You mean I would have to add all 100 DT1 members to my trust list and choose if I want to have each of them trusted or distrusted, and do this every month?
This was my primary idea when I was doing the dry run then after making the topic when it seemed hard work for everything then I proposed to have a certain percent instead of all. 20% out of the rest of 99 would be a good threshold I thought. I explained it here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60748710 
Topic: A Possible Improved DT1 System Proposal. (Read 329 times)
My proposal is to add another layer with the current DT system for DT1 Election which is to allow these 100 eligible users to update their trust setting every month.
You mean I would have to add all 100 DT1 members to my trust list and choose if I want to have each of them trusted or distrusted, and do this every month?I don't think it's realistic to expect from anyone to make changes every month, and I personally wouldn't do it.
I made changes in my trust list only based on specific event that happened in forum, and I don't want to be forced to add people manually each month.
Doing this it almost guarantees new dramas and conflicts among members in future, that would make even more people erasing their trust list.
If exclusions would be counted for the DT1-election, users with many exclusions wouldn't reach DT1 in the first place.
I would support this idea, and it sounds interesting in theory, question is how it would look in every day forum life.Would that make much difference, though? Are there many users on DT1 who are not excluded by other DT1 users but are excluded by lots of non-DT users? And it does nothing to solve the fact that DT2 is an absolute mess.
Fixing DT2 should be top priority and I think we already have some good suggestion that can be implemented quickly.
Quote
Would that make much difference, though?
Currently, excluded DT1-members can still downvote others. That would be the main difference.I am not sure I understand the benefit of the proposal in the OP. I understand that theymos crafted the trust system so that a diverse set of people will be on DT. From what I can tell, it will be a requirement for everyone on DT1 to have the same set of people added to their trust list, which removes this diversity.
If any proposed changes are taken seriously or are believed to be important for the functioning of the forum, our admins theymos and/or Cyrus would be posting and discussing these proposals with the community. I don't see that happening, at least not for now. Staff members like Welsh have shared their thoughts, but that's not enough. The admins haven't said anything, either here or in the thread created by DireWolfM14.
Maybe someone should PM theymos and ask him to comment and share his thoughts here. I am sure he would do that. To me, his silence feels like what you guys are discussing isn't important right now. It could also be that he is watching and thinking whether or not to change something but I remain skeptical.
Maybe someone should PM theymos and ask him to comment and share his thoughts here. I am sure he would do that. To me, his silence feels like what you guys are discussing isn't important right now. It could also be that he is watching and thinking whether or not to change something but I remain skeptical.
I would prefer the current system with some more additional requirements like-
1. To be eligible for DT member, you must have sent 100 feedbacks, otherwise, you are not eligible regardless of how many inclusion you have.
2. It would be great if all the feedback has the same system as current flag. If the feedback has net positive score of correct/wrong, only then they will be eligible for being in the DT member provided they have met the above #1 criteria.
1. To be eligible for DT member, you must have sent 100 feedbacks, otherwise, you are not eligible regardless of how many inclusion you have.
2. It would be great if all the feedback has the same system as current flag. If the feedback has net positive score of correct/wrong, only then they will be eligible for being in the DT member provided they have met the above #1 criteria.
You can imagine the number of new reviews that will come from those who want to get into DT. After all, before you understand whether they are true or not, a person needs to write them. I think it will be quite rubbish, and will not bring any benefit to anyone. In addition, opinions will still differ, and writing reviews for everyone is very fussy.
In addition, it’s not enough to modestly put yourself forward in the DT, because this is the opinion of those people who trust a particular person, and not their own desire, isn’t it?
1. To be eligible for DT member, you must have sent 100 feedbacks, otherwise, you are not eligible regardless of how many inclusion you have.
I prefer quality over quantity.Quote
If the feedback has net positive score of correct/wrong, only then they will be eligible for being in the DT member provided they have met the above #1 criteria.
That's going to be very complicated, because with each addition to DT1, everyone's feedback (score) changes again. legendary
Activity: 1960
Merit: 1908
Marketing Campaign Manager |Telegram ID- @LT_Mouse
I would prefer the current system with some more additional requirements like-
1. To be eligible for DT member, you must have sent 100 feedbacks, otherwise, you are not eligible regardless of how many inclusion you have.
2. It would be great if all the feedback has the same system as current flag. If the feedback has net positive score of correct/wrong, only then they will be eligible for being in the DT member provided they have met the above #1 criteria.
1. To be eligible for DT member, you must have sent 100 feedbacks, otherwise, you are not eligible regardless of how many inclusion you have.
2. It would be great if all the feedback has the same system as current flag. If the feedback has net positive score of correct/wrong, only then they will be eligible for being in the DT member provided they have met the above #1 criteria.
I have a different idea: Currently, anyone with enough earned Merit can vote for the DT1-election by inclusing users on their Trust list. But if they exclude them, that exclusion is ignored for DT1-election and only other DT1-users can take away that user's DT1-status (while the user can still vote in favour or against other DT1-members).
Why not let all users vote against DT1-members instead?
If exclusions would be counted for the DT1-election, users with many exclusions wouldn't reach DT1 in the first place.
An interesting proposal. Too many people are complaining, protesting but what matters are the ideas. It's up to Theymos which direction he should move but a new revamp of the DefaultTrust system will be appreciated.Why not let all users vote against DT1-members instead?
If exclusions would be counted for the DT1-election, users with many exclusions wouldn't reach DT1 in the first place.
I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.
It's obvious that it was a school project, now that we are in our professional areas, let's see what the main man brings for us. 😉 Why not let all users vote against DT1-members instead?
At a minimum it should be users who are eligible to vote for DT1 members as well - i.e. the merit and rank requirements. If you let all users vote them it becomes trivial to manipulate.Quote
Would that make much difference, though?
Currently, excluded DT1-members can still downvote others. That would be the main difference. Why not let all users vote against DT1-members instead?
At a minimum it should be users who are eligible to vote for DT1 members as well - i.e. the merit and rank requirements. If you let all users vote them it becomes trivial to manipulate.Would that make much difference, though? Are there many users on DT1 who are not excluded by other DT1 users but are excluded by lots of non-DT users? And it does nothing to solve the fact that DT2 is an absolute mess.
How about having 20% out of 99 or less or more than that? This should reduce the difficulty to have all 99 in your trust list.
It's still too much. I'm not willing to do monthly work to reach DT1. I'm okay with not being on DT1 though.I have a different idea: Currently, anyone with enough earned Merit can vote for the DT1-election by inclusing users on their Trust list. But if they exclude them, that exclusion is ignored for DT1-election and only other DT1-users can take away that user's DT1-status (while the user can still vote in favour or against other DT1-members).
Why not let all users vote against DT1-members instead?
If exclusions would be counted for the DT1-election, users with many exclusions wouldn't reach DT1 in the first place.
This would make political elections very interesting too. Especially on Hillary vs Trump, where many people voted one person because they didn't like the other, they could both have ended up with negative numbers of votes
Interesting responses so far.
The common problem is the difficulty of keeping rest of the selected members in your trust list if you are selected to be a DT1.
How about having 20% out of 99 or less or more than that? This should reduce the difficulty to have all 99 in your trust list.
We can always increase or reduce the difficulty by taking a percent from 99. Higher the percent is, harder to be elected in the DT1.
Edit: OP updated.
The common problem is the difficulty of keeping rest of the selected members in your trust list if you are selected to be a DT1.
How about having 20% out of 99 or less or more than that? This should reduce the difficulty to have all 99 in your trust list.
We can always increase or reduce the difficulty by taking a percent from 99. Higher the percent is, harder to be elected in the DT1.
Edit: OP updated.
Recycling the same topic over and over!! It's funny how everyone forgot that this is a forum and that no system, no matter how well you tweak it, is perfect; there must be some leakage somewhere. The system was designed to accommodate every user who met the criteria. Increasing another security layer to DT1 election will not solve anything as people would still cheat their way into it
A word of advice: don't try to game the system you met; instead, enjoy it! I wouldn't be surprised if I awoke to find someone requesting that thyemos raise the legendary merit to 2000 simply because so many people are obtaining the rank.
Off to gambling part of the forum
A word of advice: don't try to game the system you met; instead, enjoy it! I wouldn't be surprised if I awoke to find someone requesting that thyemos raise the legendary merit to 2000 simply because so many people are obtaining the rank.
Off to gambling part of the forum
The negative outcomes of the new proposal may out-way the good side of the current trust system, especially with regard to drama. The main reason why we want the new trust system to be revamped is mostly because of ongoing drama (accusations and counter-accusations between DT members about trust abuse cases and alleged manipulations)
Maybe the period for mandatory inclusions or exclusions should be extended to at least 90 or 120 days so that someone is not pressured to unnecessarily include or exclude users. Personally, I take very long to include or exclude users, even scammers (I am mostly active tagging and flagging them). Does that make me a bad DT Member?
Maybe the period for mandatory inclusions or exclusions should be extended to at least 90 or 120 days so that someone is not pressured to unnecessarily include or exclude users. Personally, I take very long to include or exclude users, even scammers (I am mostly active tagging and flagging them). Does that make me a bad DT Member?
Exactly. You will end up with every DT1 user distrusting >50% of other DT1 users, which would (under the current exclusion rules) result in nobody being on DT1.
Just a thought: if enough DT1-members disagree with the current DT-system, they could actually pull this off! Call it a 51% attack, wipe DT1, with that wipe DT2, and DefaultTrust ceases to exist while custom Trust lists still work. The benefits:
Elect only users who have strong desire to be in the DT1 list.
I would argue that this is not a benefit at all, and indeed, an active disadvantage. Often the people who have the most desire to become DT1 are the people least appropriate for the role, and their motivation to become DT1 is to allow them to game the system, retaliate, boost their friends, etc.Elect only users who have strong desire to be in the DT1 list.
Since it requires a must vote for all selected users, no elected DT1 user can stay in the border line where they skip it by not adding or tildeding(~) others.
If the only option is to include or exclude, then I would wager that most users would simply exclude everyone not already on their list by default, resulting in mass net exclusions for everyone. If I've not added someone to my trust list already in the last several years, then simply forcing me to pick include or exclude isn't going to change that fact and make me suddenly start including them.It could create more drama since no one can stay in the border line. You tilded user A, be ready to be tilded by user A.
Exactly. You will end up with every DT1 user distrusting >50% of other DT1 users, which would (under the current exclusion rules) result in nobody being on DT1.I still strongly support raising the threshold for DT2 inclusion as you mention at the start of your post, though.
OP, it's obvious you put a lot of thought into your proposal and I appreciate that, but it seems like your idea would make the DT system more complicated than it is, and if I understand it correctly, would require people to vote regularly. If that's correct, it'd be a huge turn-off to me. I much prefer a system that runs by itself and doesn't require active participation to keep it running. There's no way in hell I'm going to update my trust list every month, especially if there are 100 members to be considered.
In fact, aside from me contemplating doing what Yahoo62278 did and blanking my trust list altogether, I'd rather not make any changes to it unless something happens that necessitates a change.
And honestly, I think Theymos ought to just go back to the way things used to be, once upon a time when the default trust list meant something, and being added to it was far more of an accomplishment than it is these days.
In fact, aside from me contemplating doing what Yahoo62278 did and blanking my trust list altogether, I'd rather not make any changes to it unless something happens that necessitates a change.
And honestly, I think Theymos ought to just go back to the way things used to be, once upon a time when the default trust list meant something, and being added to it was far more of an accomplishment than it is these days.
My personal suggestion is to make wider margin. Net inclusion 2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2 and so on.
I don't think so. The more net inclusions you require the more oligarchic the system becomes. There are already people who disagree with raising the net inclusions by one degree, I understand that making it much more restrictive is not going to be popular.
Regarding the DT1 proposal I don't know what to say, I guess partly because I have never been to DT1 and have not been overly concerned with how it works, although I have an idea. So I leave it to those of you who are in DT1 and know the system better to discuss it.
My proposal is to add another layer with the current DT system for DT1 Election which is to allow these 100 eligible users to update their trust setting every month.
So the random selection makes the users eligible for DT1 but each of them are not DT1 until they do not update their own trust list with the selected remaining 99 users. One must add or tilde (~) others in their trust setting to become DT1 for the remaining days until the next random subset selection.
I think this applies:So the random selection makes the users eligible for DT1 but each of them are not DT1 until they do not update their own trust list with the selected remaining 99 users. One must add or tilde (~) others in their trust setting to become DT1 for the remaining days until the next random subset selection.
When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc.
(quote taken out of context, it was about Newbie jail)I'm okay with the majority of people on DT1. That doesn't mean I want to include them by myself, nor does it mean I think they deserve to be excluded. I don't want to dig deep into all feedback and Trust relations of 100 forum accounts each month, that would take me days to do a thorough job.
The current DT1 system became a lazy achievement for some
That's okay: it's a forum, not a full time job
To improve DT2 selection, the topic from DireWolfM14 and his pool suggestion is so far the best discussion I consider.
My personal suggestion is to make wider margin. Net inclusion 2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2 and so on.
My proposal is to add another layer with the current DT system for DT1 Election which is to allow these 100 eligible users to update their trust setting every month.
So the random selection makes the users eligible for DT1 but each of them are not DT1 until they do not update their own trust list with the selected remaining 99 users. One must add or tilde (~) others in their trust setting to become DT1 for the remaining days until the next random subset selection.
The current DT1 system became a lazy achievement for some, some are easily manipulating it, some do not involve because they do not either add or tilde (~) a user to avoid DT drama. If someone wants to be in the DT1 network then let them fully involved.
I do not know how hard it will be to reprogram but I wanted the work for Theymos as less as possible.
Choosing random subset of 100 users are already done but instead of making them DT1 from the selection write a set of code that will check if the individual user added/tilded(~) remaining 99 users.
A loop will be needed but depending on the programming skill the loop can be optimized (mainly in array processing) for the code to take less resources.
Instead of running it on onLoad of the index page you can set a corn job which will execute after every x hours or x day.
The benefits:
Elect only users who have strong desire to be in the DT1 list.
Since it requires a must vote for all selected users, no elected DT1 user can stay in the border line where they skip it by not adding or tildeding(~) others.
Every month after the selection, users will need to add/tilde(~) new selected users to their trust list again, this eliminates lazy DT1.
Since elected to be in DT1 become harder it should eliminate easy manipulation.
The disadvantages:
Selected users will need to update their trust setting every month to be elected for DT1
It could create more drama since no one can stay in the border line. You tilded user A, be ready to be tilded by user A.
May use additional resources from the hosting if it allows to run in onLoad of the index page.
Update: Considering response from users so far, a proposal to reduce difficulty.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60748710
My personal suggestion is to make wider margin. Net inclusion 2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2 and so on.
#3
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 banned or manually blacklisted 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.
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 banned or manually blacklisted 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.
Quote
I plan to instead choose a random subset of about 100 eligible users each time.
In current DT system these random subset of 100 eligible users become the DT1.My proposal is to add another layer with the current DT system for DT1 Election which is to allow these 100 eligible users to update their trust setting every month.
So the random selection makes the users eligible for DT1 but each of them are not DT1 until they do not update their own trust list with the selected remaining 99 users. One must add or tilde (~) others in their trust setting to become DT1 for the remaining days until the next random subset selection.
The current DT1 system became a lazy achievement for some, some are easily manipulating it, some do not involve because they do not either add or tilde (~) a user to avoid DT drama. If someone wants to be in the DT1 network then let them fully involved.
I do not know how hard it will be to reprogram but I wanted the work for Theymos as less as possible.
Choosing random subset of 100 users are already done but instead of making them DT1 from the selection write a set of code that will check if the individual user added/tilded(~) remaining 99 users.
Code:
Current user cu = logged in user;
Array cua = Current user's trust list;
Save the random subset in an array rsa (random subset array);
Have another array dta (defaultTrust array) to store DT1 users;
Check cua have everyone from rsa excluding himself
YES, cu will be added to dta;
return dta;
Instead of running it on onLoad of the index page you can set a corn job which will execute after every x hours or x day.
The benefits:
Elect only users who have strong desire to be in the DT1 list.
Since it requires a must vote for all selected users, no elected DT1 user can stay in the border line where they skip it by not adding or tildeding(~) others.
Every month after the selection, users will need to add/tilde(~) new selected users to their trust list again, this eliminates lazy DT1.
Since elected to be in DT1 become harder it should eliminate easy manipulation.
The disadvantages:
Selected users will need to update their trust setting every month to be elected for DT1
It could create more drama since no one can stay in the border line. You tilded user A, be ready to be tilded by user A.
May use additional resources from the hosting if it allows to run in onLoad of the index page.
Update: Considering response from users so far, a proposal to reduce difficulty.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60748710
Jump to: