How high or low can you go on the forum?

[Mitchell]

Looking back now, I clearly didn't read it thoroughly enough. Just saw what LoyceV and fillippone did and copied it. My bad.
So then it is either a straight up +100 or a +90 if you count the neutral rating from Welsh.

^ I am surprised with comments above cause you aren't supposed to add numbers up and it's already clarified earlier.

Just quote me, no need to do it like this. I am, in the end, only human.

[LoyceV]

Fun fact: LoyceV is actually not LoyceV because he is +90 + -10 (neutral trust) = 80.
~
LoyceV = 80
Rizzrack = +100 (staff) + -50 (red trust) = 50

So you're saying Global Moderator hilariousandco gets +100 - 10 (Neutral trust) = +90, which makes him LoyceV? Maybe this makes sense when I've had some alcohol, but it's too early for that

[dragonvslinux]

-20 (excluded by DT members)

Ok so now you got your own scale wrong which will likely confuse others even further

Excluded by DT1 Members means you are excluded from DefaultTrust. Did you mean distrusted by DT1 members? As that'd be a different thing. Hopefully I don't have to explain the difference between the terminology "excluded" and "distrusted" here.

So by your own scale, you get: +80: Consistent DT1 eligibility -10: Neutral trust = +70 (aka Green trust from theymos, something you do not have ironically). Hope that helps.

Edit: Clarified here.

[TypoTonic]

With all the drama going on in this board, this topic is like a breath of fresh air.

So basically, the success of an average account (0) is equal to a banned moderator;

+100: Moderator / Staff
-100: Banned

Or LoyceV if he had red trust and red flag.

+90: LoyceV
-90: Red trust with red flag

But why negative for neutral trust? I get -10 for giving away free signatures to babo, haha.

+30: Green trust
-10: Neutral trust

So I'm at +20, I'm pretty happy with that. The fact that I'm able to make some sort of income here in the forum is already a success for me.

[libert19]

Your total score is supposed to be your highest positive score minus your lowest negative score, which pretty much makes it a scale.

You should add this to op.

Fun fact: LoyceV is actually not LoyceV because he is +90 + -10 (neutral trust) = 80.

This was funny.

^ I am surprised with comments above cause you aren't supposed to add numbers up and it's already clarified earlier.

Just quote me, no need to do it like this. I am, in the end, only human.

I am just sayin, it's nothingburger. As for this, '^', if comment is above mine, I like to do this instead of quoting, it's just convenient.

...

So I'm at +20, I'm pretty happy with that. The fact that I'm able to make some sort of income here in the forum is already a success for me.

+10 good sir. You can't compete with me yet.

Edit: ^ Oh shit, nvm.

[Welsh]

Proposal: Active reporter +110

-10: Neutral trust

Or 320 if you count the neutral rating from Welsh.

So then it is either a straight up +100 or a +90 if you count the neutral rating from Welsh.

That bastard!


I would work mine out, but I think users might count the neutral from a user who goes by the name of; Mitchell .

[dragonvslinux]

Proposal: Active reporter +110

No need to sell yourself short, +100 for active reporters would be fair enough. Its a two part process after all.

As long as +100 was for active moderators rather than those in name only, along with -10 for being an inactive mod 

[nutildah]

Excluded by DT1 Members means you are excluded from DefaultTrust. Did you mean distrusted by DT1 members? As that'd be a different thing. Hopefully I don't have to explain the difference between the terminology "excluded" and "distrusted" here.

No, I use the word "excluded" on purpose because "distrusted" could be confused with negative trust. The action being taken involves adding an exclusion to your trust list. Notice how it says "exclude" and not "distrust" in the Trust settings:

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

Although really the terms are pretty interchangeable.

[dragonvslinux]

Excluded by DT1 Members means you are excluded from DefaultTrust. Did you mean distrusted by DT1 members? As that'd be a different thing. Hopefully I don't have to explain the difference between the terminology "excluded" and "distrusted" here.

No, I use the word "excluded" on purpose because "distrusted" could be confused with negative trust. The action being taken involves adding an exclusion to your trust list. Notice how it says "exclude" and not "distrust" in the Trust settings:

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

Although really the terms are pretty interchangeable.

Yeh fair point actually, I was thinking of loyce.club where it references distrust. I stand corrected. So you mean excluded by multiple DT1 members, but not excluded from DefaultTrust. OK then, struck previous ill-founded comment.

[nutildah]

Right, I didn't mean for it to be "net excluded", just excluded by any DT member.

If anyone else is having problems understanding this, just remember what Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger Force would say:

[dragonvslinux]

Right, I didn't mean for it to be "net excluded", just excluded by any DT member.

Bro you is confusing  

(excluded by DT members)

But yeh, should of checked OP I guess  

[(BTC)]

As far as high/low goes, I'm feeling pretty high right now, not going to lie. Got some good merits for reporting a multi-account AI spammer, and received retaliatory feedback from him right after I did so. My first red-tag! Cherry on top? When I politely requested for him to remove the tag, he deleted my post:

Dont leave negative marks unless you have the evidence to support it. Fair ratings are what make the community tick.

Hey @redtrusts, it seems you have left me a negative feedback rating without a reference!

You would be hard pressed to find an alt account with more telltale signs than this one. It is a new or otherwise quiet profile that has all of a sudden started in on some very pointed and disruptive commentary. Time and again it will post or chime in not to have an honest debate but to stifle open discourse and put the boot on any dissent. The whole tenor of it is aimed at silencing members and calling for censorship.

I'm taking your advice and requesting you remove it. I'm making my case here in your thread, instead of starting my own topic, if that's alright with you. I feel this negative rating is retaliatory in nature, off the basis that I received it after citing you, and your possible alt accounts, for low-quality AI spam. I am equally of the feeling that you have no evidence to support the no-reference rating you wrote.

A classic bitcointalk experience. I wear his feedback tag with honor. Thank you @redtrusts for making my day!