How are DT 1 members selected.

[SuperBitMan]

I came to this forum to meet this system in place and to be honest it’s a very good system and it’s working very fine.
But I really don’t know how the DT 1 members are selected, is it by integrity, by willingness to fight crime in the forum or by the numbers of years you have been in the forum.
If they are not selected by any requirement, should there be a set up requirement members should meet before being a DT member, in order to control and manage the system very well.

[Catenaccio]

But I really don’t know how the DT 1 members are selected, is it by integrity, by willingness to fight crime in the forum or by the numbers of years you have been in the forum.
If they are not selected by any requirement, should there be a set up requirement members should meet before being a DT member, in order to control and manage the system very well.

There are requirements and you can understand by reading DefaultTrust changes which are latest changes for forum DT trust system.

And LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system can guide you using the forum trust system better.

[Eternad]

AFAIK the current selection of DT1 is random selection from existing DT2 members. DT1 member usually reshuffle.

You can be part of DT if a certain number of user(meet the requirements) and some existing DT put you on their trust list. I don’t know the exact number but that’s how I observe the DT system.

You can check the overview for DT1 and DT2 changes on this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139250.0 prepared by @LoyceV.

[Mia Chloe]

I came to this forum to meet this system in place and to be honest it’s a very good system and it’s working very fine.
But I really don’t know how the DT 1 members are selected, is it by integrity, by willingness to fight crime in the forum or by the numbers of years you have been in the forum.

There are a few known criterias and some are ; you'll have to be in at least DT2 which means you gotta be included by a DT1 member. That aside you need to build a trust system like include and exclude more people as well as more people including you too.

But overall I think Theymos is the one that includes people I the DT1 list and like I mentioned earlier I'm not a 100% sure of everything that he considers.

[Oshosondy]

If a DT2 DT1 member add you to his trust list, you will become a DT2. Theymos is the one adding DT2 to DT1 based on some criteria which is more about having many DT2 members that have added you to their trust list already. That is the basic explanation but the link that Catenaccio posted above will help you to know more about DT members.

[LoyceV]

AFAIK the current selection of DT1 is random selection from existing DT2 members.

This is incorrect.

you'll have to be in at least DT2

This is incorrect.

If a DT2 member add you to his trust list, you will become a DT2.

This is incorrect.

@theymos: the lack of understanding of the basics of the Trust system makes me think it's too complicated

This is how DT1 is created:

I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria:
 - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.
 - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
 - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries.
 - You must not be manually blacklisted from selection. This is done rarely, but it can be done if people are found to be gaming the system, or if they request that they are removed from selection.
 - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.
 - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
 - For both the "voters" mentioned in the above two points as well as for overall eligibility, you must not be banned, and you must have received merit from at least 4 different users for posts you made in the last 4 years.

Unlike the previous policy, I will not generally be trying to cultivate a good list; that will be left to the DT1 members themselves. However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.

[Oshosondy]

If a DT2 member add you to his trust list, you will become a DT2.

This is incorrect.

It is a mistake and a typo, I meant DT1 member, not DT2 member. Thanks for correcting it. I have corrected it. I do not see anything much complicated about DT members though.

DT1 member will add a member to their trust list for the member to become DT2. Theymos will select DT1 periodically. He add some members monthly and remove some members monthly and he can be among those that he add or remove monthly.

[yahoo62278]

If a DT2 member add you to his trust list, you will become a DT2.

This is incorrect.

It is a mistake and a typo, I meant DT1 member, not DT2 member. Thanks for correcting it. I have corrected it. I do not see anything much complicated about DT members though.

DT1 member will add a member to their trust list for the member to become DT2. Theymos will select DT1 periodically. He add some members monthly and remove some members monthly and he can be among those that he add or remove monthly.

People understanding is the issue and I'm not sure you understand how a DT is selected even after LoyceV posted how to be on the DT1 list. If people don't understand how to be on DT, do they really understand what DT is or if they are on DT what that means? I personally think that only a small % of the members of this forum understand DT and trust lists.

[Oshosondy]

People understanding is the issue and I'm not sure you understand how a DT is selected even after LoyceV posted how to be on the DT1 list. If people don't understand how to be on DT, do they really understand what DT is or if they are on DT what that means? I personally think that only a small % of the members of this forum understand DT and trust lists.

LoyceV did not understand what I first posted because of the mistake I made and I edited it. LoyceV would have understood what I meant there very well after I have edited it. I was referring to how to become DT2 and then how to become DT1. You can see that I edited the post and strikeout the DT2. Also I am not disputing what LoyceV quoted, he is correct and clearly written by theymos.

[hugeblack]

@theymos: the lack of understanding of the basics of the Trust system makes me think it's too complicated

This is how DT1 is created:

- You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49220414#msg49220414).
 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.

Given that many things have changed since 2019 and that many signature campaigns now place less emphasis on negative trust, it might be beneficial to revise these requirements.

Perhaps making them more stringent would be better for the forum.

[Vod]

@theymos: the lack of understanding of the basics of the Trust system makes me think it's too complicated

And if you are making changes, can the DT1 lottery be transparent and provably fair?

[DYING_S0UL]

@theymos: the lack of understanding of the basics of the Trust system makes me think it's too complicated

And if you are making changes, can the DT1 lottery be transparent and provably fair?

What do you meant by DT1 lottery? I'm not really an expert on this subject. 

[SuperBitMan]

@theymos: the lack of understanding of the basics of the Trust system makes me think it's too complicated

This is how DT1 is created:

- You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49220414#msg49220414).
 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.

Given that many things have changed since 2019 and that many signature campaigns now place less emphasis on negative trust, it might be beneficial to revise these requirements.

Perhaps making them more stringent would be better for the forum.

I agree with you, it’s very important to revise how DT members are selected, not just DT 1 members even DT 2 members because they have same function. As time goes by laws are being amended to suit the society.
I have seen cases of DT member being removed because they are giving negative feedback in a way that is not proper. A DT member is not suppose to give someone negative feedback without good evidence or attaching it with reference, I see a lot of people giving negative feedback and no reference, this is one thing that is reducing the value of the DT and trust system.
It will truly be beneficial to revise those requirements.
Any ways I love the fact that reshuffling are done monthly, it helps for check and balance.

[Joy- maker]

I have seen cases of DT member being removed because they are giving negative feedback in a way that is not proper.

Read this comment from theymos.

However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.

A DT member is not suppose to give someone negative feedback without good evidence or attaching it with reference, I see a lot of people giving negative feedback and no reference, this is one thing that is reducing the value of the DT and trust system.

Something of this such might have happened in the past which I may not be aware, since am still new to the forum just a year plus. But through out my stay here in the forum I don't think if I have seen any case where a DT member gave another user negative feedback without good evidence or without attaching a reference link.

All the negative feedback I have seen so far from DT members is accurate. Although some DT members still abuse their DT power, because I have seen cases where a DT member gave negative feedback to another DT member and the DT member retaliated by giving the user the same negative feedback .

However, DT members shouldn't give negative feedback out of speculation, and they shouldn't also give negative feedback to users, just because they are feeling suspicious towards them. If a DT member is feeling suspicious towards any user or group of users, he or she should create a thread for them, so that the users would be investigated. And if they are  find guilty  they should face the consequences.

[Vod]

What do you meant by DT1 lottery? I'm not really an expert on this subject. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117330.msg66461794#msg66461794

Theymos awards DT1 out of a selection, but the method is unknown.

[LoyceV]

Theymos awards DT1 out of a selection, but the method is unknown.

The method for the selection is known, but very difficult to reproduce. I'm not very concerned about theymos cheating when he randomly selects 100 out of 111 potential candidates. A strong bias would show up eventually.

[nutildah]

Theymos awards DT1 out of a selection, but the method is unknown.

The method for the selection is known, but very difficult to reproduce. I'm not very concerned about theymos cheating when he randomly selects 100 out of 111 potential candidates. A strong bias would show up eventually.

I suppose he'd have no reason to game the selection... he invented it this way for a reason and it would be weird for him to do things contrary to his own design. Having said that, have you ever performed an analysis of all the DT1 selections to see if some members are selected a statistically unusual amount of times?

I also suppose it would be more fun for us if we could see the mechanism for how the results are picked.


Oh, and also also, I don't really want the trust system changed in any way, because IMO its working pretty good as is. Plus I feel like I have a firm grasp of it.    

It may be complicated but its not indecipherable. You basically just have to be willing to put your ego on hold when leaving feedback and changing your trust list.. its a lot to ask for some...

[LoyceV]

have you ever performed an analysis of all the DT1 selections to see if some members are selected a statistically unusual amount of times?

No. That's kinda hard to do. For 1 DT1-member, you may be able to say he's been on DT1 much more often than likely. But given 100 DT1-members, it becomes likely again that some of them are on DT1 more than average.

I also suppose it would be more fun for us if we could see the mechanism for how the results are picked.

I don't expect it to be much fun. If it were up to me, I'd use a simple shuf:

Code:

shuf list.txt | head -n100
E
F
C
B
D
A

[dragonvslinux]

have you ever performed an analysis of all the DT1 selections to see if some members are selected a statistically unusual amount of times?

No. That's kinda hard to do. For 1 DT1-member, you may be able to say he's been on DT1 much more often than likely. But given 100 DT1-members, it becomes likely again that some of them are on DT1 more than average.

I did some years back, but only with my eyes, back when making some graphs on DT selection and looking at the raw data. I stopped there as it all looked very much random per month. There were some statistical outliers that deviated, but no anomalies I found (like users never selected or always selected). Members who were picked more often than others were statistically balanced by those who were selected less often, which is what you'd expect from random probability rather than a predetermined rotation. This was while factoring in the activity requirement, so I was only considering users who remained consistently active, which was a slightly smaller sample that all otherwise eligible members.