was "not a particularly high bar to be set".  The first reference I can find to 250 merits is TMAN's post here.

I think it's unlikely any one person specifically instructed theymos to change it, but with several people calling it into question, it probably prompted a judgement call.

[nutildah]

I like the concept of merit recycling, so I've changed my personal text to reflect this.

I broke the cycle and gave you a merit.

I think it's unlikely any one person specifically instructed theymos to change it, but with several people calling it into question, it probably prompted a judgement call.

We have to keep in mind that the merit system has only been around for a year and a couple months. So, 250 may seem like a lot now, but a year from now it might not seem like that at all.

[Quickseller]

Perhaps he reviewed how the new system would work and adjusted accordingly.

[suchmoon]

LOL, I'm not gonna quote the OP out of respect for those who have her on ignore but if I have such enormous influence over theymos I'd like to ask him to change her rank from Legendary to Whiny Bitch.

The requested 100 merit / 2000 activity threshold fits the OP's account and doesn't fit some other accounts whom the OP has a grudge against. What a coincidence. Not sure though if the OP grasps the difference between voting for DT1 and being eligible for DT. Probably not.

[theyoungmillionaire]

Don’t know about you guys, someone did PMed me to join a group of people wanting to oust DT1. I don’t want to join any group, I just want to have some chill chill way of reading and do whatever I want here. Some people are excited on testing Epochtalk (I’m one of them), and still at this juncture are some people talking about merit + DT1, you can try and test it here -> https://www.cryptos-currencies.com. Feel enthusiastic on new stuff. I know you want change, you’re not a shitposter (IMO), you can do better than these.

Feels like some people here are living in an era wherein they want change, but, they are not doing anything to change it and just do some activities that will hindrance that change they want. Managing forum is not easy; voice out what you think is right is enough, stop reverberating it – like a broken record.

I am not against OP or group of people - the situation.

[crwth]

Don’t know about you guys, someone did PMed me to join a group of people wanting to oust DT1. I don’t want to join any group, I just want to have some chill chill way of reading and do whatever I want here.

I'm not sure what I'm going to feel about that, focusing on ousting from DT1 or something. I support your stand in not joining any group or something. It's best to watch and eat popcorn, lol.

Some people are excited on testing Epochtalk (I’m one of them), and still at this juncture are some people talking about merit + DT1, you can try and test it here -> https://www.cryptos-currencies.com. Feel enthusiastic on new stuff.

I'm just seeing this now and I know that there is the plan to have a new forum or something. I visited the link and I have seen familiar usernames there. I joined it also but didn't post anything yet, just read some stuff.

Feels like some people here are living in an era wherein they want change, but, they are not doing anything to change it and just do some activities that will hindrance that change they want. Managing forum is not easy; voice out what you think is right is enough, stop reverberating it – like a broken record.

I think that this is a natural way of life. It happens in the real world, in a country, a state, a city, and wherever there are differences towards individuals in how the ruling power rules or something. If it's the right thing, it will go right, but if not then it won't.

[The Cryptovator]

So you will not stop DT-talk and Merit-talk. Do you? Your total concept based on remove new faces from DT1. 250 earned merit is not better than 100 earned merit? So why you always mention about activity? Lot of account here with more then 1500+ activity but they didn't earned a single merit. So he is newbie in my opinions since already 1 year+ merit system implemented. What kind of trading history are you want to suggest? Forum isn't involved with any trading and I don't think it will happen on future. No one told theymos to increase 250 merit, its came out from discussion. And theymos have enough knowledge to take decision.

As suchmoon said you want only eligible yourself on voting system . Still you could vote 11 DT1 by 10 merit each. Learn to stay happy with whatever you have.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Its ironic that OP asks such a loaded question with no proof that Theymos was told to do anything, yet requires posts here to offer proof to back up whatever is stated.

I don't think it's likely that Theymos was listening to anyone in particular when he made the 250 merit thing.  He's always struck me as the type of person who reads suggestions and weighs the pros and cons but who usually does something that only resembles what was suggested.  He's certainly bright enough to have come up with that figure on his own, and I think that's exactly what happened.

Did cryptohunter and his posse really expect to immediately take over DT?  That sounds like extremely delusional thinking, and if you need a reference for a history of that, just take a quick glance at his post history, which I won't bother to link to since I'm writing this on my phone.

[cryptohunter]

Hmmm

So I see in this thread so far.

1. No rebuttal to my claims that 100 merits + 2000 activity (1500min) is superior in the terms that I already laid out.
2. A bunch of merit cyclers that benefit from these easily gamed and subjective systems making false claims as to why I am suggesting that it should be changed to 100 merits + 2000 activity.
3. Some noob ass lickers (@coolcryptovator merit source wannabe)  telling me they are to be trusted more than some legends I have known here for nearly 6 years who have held at points millions of dollars of crypto and never once abused that. Whilst making false statements to ass lick his master suchmoon. CAN YOU GUESS WHO IS TOP MERIT FAN IS??? YES YOU HAVE IT ---SUCHMOON?? the merit merry-go-round (not political at all)
4. People commenting here who are proven untrustworthy and have no place commenting on a trust system.
5. Jetcash an observable joke of a member who is terrified of even reviewing evidence of wrong doing (yeah great one for DT and merit source)


@The Pharmacist AKA Huge Black Woman - Merit source and DT1

Can you give me one reason I should believe anything that you say since you are a proven greedy sneaky devious racist trolling sig spammer using sock puppets to grind more btc dust from this board?

Someone who claims his crowning achievement here is joining a "highly paid sig campaign"  ?

I thought I was on ignore? what happened with that?

How do you have the bare faced effrontery to even comment on a trust system? and when I see you lecturing others on financially motivated shit posting I keep thinking your account must be hacked or you have lost your mind entirely.

Keep spamming  your sig under those net negative shit posts and you will soon have enough to afford another computer. How are you staking your  pivX that I sold you? on your phone?

@suchmoron

I see another false claim from you here again. I have said I have no desire to be on DT at all ever. So that nulls your latest piece of net negative dirt you have contributed to the board. Let's change it on the proviso that I am auto blacklisted from DT ( i have no time for snitching around for small time shit like you all day - I tackle scams as I always have HEAD ON  not crying here on meta and snitching to higher authorities)  Never mind whiny bitch "Alex", now that I have seen what you (apparently don't) look like then we should change your rank to drab snitchy bitch.

Also you told me in black and white that good poster /bad poster were MEANINGLESS without criteria and definition?? Now you want to use merit as some objective score with that means great poster and indicates the level of trust you can place on them?? Please bitch stop contradicting yourself over and over in public.

Again - I thought I was on ignore? what happened?

So again. Present a sensible argument for why we have 250 merits for key trust determining positions when it is observably gamed cycled junk that is misleading with regards post quality and has nothing to do with trust)

As if any system would provide.

1. financial motive for abuse
2. no framework at all to guard against abuse
3. reward the abusers with the potential to crush free speech and silence dissenters ?
4. assign trust to those that observably game and abuse the systems the most LOL


Let's just remove merit for anything other than leveling up past snr
Lets make DT 100 earned merits and 2000 activity + some observable trading activity if you want.

[ABCbits]

Let's revise it to 100 earned merits and 1500 activity. That is a much more important account to lose and will become more so over time.

I have better suggestion, all members can vote (with small requirement to prevent abuse), but have different vote weight/power which based on sigmoid function. The hard part would be choosing which function is used and set it's notation value.

But DT system can't be perfect and most of user's suggestion only change or add more attack vectors.

I see ZERO improvement here so far using this new pseudo decentralised system for trust. Let's revise it to be truly decentralised. Let's get some sensible elder members on DT and those that have ZERO untrustworthy deeds in their OWN history here.

I'll just requote my own post. TLDR : DT system has always been and will be centralized.

A few years back it was way more decentralised than now.I remember reading the rules mprep posted and was facinated about the thinking this board had.

DT system has always been centralized, theymos always could forcefully remove/add any member into DT1/DT2, change DT algorithm and remove feedback without anyone agreement/consent.

P.S. i'm not saying theymos is evil or tyrant, but proving DT system has always been centralized

[cryptohunter]

Let's revise it to 100 earned merits and 1500 activity. That is a much more important account to lose and will become more so over time.

I have better suggestion, all members can vote (with small requirement to prevent abuse), but have different vote weight/power which based on sigmoid function. The hard part would be choosing which function is used and set it's notation value.

But DT system can't be perfect and most of user's suggestion only change or add more attack vectors.

I see ZERO improvement here so far using this new pseudo decentralised system for trust. Let's revise it to be truly decentralised. Let's get some sensible elder members on DT and those that have ZERO untrustworthy deeds in their OWN history here.

I'll just requote my own post. TLDR : DT system has always been and will be centralized.

A few years back it was way more decentralised than now.I remember reading the rules mprep posted and was facinated about the thinking this board had.

DT system has always been centralized, theymos always could forcefully remove/add any member into DT1/DT2, change DT algorithm and remove feedback without anyone agreement/consent.

P.S. i'm not saying theymos is evil or tyrant, but proving DT system has always been centralized

I would rather have it centralised where one person whom is fully accountable and seemingly fair (and does not overly set to silence free speech)  has total control of a trust system than I would see it pseudo decentralised to a bunch of people that contain many proven untrustworthy persons of ill repute who will try to use red trust for selfish means.

I care nothing for being on DT or merit source. I will willingly be blacklisted from all that if we can construct systems of control here that are not being used to silence free speech.

Theymos although seemingly taken in by the likes of suchmoon and even lauda and overtly and openly calls such double standards untrustworthy scum "excellent members" he himself does not seem to want to silence free speech because he could quite easily do so.  I would rather have 1 person who is fairer (albeit in my opinion mislead in key areas by observably untrustworthy and rotten scum) have control of a trust system rather than hand it off to a bunch of persons that are crushing free speech.

I have been told as I have said some legends and other members support what I am saying but fear to speak out for themselves. This board must not allow this kind of sentiment. People must be free to say what the fuck they like as long as they are not scamming or promoting scamming projects or ripping people off - then they must not be silenced or threatened with red trust for saying things that goes against a small group of persons personal agendas. Absolutely they must not get red trust for presenting facts regarding the wrong doing of those that are part of the DT system.


Having said all of that. If we have to have it decentralised let us at least make a real attempt at making it decentralised and not wide open to gaming and abuse motivated by self rewards that result in free speech being crushed and a pseudo decentralised dangerous system. Let's tighten it up or go back to Theymos says who is in the trust system and he puts clear guidelines for red trust and also hopefully criteria a post must meet to be merit worthy.

I accept that we just change the attack vectors but surely we can make it harder to abuse that it currently is. It is wide open and offers motive and reward for doing so.

[OgNasty]

Who here told Theymos to up it to 250 earned merits?

I don't think theymos needs to be told anything.  I also assume that he spends much more time looking at the data than most, and likely is just trying to make the best decision in the interests of the forum.

[cryptohunter]

Who here told Theymos to up it to 250 earned merits?

I don't think theymos needs to be told anything.  I also assume that he spends much more time looking at the data than most, and likely is just trying to make the best decision in the interests of the forum.

Really? well i notice suchmoon told him to remove my merits and he did it. So needing to be told is one thing but allowing yourself to be cajoled has the same outcome.

I don't doubt this. However trying is not always the same as doing. Perhaps "together" the board can help analyse this "data" and provide a better system. I see no reason at all for "merit" being the sole determinant for the key positions in a trust system. This simply places the key positions with those that have proven once that they will selfishly hoard and cycle merits as we have established happens... but the explanation is simply we find each other to be the best posters in ....well our opinion.

Hence why we have proven untrustworthy scum in these key positions.
Better to have no systems than systems that reward untrustworthy persons and allow them to stifle the free speech of honest members whilst being rewarded for their foul actions.

I would like to see the NEGATIVES for making it 100 earned merits + 2000 (perhaps 1500) activity. Plus perhaps some trading activity.

[LoyceV]

making it 100 earned merits + 2000 (perhaps 1500) activity.

Would the users with 10 Merit also require 1500 Activity to have a vote? If you make clear criteria, I'll get you a DT1-election: Rank up pipeline that fits your ideas.

[cryptohunter]

making it 100 earned merits + 2000 (perhaps 1500) activity.

Would the users with 10 Merit also require 1500 Activity to have a vote? If you make clear criteria, I'll get you a DT1-election: Rank up pipeline that fits your ideas.

No. That would be only for the key positions.

Although perhaps a 3-6 month min activity should be considered for those. This to me does not seem so important. Although tightening it up wherever possible if you want REAL "trust" to be a factor could be suitable. Then again unless they are posting on meta or got lucky with some really notable thread the 10 merits should take care of this especially on the boards most REAL noob enthusiasts will be posting the discussion boards or ann section.

[DooMAD]

I see no reason at all for "merit" being the sole determinant for the key positions in a trust system.

You might not see a reason, but other people did.  That's not something you can simply disregard.  And then some people expressed their view that it might warrant being a larger amount of merit than initially suggested, just as a precaution.  It's also worth pointing out that the posts I linked to earlier had no hostility in their tone.  It was merely people demonstrating concern for the overall well-being of the forum and not wanting to see this new system easily gamed or manipulated.  Perhaps that's a view you share, but you're going about it in a very caustic and abrasive way.  There's no need to turn this into a witch-hunt by finding a culprit to blame for the way in which it changed.  I'm sure all the salient points will be evaluated and reviewed, but I don't think your current approach to the issue is doing your cause any favours.  Clearly you feel strongly about the matter, but from what I've seen of your various posts about this, it only seems to provoke hostility from others in return towards you.

It's undoubtedly something theymos is keeping an eye on, as they stated this was a 'see-how-it-goes' kinda deal:

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

[cryptohunter]

I see no reason at all for "merit" being the sole determinant for the key positions in a trust system.

You might not see a reason, but other people did.  That's not something you can simply disregard.  And then some people expressed their view that it might warrant being a larger amount of merit than initially suggested, just as a precaution.  It's also worth pointing out that the posts I linked to earlier had no hostility in their tone.  It was merely people demonstrating concern for the overall well-being of the forum and not wanting to see this new system easily gamed or manipulated.  Perhaps that's a view you share, but you're going about it in a very caustic and abrasive way.  There's no need to turn this into a witch-hunt by finding a culprit to blame for the way in which it changed.  I'm sure all the salient points will be evaluated and reviewed, but I don't think your current approach to the issue is doing your cause any favours.  Clearly you feel strongly about the matter, but from what I've seen of your various posts about this, it only seems to provoke hostility from others in return towards you.

It's undoubtedly something theymos is keeping an eye on, as they stated this was a 'see-how-it-goes' kinda deal:

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

That is a very sensible post and I know actually it to be a truthful account of part of my current situation.

However let's analyse this.

1. Suggesting or debating anything in "meta" is not like discussing it with the entire board. The same few people hang out here who also happen to be the beneficiaries from the "merit" system. WHY? because meta board is merit board. You see more merit handed out here for discussing "merit" than anywhere else. So discussing the importance of "merit" here with those that are the main beneficiaries of the "merit" system is going to be met with a lot of replies about how important merit is for everything under the sun.  

2. Those persons commenting on how LOW 100 earned merits is for DT key positions are.
a/ part of the merit cycling club
b/ meta board posters (99% of the board don't know about meta board or never visit it)
c/ self confessed trust abusers and those that support proven liars and trust abusers knowingly.
d/ have self interest and motive to suggest a higher level
e/tman?? a provably demented and untrustworthy turd. He has never made one original thought inspiring important post ever. I asked him to provide one and he  vanished like a fart in a hurricane. The very notion that anything he says could be a "good" idea obviously ranges anywhere between very unlikely through highly improbable to basically impossible.

3/ Those persons saying that 100 is too low are not considering the activity threshold of 1500 or 2000 so really we can't say they provided any insight into why "merit" alone should have anything to do with trust or why it could be "better" than combining "merit" with activity.


I agree with you that I take a caustic tone of late. However, review my post history for the previous 6 years and you will find that I generally only take this tone with persons that I consider scammers, untrustworthy or that take that tone with me first. I am the victim of blatant trust abuse and will not even consider altering my tone until those scum bags are removed from DT or they undo their trust abuse.  Even then my opinion that those that have demonstrated they are untrustworthy (liars, trust abusers, sneaky sock puppet sig spammers ) or if they are knowingly supporters of untrustworthy persons should be kept away from positions of trust will never change. There is no shortage of legends with clean (free from observably untrustworthy deeds and actions) pasts on this board... we are not that desperate that we need proven liars and self confessed trust abusers and other dirt bags in positions of trust.

Tone though to me should be secondary to content. So I hope those really wanting the best for this board and wish to see free speech flourish here take note of what is currently happening with this board. Regardless of the manner the information is presented. Find the truth that is all that is important.

There are 3 simple options here

1. tighten up the systems to prevent abuse
2. make sure those that would try to abuse them are not part of the systems of control
3. remove the systems

as i warned previously these systems of control set up as they are very dangerous for this movement, better to have no systems of control at all (trust)

merit is good at stopping account farmers. In its current state (merit) it is dangerous to apply any other meaning to it.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Firstly it's a new DT system therefore using activity will just favour a particular set of forum users (early forum users). That's why the merit is been used. With the merit criteria any set of users can be voted into the DT system be them old or new users. Which makes it fair and decentralized to me since theymos doesn't have a say only the community can decide who's voted in or out.