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

[LoyceV]

I believe most merit sources don't actually go looking for meritorious posts

What makes you think it's a requirement to "go looking" for posts? I'm a Merit source, and I read what I want to read. If that's worth receiving Merit, I Merit it. On rare occasions, I check someone's post history to see if I can dump more Merit, but nobody should expect me to read topics I'm not interested in.

FWIW: people have also requested to be removed as Merit source. It has nothing to do with being on DT1.

I'll include this image since what merit source should do is find and give merit to post that are objectively good quality.

Look what you did! Now you got yourself an Untrusted neutral feedback diary entry from Timelord2067 too
Does this post make me get another one? I only have 2, so 3 more to go!

I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.
~ I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

First: this is about users who requested to be blacklisted from DT1. That doesn't mean the community doesn't trust them, quite the contrary.
Second: I'm curious if you can show a few examples of non-DT1 Merit sources who you believe Merit bad posts.

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

No, they don't want to be able to create DT2-members and the drama that comes with self-scratching.

[Welsh]

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?

Hard to really say without actually knowing how we're referring too, but there's plenty of reasons why someone might not want to be on DefaultTrust, including one which has already been mentioned; drama. While not all DefaultTrust participate in the drama, there's plenty that do get sucked into it. However, aside from that there's the extra scrutiny of leaving trust feedback, they might not want to be held as accountable, since whatever a DefaultTrust does can effectively have a larger impact than a user that isn't on DefaultTrust, I can see how that would worry some users.

The thing is, I bet you don't trust a lot of DefaultTrust, while another user might trust all of them. I myself, have found respect, and would trust certain users that aren't on DefaultTrust, so it's swings in roundabouts. DefaultTrust doesn't automatically qualify as trustworthy for everyone, same as not being on it, especially if it's self elected.

[dragonvslinux]

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

Yes I see your point, blacklisting is a much better term to describe this, noted. I got the impression Timelord2067 was referring to being excluded in this context (blacklisting), but who knows at this point.

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.

Blacklisting is a form of exclusion in the generic context, this would be where the confusion lies rather than contradiction. But really at this point this argument is based on semantics.

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?

Someone who either requests to be removed from DT1 eligibility (blacklisted) or otherwise removes their trust list inclusions (in order to become ineligible) is not saying they don't want to be trusted, but only that they don't trust the system at most (unless you're like eddie13 and simply too lazy to recreate one). Some would argue it makes them a more trustworthy DT member, as one without desire for power of influence:

they don't want to be able to create DT2-members

Overall this survey/proposal is completely ridiculous, as the results show. The suggestion is that DT(2) members who don't trust the system shouldn't be trusted, or be merit sources. If anything they'll be in a better position to be distributing merit as they won't be wasting their time with DT drama such as this nonsense thread as well as others, so should have more time to find merit worthy posts ironically.

[suchmoon]

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?

No, that's not what they're saying, not all of them anyway. They're saying they don't want to be part of default trust level 1 and seeing the mental gymnastics in this thread it's not difficult to understand why.

Besides trust is expressed by other users; "wanting" to be trusted or not doesn't mean much. For example if I said "I want to be trusted" that doesn't mean I would be. Similarly some users who wanted to be excluded (marlboroza had an appeal like that a while ago) didn't get their wish because other users still trusted their judgement.

What's their end-game?

This isn't a game. Or - if it is for you - maybe some people don't want to participate.

[Shamm]

I'll vote for NO!
There are some users here in forum who are member of DT1 and also they are merit source but as we all know that DT members has a different obligation by the merit source because as we all know that merits source has an obligations to give  merits to those merit worthy post or reply. And also in short DT members is for trust feed back purposes.

[Timelord2067]

Second: I'm curious if you can show a few examples of non-DT1 Merit sources who you believe Merit bad posts.

I hadn't said there were not the least of which I'm not employed to verify merit sources who are for the most part unnamed.  That's part of the issue - there are no checks or balances for those appointed to the role.

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

No, they don't want to be able to create DT2-members and the drama that comes with self-scratching.

Yeh, there's circumstantial evidence a current Staff member is doing that Dabs thing...

... and it isn't Welsh ...

The thing is, I bet you don't trust a lot of DefaultTrust,

Hardly surprising given in just this thread I've been called all kinds of things (crazy etc) simply for asking people's opinions all the while I'm engaging in respectfully responding to questions put to me.

Overall this survey/proposal is completely ridiculous,.

It's a survey, not a proposal.

Nothing more.

Don't forget to vote.

[suchmoon]

I hadn't said there were not the least of which I'm not employed to verify merit sources who are for the most part unnamed.  That's part of the issue - there are no checks or balances for those appointed to the role.

A few merit sources have been removed for abuse/misuse of the merit system. Everyone of us can do "checks and balances", i.e. report abuse to theymos and he does sometimes remove merit sources. Tying merit source positions to being in DT1 makes no sense and solves nothing.

[Timelord2067]

...

Thanks for bumping this thread by repeating your view from earlier.

[KingsDen]

I voted for the 3rd option because I don't see much correlation between merit and trust. Though,  majority of the merit sources are members of DT.
Decentralizing the DT by making it possible for everyone's vote to count in the DT is already a big win for the whole forum.

What I would say is that if anyone is removed from DT due to abuse of it and it is confirmed that the person is a merit source, he should also be removed from being a merit source. This is because if one can play the trust system, he could also play the merit system.

[Timelord2067]

I voted for the 3rd option because I don't see much correlation between merit and trust. Though,  majority of the merit sources are members of DT.
Decentralizing the DT by making it possible for everyone's vote to count in the DT is already a big win for the whole forum.

What I would say is that if anyone is removed from DT due to abuse of it and it is confirmed that the person is a merit source, he should also be removed from being a merit source. This is because if one can play the trust system, he could also play the merit system.

Thank you for answering my question - I do appreciate it.  It's insightful and shows a different point of view.  Approx 30% of respondents don't agree with your answer and have responded accordingly.



I asked a question and you gave an answer.

Thank you.


This should never be allowed to happen:

I asked a question and have been verbally attacked and then the person has then gone on to DT distrust me.  I have never interacted with this person prior to this thread.

https://ninjastic.space/post/60776729

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.

https://loyce.club/trust/2022-08-20_Sat_05.08h/131361.html

Trust list for: Timelord2067 (Trust: +14 / =10 / -1) (DT1 (-2) 936 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-08-20_Sat_05.08h)
Back to index

~Timelord2067's judgement is Distrusted by:
19. NEW DooMAD (Trust: neutral) (1421 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list: backscratchers: users agree, they trust or distrust each other.
Trust list: backstabbers: users disagree, one user trust the other, while the other distrust him.

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

Actually no @DooMAD, I don't have a beef with anyone - I asked what people's views on a subject were and they responded respectfully and I have replied to their questions with my views in a likewise respectful manor and the conversation has progressed.

Nothing more.

[DooMAD]

I have never interacted with this person prior to this thread.

Since when has interaction been a prerequisite for distrust?  I've never interacted with Faketoshi, but I can still tell they're a skeezy sack of crap.  You've been on my radar for a while and this topic has convinced me that your motives are suspect and you're attempting to manipulate DT and merit to your own ends.  As such, I don't trust your judgement.  It's as simple as that.

This should never be allowed to happen:
 

No one should be allowed to form a negative opinion of you based on your words and actions?  It's called "consequence".  I'm afraid you have to learn to live with it.

[Timelord2067]

...

Perhaps instead of relying on the voices in your head whispering narratives about me, you read my words I've said here.

Actually no @DooMAD, I don't have a beef with anyone - I asked what people's views on a subject were and they responded respectfully and I have replied to their questions with my views in a likewise respectful manor and the conversation has progressed.

Nothing more.

... and ...

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

[dragonvslinux]

I voted for the 3rd option because I don't see much correlation between merit and trust. Though,  majority of the merit sources are members of DT.
Decentralizing the DT by making it possible for everyone's vote to count in the DT is already a big win for the whole forum.

What I would say is that if anyone is removed from DT due to abuse of it and it is confirmed that the person is a merit source, he should also be removed from being a merit source. This is because if one can play the trust system, he could also play the merit system.

Thank you for answering my question - I do appreciate it.  It's insightful and shows a different point of view.  Approx 30% of respondents don't agree with your answer and have responded accordingly.

Are you being serious or just trolling right now? I'm sorry but I really can't stand misrepresentation of statistics, it's disrespectful to the data and it's participants.

Only 16.7% have said Yes to your poll, therefore disagreeing with the 3rd option. The 2nd option is "not sure", and doesn't support the 1st nor the 3rd option, despite your interpretation of it. Even with 12.5% saying "something needs to change" it doesn't mean they support the proposal, it could mean they think something completely different should change, otherwise they would have voted for the 1st option.

Please just accept 16.7% agree with you, not 30%. Next time, maybe try avoid having contradictory answers like "not sure / something needs to change" in the same poll option to avoid this misinterpretation.

[Timelord2067]

...

I never said 30% agree with me - rather what I said was approx 30% of respondents disagree with the person I was responding to.

Please refrain from pushing your view in such a biased manor.

[KingsDen]

...

I never said 30% agree with me - rather what I said was approx 30% of respondents disagree with the person I was responding to.

Please refrain from pushing your view in such a biased manor.

When it involves data and statistics, it's always explicit and yet confusing. He didn't surely get what you said and because of how you composed your English, or rather his preconception.
Actually as of when I responded to the poll, 16.7% + 12.5% which is approximately 30% of people that participated disagreed with me.

[Pmalek]

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?

That's your personal opinion. If I trust you based on our trading history or your conduct on the forum, it matters very little to me if you are DT or not, or if you are a merit source or not. I don't see why my opinion about User X should change because he no longer wants to be on a forum trust list. It's still the same person who was there last week. And now all of a sudden he isn't trustworthy and shouldn't be allowed to distribute merits as a source either? Sorry, but no.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I voted with NO, just because I never seen a Merit Selling DT1 tagged and stripped from this trust powers  and still being a Merit Source. Maybe I missed someone?

Trust and judgment over quality of the posts have no crossing lines.

[Timelord2067]

Thanks for voting - I appreciate it.

I voted with NO, just because I never seen a Merit Selling DT1 tagged and stripped from this trust powers  and still being a Merit Source. Maybe I missed someone?

Trust and judgment over quality of the posts have no crossing lines.

I hadn't refereed to a specific case such as being striped because of merit selling (you would imagine they would have their merit source capabilities removed if that were the case)

What I was talking about was those who have *requested* they be removed from DT1 then also be removed as merit sources.

[TheBeardedBaby]

What I was talking about was those who have *requested* they be removed from DT1 then also be removed as merit sources.

But why?
Here is an example: I remove myself from the DT as matter of protest against what was happening between Lauda and Theymos back in the day. I didn't like the war between them two and didn't want to pick a side. It was too much drama which wasn't on my taste. That aside, I kept giving merit to people, and kept browsing the forum, If I was a merit source back them this suggestion will quite reduce my ability to be beneficial to the forum.
The political games have nothing to do with the posting quality and people ranking up. I see no connection there, sorry.

[LoyceV]

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

It would probably help if the topic title wasn't about cute little rodents.