DT trust padding instances

[nutildah]

... Trolling ...

So instead of focusing on my contribution and examples provided, you turn to Trolling instead?

And you wonder why you had to start this thread.

"Are you kidding me?" Nutildah asked the question, but everyone knew it was rhetorical. The next question, however, wouldn't be. "How am I trolling you when you're the one generating nonsense my thread?"

Nutildah couldn't understand how Timelord could confound "tagging" with "trust list exclusion" in the first place, much less why he would accuse him of trolling for pointing out the fact that the two things were indeed different.

[Timelord2067]

Not sure what preference you mean.  I just pointed out that adding someone to your distrust list is not tagging them. 

Well Vod, here's the thing.

I've had other well meaning users become very insistent I (and others) use terminology such as the following:

• Trust Feedback when describing making a comment, good, bad or, indifferent about another user.
  
• Default Trust (or, at a pinch DT Trust ^{1}) when referring to the cloak-and-dagger goings on behind smoke and mirrors here in the forum.

I won't bore you with how indignant or militant they are in their insistence that everyone refrain from using other kinds of terminology, suffice to say misunderstandings do tend to creep in when people aren't using the same (or even similar terminology) as others.

Please let me know what kind of definitions you three would like to use and I'll see if I can accommodate.


^{1}(Kind of like the redundant Machine in ATM Machine or Comics in DC Comics)

[Vod]

Please let me know what kind of definitions you three would like to use and I'll see if I can accommodate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213618.msg55898447#msg55898447

While I believe that using proper terminology will help avoid confusion, it won't stop attacks that are made just to attack...

[Vispilio]

Thanks for stopping by with your explanation. I'm not going to tag your account or anything but it's curious to me that Vispilio and wolwoo would add you to their trust network even though you never left a trust rating. It's not your fault that they added you, their behavior sort of goes against what DT is supposed to be about.

If I'm wrong here, I'm open to other interpretations.

That's your opinion and chances are astronomically high it stems from your extremely conformist `police state` upbringing (not you in particular but this is the root cause of the political correctness culture permeating DT1 in general),
I would comment that crypto space and libertarianism in general are far more inclusive of different rationales and perspectives than such a narrow interpretation of the human experience.

The vast majority of free and independent thinkers view the Trust System in the following manner:

⭐ If you do good deals with someone constituting considerable value, leave them a + feedback.

⭐ If you know someone well enough to believe in their sound judgement and good character, include them in your trust list.

Narrow-minded bigots in DT1 who ruin the forum with their petty manipulative guidelines should carve the preceding maxims in granite and pin it at the top of Meta / Reputation,

maybe @theymos can also step in every once a in while to help broaden their horizons if he wants to save this forum.


Happy Holidays

[suchmoon]

The vast majority of free and independent thinkers view the Trust System in the following manner:

It's a shame that your free and independent sockpuppets can't read:

[nutildah]

The vast majority of free and independent thinkers view the Trust System in the following manner:

⭐ If you do good deals with someone constituting considerable value, leave them a + feedback.

⭐ If you know someone well enough to believe in their sound judgement and good character, include them in your trust list.

Your use of the term "vast majority" here is pretty unfounded as you're not backing it up with any actual data. Regardless, if people took your definitions to heart they would all be wrong, even if they are the "vast majority" (which they're not). It's impossible to know how good somebody is going to be at leaving trust ratings if they've never left one before. And I certainly don't trust anyone who says otherwise, especially when reciprocally including trust rating virgins boosts their DT net inclusion score.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

there's little doubt in my mind that these aren't owned by the same person.

That means you DO think they're owned by the same person or not?  The way you phrased that sent my mind spinning for a second there.

I don't want to get too snarky or judgy (only a little bit), but we should be diligent about not letting this kind of thing creep into DT1, which is basically flagrant disregard for what DT is supposed to be about.

Absolutely agree with that, but obviously some people don't have the same amount of respect for the DT system and probably don't understand how important it is--or how easily it can be abused to scam people.  So yeah, I would think that RaltcoinsB (whom I've never heard of before) probably should not be on DT at any level.

This is the Turkish section if I'm not mistaken (haven't read the whole thread yet), so the suspected merit abuse aspect of this situation doesn't surprise me at all, given how incredibly nationalistic certain members are in that section. 

[Vispilio]

The vast majority of free and independent thinkers view the Trust System in the following manner:

⭐ If you do good deals with someone constituting considerable value, leave them a + feedback.

⭐ If you know someone well enough to believe in their sound judgement and good character, include them in your trust list.

Your use of the term "vast majority" here is pretty unfounded as you're not backing it up with any actual data. Regardless, if people took your definitions to heart they would all be wrong, even if they are the "vast majority" (which they're not). It's impossible to know how good somebody is going to be at leaving trust ratings if they've never left one before. And I certainly don't trust anyone who says otherwise, especially when reciprocally including trust rating virgins boosts their DT net inclusion score.

The "vast majority" is an a priori assumption because that's a commonly accepted way trust relationships work in real life, and that's the way in which the Trust system will make sense to most rational people.

In the current situation, there is only 1 sacred rule for DT and all the rest is petty technicalities: "Only include people who will conform to the cult and toe the party line, so that the signature cultists will continue to have the cleanest trust sheets under all circumstances to keep getting their salary hand outs..."

Anyways these are minor issues and not really my concern, I just responded here for the staff's and @theymos's benefit in case they want to fix the broken forum systems at some point. Take care.

[nutildah]

The "vast majority" is an a priori assumption because that's a commonly accepted way trust relationships work in real life, and that's the way in which the Trust system will make sense to most rational people.

In the current situation, there is only 1 sacred rule for DT and all the rest is petty technicalities: "Only include people who will conform to the cult and toe the party line, so that the signature cultists will continue to have the cleanest trust sheets under all circumstances to keep getting their salary hand outs..."

Anyways these are minor issues and not really my concern, I just responded here for the staff's and @theymos's benefit in case they want to fix the broken forum systems at some point. Take care.

There is no "trust list" in real life with inclusions and exclusions -- its something that exists only within the forum. You are vouching for somebody's ability to leave accurate trust feedback without them having ever left a feedback, which makes no rational sense as there is nothing tangible to base such a judgment upon.

[actmyname]

There is no "trust list" in real life with inclusions and exclusions

Then what are those numbers hovering over your head?

The vast majority of free and independent thinkers view the Trust System in the following manner

The "vast majority" is an a priori assumption because that's a commonly accepted way trust relationships work in real life, and that's the way in which the Trust system will make sense to most rational people.

Anyways these are minor issues and not really my concern, I just responded here for the staff's and @theymos's benefit in case they want to fix the broken forum systems at some point. Take care.

FWIW although unscrupulous use of the trust system is not typically met with punishment I see some people dismiss "bad uses" of the trust system when they aren't involved in the DT network. Dangerous precedent.

Any dilution of the justification for leaving positive and negative feedback leads to a degradation of trust values. This occurs naturally by way of the 100-strong court of DT1s and their apostles.

I don't think it's necessary to undermine your comment with the easy "argumentum ad populum" concept applied to ideology and culture: you can probably work it out yourself. Proof is trivial and left to reader as an exercise.

[nutildah]

There is no "trust list" in real life with inclusions and exclusions

Then what are those numbers hovering over your head?

Well you deserve an explanation, which is, I don't believe the forum to be "real life." I'm aware that, etymologically speaking, "real life" has always included abstract creations without a physical structure (such as the forum). So its more or less derisive when I refer to the trust list as not part of real life. However, since Vispilio was explicitly talking about non-forum interactions, I felt such an obvious distinction was permissible.

[suchmoon]

~

I thought it was a Black Mirror^* reference.




^* which is obviously real life because it's on TV... or laptop... or phone.

[actmyname]

I thought it was a Black Mirror^* reference.

The truth is that it was meaningless and that you projected your own ideas onto all language others write. Well, "your" collected experiences and perceptions alongside a few genetic and temporal anomalies.

^* which is obviously real life because it's on TV... or laptop... or phone.

Everything is real if you give up finite constructs - a necessary axiom.Should also point heads towards the direction of a less direct padding concept.

Certainly, it would be terrible if we had a DT1 root add someone to their list to pad their trust: plenty of users keep their eyes out for this behavior. An additional premise would be to share and swap 'idealized lists' with other DT1 users, fragmented or whole and coordinate to ensure a particular user benefits. The problem is with the detectability of this: any DT1 user could simply feign ignorance and the highly-trusted user could similarly deign to respond to farfetched conspiracies.

What a beautiful system we have. Certainly better than the old hand-picked DefaultTrust system - now we show users which should definitely be trusted by default.

[Timelord2067]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213618.msg55898447#msg55898447

The current owners of that website/thread have made it abundantly clear they don't want me to participate or contribute - Little wonder I never saw that mostly vague post by another user.

While I believe that using proper terminology will help avoid confusion, it won't stop attacks that are made just to attack...

Such as the one made by the OP - right?


It appears to have been over-looked so I'll just revisit it in this post, there seems to be alts who are attempting to gain access to the default trust system as evidenced in this post:

Date Registered:    2020-10-17, 00:41:31   osmanucal
Date Registered:    2020-10-17, 00:50:37   cryptoinfal

who along with bountydetective all choose the same week to trust the subject of the thread - RaltcoinsB - thoughts anyone?