[scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting

[kken01]

sage advice from theymos on cryptohunter:

My opinion is that I'm not going to waste time reading your huge, rambly, low-content posts which you post everywhere.

[1715066815]

1715066815

[1715066815]

1715066815

[1715066815]

1715066815

[mikeywith]

nice work , but i thought cryptohunter wanted a change of voters not who would be eligible for DT.

for an example someone like me with over 250 merit but less than 1.5k activities , my vote shouldn't add to anyone.

so if someone needs 2 members with 250 merit + 1.5K activity then he won't benefit from his inclusion in my trust list as oppose to the current system.

 

[LoyceMobile]

nice work , but i thought cryptohunter wanted a change of voters not who would be eligible for DT.

That's what I did. Big surprise, high Activity users also vote for the same users.

[mikeywith]

That's what I did. Big surprise, high Activity users also vote for the same users.

so not even DT2 list would have a many changes if those new requirements were to be applied.

to be honest i did imagine i would see something like that, i just didn't think it would be this much similar 

[cryptohunter]

And there I was thinking about suggesting to have him banned from Meta and Reputation only. He'll be much happier that way

Loyce ——>

Facts based post

So it goes like this -


1/Loyce comes  to my thread (ignoring my local rules) and inserts a link to his new thread instead of just answering it on the original thread like i challenged him to do. I mean my local rules specify that anyone can post if the present their case on my thread. He does not he just links to it on his own thread.

2/ Loyce then creates a thread that
a/ makes false claims about me and my motives (not that they are relevant)
b/ presents a specious conclusion based on my proposal

3/Loyce then tells me I can not post on this thread because my reply was off topic
(It was on topic and was I answering his accusations and specious and misleading conclusions)

4. I tell him it was on topic and then challenged him and the other ass kisser asche telling me it was off topic to present a case as to why it was off topic. If they can then I guess it will be removed or I will adjust it.

5. Loyce pretends I am on ignore but then has somehow read the post where I said I need a few more hours sleep just after that. Also says he has not read the post anyway so how to know it is off topic??

6. Neither Loyce or the other ass kisser comes back with any case to demonstrate I was offtopic (because obviously it was not)

7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway) from presenting challenges he will not or can not meet.


This is just a prime example of how these people-- (Yes I mean most of you on meta) operate.

So back on topic (not that defending myself against accusations can be off topic since it was stated in the OP) and as I have said I am sure you can not base much on these predictive models since people could well change their lists as the system is changed.

You know what -- if Theymos started blacklisting people that  did not stick to red trusting

a/ scammers
b/ strongly likely to scam

then that could set an example and people may start using the system for its intended purposes rather than to prevent persons mentioning their untrustworthy prior deeds that are there for all to observe.

Sadly though. I happen to believe that if you are willing to sit there and sanction and support these kind of untrustworthy persons then you yourself become untrustworthy. Together these actions are impinging on the free speech of all members. Yes, I know this for a fact because others have told me they are not happy but will not speak up for fear of reprisals and having their account painted red.

I will likely not contribute further (or not too much) to this particular thread since I can tell my mere presence is distracting to all my admirers here that are starting to show up one by one.

[suchmoon]

7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway)

So nice of you to admit sockpuppeting.

if Theymos started blacklisting people

So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure.

[cryptohunter]

7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway)

So nice of you to admit sockpuppeting.

if Theymos started blacklisting people

So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure.

Nothing - has been debunked

You are drawing false and misleading conclusions again. Perhaps I can just hire a secretary to post on my behalf. If that is not permitted then I will just ask my close friends who share my sensible opinions based upon observable events to continue my righteous work.

But do you now say sock puppets and those that use them are untrustworthy too? I wonder at your answer here??

I already said this end part before concerning theymos blacklisting trust abusers. Before this "debunking" (not debunking at all) so again your nonsense is observable.

Please stop derailing the thread.

Please contain yourself snitchy bitch.

[bones261]

if Theymos started blacklisting people

So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure.

I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted.

[cryptohunter]

if Theymos started blacklisting people

So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure.

I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted.

So the false speculations and assumptions just keep pouring in.

Do you ever stop to think before posting pure drivel?

You can only be blacklisted for abusing trust.

Your job as a DT is (as far as red trust is concerned)

1. red trust scammers
2. red trust persons STRONGLY likely to scam

you red trust others you are blacklisted.

Trust abusers are banned it is quite simple.

Stop asskissing suchmoon, huge black woman etc... it's sickening.

[bones261]

if Theymos started blacklisting people

So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure.

I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted.

So the false speculations and assumptions just keep pouring in.

Do you ever stop to think before posting pure drivel?

You can only be blacklisted for abusing trust.

Your job as a DT is (as far as red trust is concerned)

1. red trust scammers
2. red trust persons STRONGLY likely to scam

you red trust others you are blacklisted.

Trust abusers are banned it is quite simple.

Stop asskissing suchmoon, huge black woman etc... it's sickening.

You make it seem like that is a total black and white decision. It isn't. Especially when you add some vague qualifier such as "strongly." Do you mean more likely than not or do you mean beyond all doubt?

[suchmoon]

You make it seem like that is a total black and white decision. It isn't. Especially when you add some vague qualifier such as "strongly." Do you mean more likely than not or do you mean beyond all doubt?

It's obviously "if you disagree with CH you're a scammer".

[cryptohunter]

if Theymos started blacklisting people

So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure.

I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted.

So the false speculations and assumptions just keep pouring in.

Do you ever stop to think before posting pure drivel?

You can only be blacklisted for abusing trust.

Your job as a DT is (as far as red trust is concerned)

1. red trust scammers
2. red trust persons STRONGLY likely to scam

you red trust others you are blacklisted.

Trust abusers are banned it is quite simple.

Stop asskissing suchmoon, huge black woman etc... it's sickening.

You make it seem like that is a total black and white decision. It isn't. Especially when you add some vague qualifier such as "strongly." Do you mean more likely than not or do you mean beyond all doubt?

well these are Theymos own words are they not? I thought he said that recently in his guidelines.

I mean if you build a STRONG case someone is a scammer or going to scam then that obviously means it needs to be strong. If you are red trusting without believing you can present a STRONG case in Theymos's mind then you are risking getting blacklisted.

This will cut out the blatant abuse and petty arguments and he called me this I called him that crap that people think they can paint you with a scam tag for. Or perhaps because you said you enjoyed LEMON tea. BOOM you're blacklisted. People can express their like or dislike of a fucking lemon without fearing their account getting a scam tag. suchmoon can make false assumptions of me admitting I have a sock puppet and I can't red trust them for that. People can not use "scare quotes" and red list you because you thought these were "normal" quotes when they were apparently quoting what you just said 3 times in that sentence.. People can say what they like so long as they are not scamming people out of money or setting up a scam.

I mean really if someone offers escrow in a thread with little history anyone can post in that thread beware this person has little history and should be wary. Same for possible scam icos or anything "possible" just hit the thread saying this looks dodgy for X reasons and present the reasons. I never fought scams before by hiding away and snitching on them. Just hit them there hard and in the alt discussion board saying it looks like a scam and present the reasons why.

You could tell them if they are on self moderated  threads let you express your concerns on the thread and have them answered in public or then you feel that unwillingness to do this means they just crossed the threshold of "strongly" and will get some red pain until they change their minds.

There is no real reason to pain people red unless they scam or really appear to be setting up a scam. Call them out in public, if then they will not play ball... BOOM some red for them. It will then be their own fault.

No more using red trust to crush free and open discussion. This is not what red trust is for and certainly not for stopping persons telling the truth about other DT's prior wrong doing. That is the opposite of what red trust is for.

@suchmoon

Just contain yourself and make sensible posts that you can present some grounding for.

We know you are prone to making ludicrous statements that you are unable to present any kind of case for.

Take a moment to have a lay down. I think soon you will spiral into making "another" one of those types of claims.

I mean i see nothing on this entire thread except nonsense claims with no case behind them.

[DireWolfM14]

@LoyceV

Can you please put together the CH scenario?  That's the one where you're position on DT1 is calculated solely by the number of times you've posted the words "Abuse" and "Merit" in coherent, well constructed sentences.

[Quickseller]

All of these scenarios only tinker around the edges of the DT system, and as you you shown, will only have a minimal impact on who is on DT1.

The new DT system is such that those now on DT1 have slightly more influence/power as those who were previously on DT2 under the old system and those on DT2 under the new system have slightly less influence/power as they did under the old system.

I don't think it would be appropriate for a high activity requirement to be on DT1 as many people over the years have been able to show themselves to be trustworthy enough to be on DT (and understand the system) after being here for only several months. Perhaps a requirement to have 150, or 200 activity to be on DT1 would be appropriate, although I don't think it would affect who gets onto DT1 >99% of the time.  

IMO a better question that should be debated is if merit is an appropriate indicator for someone to be able to have influence on the trust system, and if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system (that is suppose to help those who do participate in the marketplace).

[LoyceMobile]

IMO a better question that should be debated is if merit is an appropriate indicator for someone to be able to have influence on the trust system

Probably not. But merit is a good method to keep account farmers out of DT-voting, and I think that's why theymos uses it.

[bones261]

well these are Theymos own words are they not? I thought he said that recently in his guidelines.

Actually, these are theymos' last words regarding this matter.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

   As stated by theymos, he does not desire blacklisting people that don't follow his views. It appears that if this does not work out, theymos is simply going to get rid of it entirely and enforce custom trust list. I also believe theymos is going to give this new system a try for more than a couple months before considering giving up on it. Perhaps he will tweek it a bit in the coming months. However, Loycev data suggests that this will only have a nominal effect. Therefore, given this data, increasing activity is likely not to be a tweek he will implement.
   As for your suggested approach to directly confront a potential scammer and then accelerating a response to eventually include red trust, I see nothing wrong with that approach. However, I also see nothing wrong with simply "snitching." Most law enforcement agencies that I know of use both approaches. When I was a bill collector, I frequently resorted to both overt and covert means to attempt to get the bill paid. Whatever works and did not violate the law was fair game.
    

[Quickseller]

IMO a better question that should be debated is if merit is an appropriate indicator for someone to be able to have influence on the trust system

Probably not. But merit is a good method to keep account farmers out of DT-voting, and I think that's why theymos uses it.

Using merit will prevent a farmer from voting many times with alt accounts, but only to the extent he does not receive merit.  If a farmer receives merit, they can effectively distribute that same number of merit to their alts in a circle (they may distribute less in order to avoid suspicion), and would potentially have an outsized influence on on is on DT.

Theymos has said he will blacklist anyone who is using alts to get into DT1

I have also argued in the past that I believe merit tends to be given to posts the person awarding the merit agrees with, which I predict will result in a cycle of those in power having more power, and any transgressions by those in power being overlooked.

Ultimately it comes down to:

if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system

[suchmoon]

Ultimately it comes down to:

if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system

Marketplace participation would be even easier to game than your theoretical merit circle. Go to the marketplace, post a thread, have your alts post in it, post some trade feedback... eligible to have influence now?

No to mention that business is done and scams happen outside of marketplace too (gambling, ICOs, etc). Merits at least can't be produced out of thin air by any random newbie and all transactions are public.

[cryptohunter]

Ultimately it comes down to:

if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system

Marketplace participation would be even easier to game than your theoretical merit circle. Go to the marketplace, post a thread, have your alts post in it, post some trade feedback... eligible to have influence now?

No to mention that business is done and scams happen outside of marketplace too (gambling, ICOs, etc). Merits at least can't be produced out of thin air by any random newbie and all transactions are public.

But then again no objective person who looks at the fans and recipients of you and your "pals" can believe it is "theoretical" it is clearly there in black and white. The merit merry-go-round.

Pull up the just the top 25 fans and recipients of you and the known "group of pals" each of your lists is riddled with each other. FACT

Match that with your

DT inclusions, the very similar "exclusions" and the way you all in "appear" in any threads calling anyone of you out on abuse or dare to suggest any changes to the systems of control you are gaming.

Nobody would consider that "theoretical" really if they are being sensible and did not have self interest in making it seem only "theoretical"

I would say persons acting in an observable close knit group like this are ripe for blacklisting immediately if you want a "decentralised" system.

You want a group of persons NOT likely to collude or the entire thing is pseudo decentralisation.

You have that with no punishment for flagrant abuse then you have a run away gang that can crush free speech in the name of catching a few 2 bit ico scammers. NOT WORTH IT.

[suchmoon]

whining

I'm still waiting for actual proof of wrongdoing, preferably in another thread to stop derailing this one. Doctored screenshots sent by your sockpuppets don't count.

For someone so bent on "fixing" the system you're awfully lazy when it comes to showing what needs to be fixed. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting as a result of your rambling. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting just because you don't like someone. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting to help you or your sockpuppets advance in "the systems of control". But if you can show someone actually "gaming" the system - like stingers did - you might see some action.

But that would require you to do something instead of yapping, so it won't happen.