[SURVEY] Who thinks the Lemmings should also be removed as Merit Sources?

[Z-tight]

I feel that to be appointed a merit source one of the stipulations should be that you are at the very least a DT1 member.  So, it would stand to reason that if you request to be removed as a DT1 member, then you are in effect relinquishing your right to have the roll of merit source assigned to you.

If this is a criteria for Theymos to select merit sources, then you would have been correct when you say if a member stops being DT1 they should also relinquish their merit source position, but i have read the thread on the requirement if a member wants to be a merit source and theymos didn't stipulate that you must be on DT1 rank to be a merit source, so other than those that said Theymos sent them a personal message to be a source of merit, the requirements for those applying is:

1. Be a somewhat established member.
 2. Collect TEN posts written in the last couple of months by other people that have not received nearly enough merit for how good they are, and post quotes for them all in a new Meta thread. The point of this is to demonstrate your ability to give out merit usefully

If Theymos agrees that in his hidden criteria to be appointed merit source you should be on DT1, then i think many people will agree with you, myself too. In my opinion the only reason why a merit source should be removed is if they are hoarding merits for a long period of time.

[1713574969]

1713574969

[1713574969]

1713574969

[1713574969]

1713574969

[Igebotz]

I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.

These are two sensitive positions that I would classify as "volunteer" because there is no monetary compensation. And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position. A user who lacks good judgment when providing feedback may also lack good judgment when dealing with merits.

Someone who has the ability to manipulate his DT position should not be given/allowed to remain as a merit source.

A biased person will always be biased.People don't change power only brings out the true color of everyone..

[Timelord2067]

...

Your post is redundant as you quote me in saying:

I feel that to be appointed a merit source one of the stipulations should be that you are at the very least a DT1 member.

That is my opinion.  All you did was quote what is in place, but offered no alternatives.

I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.

I appreciate the vote!  It looks like you and I are not the only ones who think the two rankings are indeed intertwined.  Merit Sources are in fact laying the foundations for those who want to be DT1 by giving them the merits they require to be DT1 in a portion of 250/10 split merits.


Vote now!

Have your say!

[The Sceptical Chymist]

These are two sensitive positions that I would classify as "volunteer" because there is no monetary compensation.

I'd argue that only one of those things is a position--the merit source "job".  DT members aren't expected to do anything whatsoever, aside from continuing to leave accurate feedback and basically being honest in their dealings on and off the forum (wasn't there a DT member who was removed because he was sent to jail for credit card fraud?  I can't remember his name, but it was a couple of years ago).  But if you're picked to be a merit source, it's expected that you're going to actively distribute merits, be fair, and not abuse or misuse the system.  If you don't give out any merits, I'm pretty sure Theymos would remove you--therefore, unlike being a DT member, you can't just do nothing.

And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

I don't agree with that at all.  There are plenty of trustworthy members who aren't on DT, and there were even more before Theymos changed DT to a rotating system.  Aside from that, someone just has to demonstrate that they have an interest in keeping the merit system running smoothly and can show they have a good eye for quality posts.  There's no need whatsoever for a potential merit source to be on DT.

[suchmoon]

And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

If the person requested to be removed from DT1 then more than likely they were trusted enough to be in DT1 to begin with.

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT but that's not what the OP is after for obvious reasons.

[Timelord2067]

Thanks for stopping by.

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT but that's not what the OP is after for obvious reasons.

The DT1 members who have requested to be removed from DT1 are indeed excluded Q.E.D.

Feel free to expand on your vague comments and don't forget to vote in the survey.

[suchmoon]

The DT1 members who have requested to be removed from DT1 are indeed excluded Q.E.D.

I know you love redefining commonly used / common sense words and phrases but no, they are not excluded in how this is understood by most users (~ in the trust list). They are merely removed from consideration for DT1. Most (if not all) remain in DT2, which also confirms that they are not excluded.

[Timelord2067]

The DT1 members who have requested to be removed from DT1 are indeed excluded Q.E.D.

I know you love redefining commonly used / common sense words and phrases but no, they are not excluded in how this is understood by most users (~ in the trust list). They are merely removed from consideration for DT1. Most (if not all) remain in DT2, which also confirms that they are not excluded.

Interesting response.

[dragonvslinux]

The DT1 members who have requested to be removed from DT1 are indeed excluded Q.E.D.

I know you love redefining commonly used / common sense words and phrases but no, they are not excluded in how this is understood by most users (~ in the trust list). They are merely removed from consideration for DT1. Most (if not all) remain in DT2, which also confirms that they are not excluded.

Interesting response.

As far as I've seen recently, only one DT1 member recently requested to be removed, others are simply no longer eligible because they don't have trust list inclusions anymore. No request made.

Suchmoon provides an interesting response because there's clearly a difference between being eligible and being excluded. Let's check with Google definitions shall we.

having the right to do or obtain something; satisfying the appropriate conditions.

 

deny (someone) access to a place, group, or privilege.

Having to include definitions of relatively basic concepts here to highlight the clear difference is somewhat embarrassing I know, but somewhat required it seems.

[Welsh]

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT

Which is what I tried touching upon with my reply. If that was the case, I'd say you might have a case. Although, ultimately its down to theymos, and therefore theymos is the one that has the review the trust exclusions or trust ratings left on a user, and make their own decision.

Willing fully requesting to be removed from the trust system or opting to clear your trust list as a protest, I don't see as connected with how trustworthy a user is, and therefore shouldn't effect their merit distribution.

[Igebotz]

And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

I don't agree with that at all.  There are plenty of trustworthy members who aren't on DT, and there were even more before Theymos changed DT to a rotating system.  Aside from that, someone just has to demonstrate that they have an interest in keeping the merit system running smoothly and can show they have a good eye for quality posts. 

You are correct, but I was referring to those who were kicked out of DT for whatever reason and continue to hold merit source positions. I mean, I wouldn't trust such a user to distribute merits effectively; it takes someone trustworthy and unattached in his dealings to distribute effectively.

There's no need whatsoever for a potential merit source to be on DT.

I can't argue with you more, but I've yet to see a non-DT member appointed as a merit source; I believe some of the newly appointed merit sources were handpicked from DT1 by theymos, and I know 2-3 people who didn't apply but were appointed.

And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

If the person requested to be removed from DT1 then more than likely they were trusted enough to be in DT1 to begin with.

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT but that's not what the OP is after for obvious reasons.

Isn't that the point of the thread? I mean, I based my vote and opinion on users who were excluded or kicked out of DT, not on those who left on their own.

[DooMAD]

And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

If the person requested to be removed from DT1 then more than likely they were trusted enough to be in DT1 to begin with.

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT but that's not what the OP is after for obvious reasons.

Isn't that the point of the thread? I mean, I based my vote and opinion on users who were excluded or kicked out of DT, not on those who left on their own.

No.  You couldn't have read the OP very carefully:

Who thinks those who have requested they be removed permanently of their DT1 status should also be removed as Merit Sources?

Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status (likely because of all the drama caused by users just like Timelord2067).  So now Timelord2067, because they are a vindictive and petulant child, wants to have their merit source status revoked as well.  Despite the part where most of these users are considered valuable contributors to the forum.

[Igebotz]

No.  You couldn't have read the OP very carefully:

I had too much cheese let's say I skipped!! 

Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status (likely because of all the drama caused by users just like Timelord2067).  So now Timelord2067, because they are a vindictive and petulant child, wants to have their merit source status revoked as well.  Despite the part where most of these users are considered valuable contributors to the forum.

He's not the only one who has issues with other users, so why would you say he's the main reason for some DT1 members boycotting the system? BTW, it's a pool, and he's not the only one who voted. Yes! I believe the whole DT squabble began with the recent reputation drama, and Timelord2067 was not even a part of it. Saying he is the cause of the entire drama is an unfair judgment lol. You're overstating things..

[JayJuanGee]

I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.

I appreciate the vote!  It looks like you and I are not the only ones who think the two rankings are indeed intertwined.

The two of you are crazy.

Detached from reality.

Wanting to see the world in a way that it is not, and a way that you wished that it were.


 

Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status (likely because of all the drama caused by users just like Timelord2067).  So now Timelord2067, because they are a vindictive and petulant child, wants to have their merit source status revoked as well.  Despite the part where most of these users are considered valuable contributors to the forum.

He's not the only one who has issues with other users, so why would you say he's the main reason for some DT1 members boycotting the system? BTW, it's a pool, and he's not the only one who voted. Yes! I believe the whole DT squabble began with the recent reputation drama, and Timelord2067 was not even a part of it. Saying he is the cause of the entire drama is an unfair judgment lol. You're overstating things..

Most of the time, I try not to get very much involved in the various interpersonal battles, yet inevitably there may be some needs to attempt to follow some of the matters in order to attempt to understand some of the context for various claims that members are making in regards to the conduct of other members or some of the changes in forum rules/practices that they might be suggestion to potentially be  solutions to the various problems that they perceive to be happening.

Over the years, I have had some mixed interpretations of some of the issues set forth by Timelord, and surely sometimes he brings up decent points and/or frames some of the subject matters in ways that are worthy of consideration and even might be ideas that no one else is raising and should be considered.. This framing of the merit source versus DT1 matter surely is not even close to one of the times that seem to be worthy of considering based on the way that Timelord is framing the topic.  

As almost all opposition responses have pointed out, Timelord's whole premise seems to be off since the DT system has different underlying goals as compared with the merit system, even though if we were to draw a Venn diagram with two topics like the one on the left below, we would likely see that there can be some overlap too (the A & B portion), but the mere fact that there is some overlap does not mean that they are the same thing in the majority of circumstances as Timelord seems to be wanting to imply with the way that he is presenting the topic in this thread.

[nakamura12]

I hope I am not late with the vote. So, let's cut to the chase and my vote is No - the merit sources should stay as is.

In my own opinio, I don't think that it is right solution/idea to also remove your role as a merit source when you want to be removed from being a DT member. To become a merit source, you must first complete the task (Applying for merit source thread) needed before you become a merit source and it is to be decided if you are to become a merit source or not. To become a DT1, you don't need an applying to become a DT1 member thread as you guys know that it is about Trust system.

[suchmoon]

As far as I've seen recently, only one DT1 member recently requested to be removed, others are simply no longer eligible because they don't have trust list inclusions anymore. No request made.

You can't really know if someone requested it or not unless they announce it but that makes no difference in this context. Removing one's trust list has essentially the same result (with regards to DT1), just without sending a PM to theymos and delayed until the end of the month.

Suchmoon provides an interesting response because there's clearly a difference between being eligible and being excluded. Let's check with Google definitions shall we.

Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

Anything else is muddying the water for no good reason.

[Timelord2067]

Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

You just contradicted yourself.

As you yourself quote, exclusion from your own trust network - not everyone else's.

Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status

No. No I don't.


Try to stay focused on the discussion instead of personal attacks, please.

[suchmoon]

Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your[/u][/b] trust network.

You just contradicted yourself.

As you yourself quote, exclusion from your own trust network - not everyone else's.

There is no contradiction.

If one requests theymos to be blacklisted (made ineligible) from DT1, that has nothing to do with being excluded as per trust system settings above. "Excluded" in the trust system context would mean other users excluding that person via their trust lists. You should know because you are excluded. That's not what happens when theymos blacklists (or the user clears their trust list).

i.e. user voluntarily making themselves ineligible for DT1 does not mean excluded, or untrustworthy, or not good enough to be a merit source.

[Timelord2067]

i.e. user voluntarily making themselves ineligible for DT1 does not mean excluded, or untrustworthy, or not good enough to be a merit source.

Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.  So, why should we trust them to dispense merits?

What's their end-game?

[NeuroticFish]

Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.

I think that this is incorrect. Because if one cannot be trusted, then he's basically a scammer. I don't think anybody wants to be seen as a scammer.
Imho one who has requested to be removed from DT wants to stay away of the DT/trust drama. That's all. (I am very new in DT and I may be more aware than the long timers on the pressure that comes with being part of DT, especially DT1)

And based on this logic, since it's not a scammer, he can still give out merits impartially, nothing stops him from doing that. And merits don't come with the same amount of drama like DT.