Have the rules of the DT system and Forum rules amended ? ? theymos

[nutildah]

So we've been protesting to the wrong people and on the wrong board (reputation), while Theymos is only a few seconds away to edits/modifies in less than 24 hours. For a long time, this is how the DT should have been.

For a long time, that's how it was -- including the first 15 months of your account's existence.

The whole point of changing it was so theymos wouldn't have to deal with it personally (not nearly as much, anyway). He doesn't want to deal with it, so he put it in the hands of the forum members.

It's a (largely) self-regulating body - a unique form of democracy - and there isn't much out there to compare it to. In my experience, its working as intended. Theymos certainly isn't going to meddle with it because of your issue with JollyGood. Feel free to PM him if you want, though I wouldn't expect a reply.

[OgNasty]

Centralize the system and let the admin moderate it. It's obvious we're not ready for Decentralization just yet.

The DT system was already centralized a few years ago, theymos acknowledged this in his post here:

For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority...

Theymos can moderate the DT system even now. If you think someone is abusing the DT system, you can PM him. I don't know how he will react to such a message or if he will react at all, but you, as well as any other forum user, have this option.

Anyway, there are many conceivable ways to abuse the system, but if it happens, you can just shoot me a PM and I'll fix it, probably in less than 24 hours.

The problem with theymos being able to moderate the DT system is that he doesn’t. I’ve seen him make empty threats to people and when they spit in his face he just takes it and moves on. When the only action is empty threats that never get followed up on, he’s basically a useless observer of the system when it comes down to it.

[Vod]

You just have to get over it unfortunately.  The current state of DT is an absolute mess...  Look at my trust for example, I've never done anything even remotely shady, have safeguarded nearly 20,000 BTC in trades here, donated to the forum, donated to Bitcoin causes, safeguarded 500 BTC for the forum, spent 10 years donating to community projects to be distributed to members, and have created countless trusted products for users here.  Still, I have negative trust because DT has turned into a circle jerk of autists who are obsessed with gaining trust here not through value they provide, but by teaming up to blackball members who hurt their feelings or see things different politically.  It's an absolute failure and I hope one day it gets the attention it deserves, rather than laziness being disguised as freedom of speech.  

OG, once Theymos and you are removed, the DT system will work as intended.  It's at the state it is in now because Theymos has gone through extraordinary measures to keep you in DT.  

I'll be launching my (non-PII) website https://nastyscam.com in February, based on all the posts I have collected from those two.   We will be able to debunk OG as honest very easily.  

I’ve seen him make empty threats to people

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5474002.msg63511112#msg63511112

Theymos will probably wait until OG kills someone.  :/

[EarnOnVictor]

I think you should move this thread to the Reputation section, and maybe you should have mentioned other DT members rather than mentioning theymos. He probably would not engage in this sort of discussion.

You're right, the Reputation section is the best fit for it, this place is not so bad though. But I think that mentioning theymos is good because even though he might not do anything now, but it's still a means for him to know what is going on in the forum. It may be soon or later that something is changed about it or another tough rule is spelt out or the misusers are excluded.

Really, the DT of a thing is intoxicating many, they just jump to conclusions, and at times, I get annoyed with the red tag of some people I read as it lacks merits to have been tagged. Human beings often misuse opportunities, unless you make them accountable for them, or else they will continue to do anyhow.

[mikeywith]

The problem with theymos being able to moderate the DT system is that he doesn’t. I’ve seen him make empty threats to people and when they spit in his face he just takes it and moves on.

This is what I love about Theymos. Once he establishes the rules, he abides by them. He's like the guy who brings the football to the street game but doesn't insist on being the team captain; he plays just like everyone else. I still remember his "clash" with Lauda and how they both utilized the exact same tools to battle each other -- lobbying and persuading other DT members to exclude the other person (anyone who was a DT member at that time probably still has those PMs).

Theymos could have easily wiped Lauda's forum history in 5 seconds, but he chose to use only the tools Lauda had access to as well. Can you find a better or fairer administrator? Probably not.

The issue here, however, is this:

He doesn't want to deal with it

I disagree, however, that the system is working as intended. It's evident that he expected too much from the community -- a system where the majority of members would participate, and thus the end result of the DT status would reflect what the majority of people want. However, after all these years, it seems like only 1% of the forum members participated in the system. This resulted in a small minority of people obtaining the DT status, turning it into more of a privilege than a responsibility. It's the "cool guys club." Eventually, some people started abusing it, and because only that small minority of people engage in the voting, it became close to impossible to stop anyone from abusing the system. Hence, we have all these complaints. Of course, I wouldn't say it's completely useless, the trust system itself is a great tool. I just think the DT list shouldn't be there, and everyone must create their own list.

Obviously, Theymos doesn't think that the current level of abuse is significant enough for him to change the rules. But eventually, as more people start complaining about the unjust use of the trust system, he will likely come up with a different plan, or at least, that's what he usually does, fix things.

[nutildah]

I disagree, however, that the system is working as intended. It's evident that he expected too much from the community -- a system where the majority of members would participate, and thus the end result of the DT status would reflect what the majority of people want.

Anyone (aside from those too new to qualify) can participate in the system. The majority of people who care about DT are indeed participating. Those that don't care, don't participate. There will always be people who don't vote and then complain about the outcome of an election, and that has never made sense.

However, after all these years, it seems like only 1% of the forum members participated in the system.

Only 1% of forum members are active on a monthly basis (probably much less TBH).

This resulted in a small minority of people obtaining the DT status, turning it into more of a privilege than a responsibility. It's the "cool guys club." Eventually, some people started abusing it, and because only that small minority of people engage in the voting, it became close to impossible to stop anyone from abusing the system. Hence, we have all these complaints. Of course, I wouldn't say it's completely useless, the trust system itself is a great tool. I just think the DT list shouldn't be there, and everyone must create their own list.

For most of your time on the forum, you've only known the new system. You don't have a sufficient frame of reference to understand that things are actually much better now than they used to be.

Regardless, the "new" trust system didn't really start to come into its own until after Lauda was finally voted off DT. After that happened, it became apparent more than ever that the new trust system was "working" and better than the old. But if you don't participate in it, your complaints won't be taken seriously.

Obviously, Theymos doesn't think that the current level of abuse is significant enough for him to change the rules. But eventually, as more people start complaining about the unjust use of the trust system, he will likely come up with a different plan, or at least, that's what he usually does, fix things.

But they won't, because things aren't actually that bad, and nobody will offer a better solution that the majority can agree upon.

It is only because the current system indeed works that borovichok (OP) got his negative trust removed and is once again freely spamming shitposts contributing to the forum.

[borovichok]

Obviously, Theymos doesn't think that the current level of abuse is significant enough for him to change the rules. But eventually, as more people start complaining about the unjust use of the trust system, he will likely come up with a different plan, or at least, that's what he usually does, fix things.

But they won't, because things aren't actually that bad, and nobody will offer a better solution that the majority can agree upon.

It is only because the current system indeed works that borovichok (OP) got his negative trust removed and is once again freely spamming shitposts contributing to the forum.

Those who are breaking the system always look for anything to back it up, even if it is clear that the system is completely broken. theymos is wandering around the forum with an incorrect red tag simply because someone disagreed with him. theymos is not stupid he knows that the system is broken and he must be working on something, might take some time to implement but it will happen.

Yes, I had my red removed for speaking out (it wasn't intended to be there in the first place if the system was working properly), and I was right; however, what about hundreds of others who are unable to speak up against theirs?

Cool boys left inappropriate tag => the powerless cries for help=> cool boys removes inappropriate tag. Rinse and repeat. A show of power.

Come to the meta to say someone got his tag removed so the system is perfectly working. Bra bra...

[mikeywith]

For most of your time on the forum, you've only known the new system. You don't have a sufficient frame of reference to understand that things are actually much better now than they used to be.

I was here before the new trust system was introduced, but true, not for too long. However, I witnessed the current trust system long enough to see how it isn't working as intended. There is a distinct difference between "working" and "working as intended," and I explicitly stated that I disagree with "working as intended."

Reading various comments and posts from Theymos, it's evident to me that he expected the majority of members to participate in the voting so that the default trust list would be a good representation of what the majority of members would agree on. Obviously, this isn't the case now because only a small minority of "active" members participate in the voting. What's even worse is that the vast majority of DT members prefer to walk in the shadows and not exercise their votes to exclude bad actors because they fear retaliation.

But they won't, because things aren't actually that bad

It depends on who is looking at it, to someone who had to delete a post they made in the P&S board to get a tag removed by a DT member -- it's certainly terrible (real story).

and nobody will offer a better solution that the majority can agree upon.

I don't think theymos takes our opinions too seriously . He does what he has to do even if the majority were to disagree. I think that at some point in the future, we could wake up to a new trust system. But until then, everybody's best weapon to fight abuse is to get involved in the trust system and, obviously, grow some balls.

[Airdrop Imperial]

and I explicitly stated that I disagree with "working as intended."

Big point you are missing entirely are lazy sig managers causing the whole problem because borovichok shouldn't be allowed to get a pay for his spamming.

Stake is a big offender and should hire someone professional to manage sig participants.
OGNasty needs to be kicked out, too.

[Vod]

What's even worse is that the vast majority of DT members prefer to walk in the shadows and not exercise their votes to exclude bad actors because they fear retaliation.

I agree with this!!  So many people have responded to me that while they do not trust certain people (like OgNasty), they cannot leave him negative feedback because he is protected.  :/

[decodx]

and I explicitly stated that I disagree with "working as intended."

Big point you are missing entirely are lazy sig managers causing the whole problem because borovichok shouldn't be allowed to get a pay for his spamming.

That's a good point!  When folks criticize DT system for being misused, it can be valuable to consider the context behind the critique.  As in this case.

The negative trust rating clearly sparked this debate.  But we could also argue it pushed the rabble-rouser shitposter to reform. So was applying that rating improper? I don't think so.  

Stake is a big offender and should hire someone professional to manage sig participants.

I agree. Managers need to bear some of the responsibility for shitposting in their campaigns.

OGNasty needs to be kicked out, too.

I have no comment on this...

[nutildah]

However, I witnessed the current trust system long enough to see how it isn't working as intended.

Well, see, this is your opinion. Its not necessarily shared by everyone else. Of course it does not work as intended 100% of the time - rarely does anything - but I think it is largely self-correcting and for the most part manages to keep out bad actors (again, not with 100% success). I haven't actually seen any serious complaints that could be resolved by an actionable solution, other than theymos intervening to resolve somebody's individual problem, which he's not going to do.

Reading various comments and posts from Theymos, it's evident to me that he expected the majority of members to participate in the voting so that the default trust list would be a good representation of what the majority of members would agree on. Obviously, this isn't the case now because only a small minority of "active" members participate in the voting.

That's not necessarily true. What statistics are you using to back this up?

But until then, everybody's best weapon to fight abuse is to get involved in the trust system and, obviously, grow some balls.

This part I agree with 100%.

What's even worse is that the vast majority of DT members prefer to walk in the shadows and not exercise their votes to exclude bad actors because they fear retaliation.

I agree with this!!  So many people have responded to me that while they do not trust certain people (like OgNasty), they cannot leave him negative feedback because he is protected.  :/

BTW I didn't actually say that Vod, that's a mikeywith quote.

[Vod]

BTW I didn't actually say that Vod, that's a mikeywith quote.

Fixed, sorry. 

[FatFork]

Reading various comments and posts from Theymos, it's evident to me that he expected the majority of members to participate in the voting so that the default trust list would be a good representation of what the majority of members would agree on. Obviously, this isn't the case now because only a small minority of "active" members participate in the voting.

That's not necessarily true. What statistics are you using to back this up?

Exactly.  I also don't think that only a small minority of active users participate in the voting.

According to LoyceV's Trust List Viewer, there are over 15,000 users who have created their custom trust lists at some point, which means they're actively participating in the voting system. Some of these users are probably inactive now, or have wiped their lists in the meantime.  It would be interesting to know what percentage of active users (excluding newbies) still have custom trust lists.  LoyceV can probably give us a more accurate stats.

[LoyceV]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of active users (excluding newbies) still have custom trust lists.  LoyceV can probably give us a more accurate stats.

I'd need a list (and definition) of "active users" for that. And since many of them are bounty spammers, I don't expect the resulting percentage to be very interesting anyway.

[Timelord2067]

... there are over 15,000 users who have created their custom trust lists at some point, ...

I think you will find a lot of those 15,000 (at least a third) were farmed UID's and their accounts were being marketed as being "trustworthy" with glowing glib trust feedback and a dozen "random" users trusting them.

I agree. Managers need to bear some of the responsibility for shitposting in their campaigns.

Especially the ones who at one time sold those farmed accounts then went on to run campaigns...


Not all is as it seems on the surface in the Forum.

[OgNasty]

and nobody will offer a better solution that the majority can agree upon.

I don't think theymos takes our opinions too seriously . He does what he has to do even if the majority were to disagree. I think that at some point in the future, we could wake up to a new trust system. But until then, everybody's best weapon to fight abuse is to get involved in the trust system and, obviously, grow some balls.

I've offered a better plan, it's just that "policing" this forum gives people with a god complex a hard-on and they've spent unimaginable amounts of time manipulating the trust network to get into power.  They will not let a change go easily and since most of them utilized many alt accounts to get them where they are in the trust network, their opinion is overstated publicly here.

When theymos added flags, he added a negative to the network that wasn't countered with a positive.  Meaning you have 2 ways to damage someone's reputation, but only one way (positive trust ratings) to support.  The obvious solution is to remove negative trust ratings and let people be judged by how many people trust them, not how many trolls they've offended.  Scammers can still be labeled with trust flags and new users won't be harassed by those seeking to tag everyone they can to prove some sort of value here, chasing away users in the process and making this place an overall negative place to build on ideas.

I'm not sure why the trust system has been left fundamentally flawed for so long, or why negativity is prioritized over positivity here, but it is the result of actions taken by the administration and is 100% fixable with a simple change to level the playing field. It has been proven that DT members are unable to act responsibly as evidenced from my own trust ratings (find me someone on this forum who has demonstrated more trustworthiness than myself, spoiler alert: you can't) and it's wild to me that negativity is still coveted more than positivity right down to the trust network here, especially when it's clear that mentally ill users have found their way into DT due to malicious support from spineless members.  It trickles down, chases away talent, and darkens the atmosphere here by the day.

OGNasty needs to be kicked out, too.

Oh no, airdrop guy doesn't like me. 

[suchmoon]

When theymos added flags, he added a negative to the network that wasn't countered with a positive.

You can oppose flags. No such option for trust feedback. It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about but feel the need to rage against something.

find me someone on this forum who has demonstrated more trustworthiness than myself, spoiler alert: you can't

I take it there also no one more modest than you. Or more capable of punching someone's teeth out.

[JollyGood]

I thought this thread deserved a bump as a result of recent events that are related to the borovichok account because his compulsive lying is almost laughable.

His chain of lies included his constant claims of not using AI or not allowing others to post in his behalf and the gutter level lying he did that resulted in him getting 95 merits in that one thread when he claimed to fundraise for a now deceased genius shows these people will stoop to any level in order to rank up their accounts by trying to get merits. At least he will be unable to repeat that lie again no matter the other accounts in his farm.

I probably ruffled a few feathers of borovichok by tagging some of his other accounts (without making a direct connection between them or even knowing he was the puppeteer controlling those accounts in the farm), therefore he was very happy after I received three trust exclusions when he started complaining but he has received two negative tags after I revised my negative tag to neutral.

While he still proclaims to be innocent, he said he has stopped using the borovichok account after the recent two negative tags he received for using AI to spam. The borovichok account has become virtually useless to him as he will be unable to enrol it on any signature campaign, competition or bounty. He probably will not waste his time using that particular account any longer.

I removed the original negative trust I placed in January 2024 on the borovichok account before the recent two negative tags were added because the understanding was that neutral tags are sufficient for AI and/or spamming. Until there is an update from theymos regarding members using AI to spam, I will only use neutral tags but others will approach the subject how they feel is appropriate.

I've never used AI in any of my posts, and there's no proof that I ever did.