Topic: Ddmrddmr on DT1 (Read 726 times)

Just on someones activity basis you can't make someones trust graph OP. DdmrDdmr have enough quality to be at DT1 and able to bear DT responsibility IMO. I beleive his contribution to forum is good enough where he didn't commited scam, spam or any illegal activities which can rise question about trust judgement.

Its not important to have so many members in DT list where I think its much necessary how many of them are doing their duties properly. 

rouge or rogue?

Not sure if the pun was intended, but it's a good one nonetheless

Regarding OP, I guess you misunderstood from the beginning what a DT1 is.
There are no obligations attached to being DT.

- You get "elected"
- If your judgement is off you get excluded.

2 simple and unique rules. Apply them to Ddmr and you have your answer.

This needs a bump!

BPIP already does this - counts the instances of sMerit given, not the sum.

This is one extra layer of protection in case a merit source goes rouge lol

DdmrDdmr is one of the most valuable members on this forum, no doubt about that.
Not being a regular trader doesn't mean you can't spot scammers effectively. Besides, one of DT membres duties is to tag SCAM ICOs, hacked/sold accounts(...) which doesn't require any trading experience.

The only inconvenience here is that he is not that active in tagging scammers.

I disagree with the OP, posting feedback have almost nothing to do with begin DT1.
We mix again the Trust with Feedback.
Most important is his trust list and the way he judge whom to trust or distrust ,also being able to include or exclude members and keep an eye on the rest of the DT members, then comes the feedback.

If Ddmr² trusts someone (or a few) who dedicates his time to tag scammers, and this guy is on DT2 because of him then Ddmr² is more valuable then the few feedback he could have done himself.

I meant 'DT1', edited my post .

It's not like the number of spots in DT2 is limited. It can equally well accommodate those who trade and tag a lot, and those who post a well thought-out rating once in a while.

I disagree with that. One doesn't really need to be on a DT because they do trades on bitcointalk. The trust feedback left after successful trades by other traders speaks for them. Such feedback is enough for other members to consider them trustworthy. A suitable DT candidate should be the one that actively contributes to the forum, tags accounts as you said and helps in cleaning the forum off scammers. One can just be here for the trades and not spend enough time to do anything that helps the rest of the community. I don't think we want such members on the DT.

+1. There is no need to be in DT1 if you don't make trades or tag accounts when needed.

Personally I don't expect DTs to spend their entire time giving feedbacks.
As long as DdmrDdmr is fair in the ones he gives, I have no issue with him being DT.

It's not. The main criteria should be the person's judgement, not the number of ratings they post, and there is no reason to think that DdmrDdmr's judgement is not fit for DT.

One of the rare times where I have to agree with you. These additions effectively make DT1 more and more worthless.

I don't see any issue here. The system will benefit from having a wide range of members who make up DT1. I welcome this inclusion more so than some of the trigger happy members you see trying to get into DT1 for whatever reason.

I've removed default trust from my list to experiment for a while. I went through Ddmrddmr's trust list and didn't see anyone I would disagree with being on DT2. This is where a member like Ddmrddmr is great. Considering they like to work in facts and numbers lead me to believe they will be well reasoned in who they add or exclude.

More to your original questions OP, nothing wrong with asking that's how you learn. From my point of view any number of users with a varying degree of activity on the forum and with sending feedback can wind up in the system. It just depends on who sees value in either the small amount of feedback they have left, or who's trust list you also like/agree with.

I would say consider that in building your own trust list, don't just go with the longest list of feedback left. There are a lot of tools now to help you dig deepeer and decide who you want in your list.

I consider Ddmrddmr a trusted person but I did not add him to my trust list because he was neutral in feedback, I added many people who are active in the market section and campaigns so there is a balance in making decisions and tagging account.

I am glad to see him as DT1 member even if  he doesn’t send too many feedback, his and other non-active members will equate to any future imbalance.

Seems one of the more level headed, civil and mature meta board inhabitants.

Seems a sensible DT choice above 90% of the others on there.

It is not ALL about red trusting "apparent" scammers or about red trusting people who tell the truth. There are other good reasons to be on DT.

I know Ddmrddmr isn't a-
Scammer
Spammer
Will not scam probably
Will act as DT member when needed.

To all the respected members who tried to point out these listed above-
I didn't mean this at all. I tried to point the fact that the way forum member uses DT inclusion/exclusion, Ddmrddmr isn't from the same. I didn't say a single time Ddmrddmr is scammer, or like to be scammer. He has contributed a lot for the forum, specially in the area of merit. The fact is merit doesn't refer to trust. I believe this statement has cleared up my point here.

I think this is a pretty strong argument for someone not to be in DT (1 or 2). If someone does not trade and is not a participant in the trust system, I see little benefit in the person being in the DT network. The drawbacks to someone like this being in the DT network come with the risk the person somehow gets involved in shenanigans in which very inappropriate ratings are left (and go unnoticed).

From what I have seen DdmrDdmr is a good forum member who contributes and helps others in many ways. If he wanted to start being a participant in the trust system, I would not be opposed to him being in the DT network if he shows he gives accurate and fair ratings.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, do you mean that he publishes statistics?

DdmrDdmr was the second user I added to my trust list after LoyceV. He isn't that active when it comes to leaving feedbacks but again that shouldn't be the only reason for we to trust someone like theymos said "the trust system is just a guide, don't make judgement just because an account is painted green or red, carryout personal research". I'm glad he's on the DT list, we just have to encourage him to participate more as he owes the forum some kind of duty now he's a DT member.

DdmrDdmr is surely an elite minded guy with tones of knowledge about the forum and specifically merit analyzing. Some of his best analysis have helped the community here in many ways and his contribution should surely be noted.

He is an great example for bounty spammers and for the once who think merits earning is impossible, to let them know what they can do if they try to contribute to the forum in positive way. He is one of the most merited users around here.

I surely support him being on the DT.

DdmrDdmr trusted and helpful member it is true no doubt she works always helpful activity all forum section, As a help here, his contribution may be many Although everyone tries to help a bit But he works with a lot of consciousness. I think he is a credible member like everyone else.

You can safely start ignoring DT1 members unless they are abusing the system in one way or another (be it via bad inclusions or exclusions). Clearly.

To me he is someone  trustworthy and i bet many members would agree with me. His contributions to the forum is enough evidence of someone who loves the forum.
Sending out feeback or trading are not the only actions one can do in the forum to show that one is trustworthy.

DdmrDdmr has also been quite resourceful in the Help and Beginners board. Helping and awarding those who help newbies some merit. He's one of the few people whom i know does not indulge so much in the "Political Noise" around the forum and instead chooses to contribute and engage in much more important forum discussions which is very commendable.

How is he not related to the trust system? Every member on the forum is part of the trust system by default. Being on the trust list has nothing to do with dealing with scams or being an active scam hunter.

AFAIK, they're logical, contribute statistically to the forum and make valid points.

Who said DT's are formed to protect the newbies? Stop making those assumptions. You should discuss your concerns with the people who included them on the DT, the opinions of the rest of the community wouldn't make a difference.

No doubts Ddmrddmr is a good contributor, but he/she isn't much related with trust system or dealing with scams or likely scam. But seems Ddmrddmr already on DT1 by voting system and directly voted by 8 DT1. Feedback's left by Ddmrddmr is likely appropriate. I believe he/she will not abuse his power since he isn't much active on trust system.

However since forum give opportunity to be DT1 member by voting system so everyone can be if they are not blacklisted.  

Frankly, I created my Personal Trust List as per @Theymo’s encouragement for people to create them. Until then I was OK with DT as it was, bearing in mind that the scores are indicators that need to be endorsed by checking the actual feedback comments.

Being on DT means nothing to me personally. I do not trade here, nor likely will, and tagging accounts is perhaps not something I will feel the urge to do in the boards that I visit  more often (mainly my Local Board, Beginners & Help and Meta, and reading through some other BTC related). These boards are not that prone to require tagging accounts, at least what I’ve seen so far, and a Report to Moderator is more often than not the correct approach there.

Now if tagging should be a complementary measure of the right to be on DT, then so be it. I for one would be fine with it, were it to become a requirement. Of course @Theymos would have to create a semantical analysis complementary part to his algorithm, to avoid tags being counted per se if they are meaningless and borderline spam. That’s a tough one to do, so I guess one could consider that @Theymos would then need to skim through the DT list and veto for the round those that are not tagging in a "righteous" manner .. and do this every month … a bit of a pain in the backside I’d say.

Now with all the DT battle struggles that have being going on lately , I’d say that there are better bones to pick …

Note: By the way, a way to upper the requirements a notch could be to take into account the number of people that have merited the person in the DT votes. It’s not exactly the same having earned 10 merits from a single person than from at least 5 different people. 

DdmrDdmr is not a member whose inclusion on DT1 I would contest.  He makes good contributions to the forum, for one thing.  He hasn't scammed anyone for another, and if his trust list doesn't show anything suspicious (haven't looked, but it sounds like there's nothing of concern), he should be just fine being a member of DT. 

And anyway, on the off chance he starts to abuse his position--which I seriously doubt he would--the self-policing of DT will quickly take care of the problem. 

Well, the two trust comments that he has made so far seem to be accurate. Plus, the people he places in his trust list appear to not be of concern. I think Ddmrddmr has a good head on his shoulders and will do a great job on DT1.

No offence to Ddmrddmr, no offence who entrusted Ddmrddmr.
Trust system is solely depended on forum members. As per my concern, member should entrust an user based on their practice of sending feedback, shouldn't entrust an user whom he trust. Both these terms are different.

Ddmrddmr has barely sent feedback, he isn't that much active. DTs are formed to protect the newbies.
As per this term, does Ddmrddmr qualify for entrusting?

Please further read the first sentence before providing your opinion/comment.