Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 102. (Read 85467 times)
I think if a user made a purchase and seller leaves positive feedback they should have the right to give as many positive feedbacks they want. I’m saying this as an eBay seller. I have repeat customers and I always leave them positive feedback to show appreciation.
I've already contacted shdvb about this and other cases.
I have asked also someone on last day about same issue. I don't think it's really necessary to send positive feedback's for every transaction. Is ther any difference with single positive feedback's and with 10 positive feedback's from same DT ? I don't think so, I am not sure if effect it on trust rating. But I think its better just left single feedback's if you want, especially for positive feedback's. 
I've already contacted shdvb about this and other cases.
I have asked also someone on last day about same issue. I don't think it's really necessary to send positive feedback's for every transaction. Is ther any difference with single positive feedback's and with 10 positive feedback's from same DT ? I don't think so, I am not sure if effect it on trust rating. But I think its better just left single feedback's if you want, especially for positive feedback's. It allows for different references tho. Since it does not affect score you might as well document the different transactions.
I've already contacted shdvb about this and other cases.
I have asked also someone on last day about same issue. I don't think it's really necessary to send positive feedback's for every transaction. Is ther any difference with single positive feedback's and with 10 positive feedback's from same DT ? I don't think so, I am not sure if effect it on trust rating. But I think its better just left single feedback's if you want, especially for positive feedback's.
Hi o_e_l_e_o,
Can you help me, please.
Which ones are bolded in your list on the page #32?
I need your clarifications because ideas come to me.
Can you help me, please.
Which ones are bolded in your list on the page #32?
I need your clarifications because ideas come to me.
An important reminder:
1) For positive feedback: Be very conservative.
2) For negative feedback: Be strict and follow the general standards (what we tag for and what we don't tag for).
3) For trust lists: Not that important unless you are DT1, but I'd say be even more conservative than 1).
2) For negative feedback: Be strict and follow the general standards (what we tag for and what we don't tag for).
3) For trust lists: Not that important unless you are DT1, but I'd say be even more conservative than 1).
I've already contacted shdvb about this and other cases.
If I'm theymos,
I will add forms to submit
a) One - day Inactivity Leave (letter)
b) Three - day Sick Inactivity Leave (letter)
c) Yearly Holiday of 15 days, 1 month, 1 year, 2 to few years (letter)
d) Wedding Inactivity leave
e) Accident Inactivity leave with / without proof
f) Space Journey leave
g) And many more...
Isn't it hard to tweak to accept absence letters and keep activity level of DT1 and DT2.
I will add forms to submit
a) One - day Inactivity Leave (letter)
b) Three - day Sick Inactivity Leave (letter)
c) Yearly Holiday of 15 days, 1 month, 1 year, 2 to few years (letter)
d) Wedding Inactivity leave
e) Accident Inactivity leave with / without proof
f) Space Journey leave
g) And many more...
Isn't it hard to tweak to accept absence letters and keep activity level of DT1 and DT2.
Does space journey leave eat into my holiday leave? I was planning on taking a trip to Mars later this year, but might have to re-think things if this is the new policy.
I sure hope not, the tickets were non-refundable.
I've just come back from Mars next week, when you get to the second cave on the right, turn left...
BTW, my 1,000,000,000,000 year leave of absence form is still "pending"
At this stage I honestly can't tell if we're taking activity too seriously or not seriously enough, heh.
Just use common sense. If a user has been inactive for a period you are not comfortable with, take appropriate action. It shouldn't be this big of a controversy, should it?
Just use common sense. If a user has been inactive for a period you are not comfortable with, take appropriate action. It shouldn't be this big of a controversy, should it?
It wasn't a general subjective perception of inactivity that I was referring to.
My original point was that it seems, as things stand, that in order to qualify for DT a member must have been active in the 72 hours before the unknown time that Theymos chooses to revise the list in the future.
Probably a more meaningful measurement would be to require being online at least half of the days of the previous month rather than looking at a potential snapshot of just 3 days.
At this stage I honestly can't tell if we're taking activity too seriously or not seriously enough, heh.
Just use common sense. If a user has been inactive for a period you are not comfortable with, take appropriate action. It shouldn't be this big of a controversy, should it?
Just use common sense. If a user has been inactive for a period you are not comfortable with, take appropriate action. It shouldn't be this big of a controversy, should it?
Wedding inactivity leave doesn't seem like a default trust issue - it more of a cause for annulment.
If I'm theymos,
I will add forms to submit
a) One - day Inactivity Leave (letter)
b) Three - day Sick Inactivity Leave (letter)
c) Yearly Holiday of 15 days, 1 month, 1 year, 2 to few years (letter)
d) Wedding Inactivity leave
e) Accident Inactivity leave with / without proof
f) Space Journey leave
g) And many more...
Isn't it hard to tweak to accept absence letters and keep activity level of DT1 and DT2.
I will add forms to submit
a) One - day Inactivity Leave (letter)
b) Three - day Sick Inactivity Leave (letter)
c) Yearly Holiday of 15 days, 1 month, 1 year, 2 to few years (letter)
d) Wedding Inactivity leave
e) Accident Inactivity leave with / without proof
f) Space Journey leave
g) And many more...
Isn't it hard to tweak to accept absence letters and keep activity level of DT1 and DT2.
Does space journey leave eat into my holiday leave? I was planning on taking a trip to Mars later this year, but might have to re-think things if this is the new policy.
I sure hope not, the tickets were non-refundable.
If I'm theymos,
I will add forms to submit
a) One - day Inactivity Leave (letter)
b) Three - day Sick Inactivity Leave (letter)
c) Yearly Holiday of 15 days, 1 month, 1 year, 2 to few years (letter)
d) Wedding Inactivity leave
e) Accident Inactivity leave with / without proof
f) Space Journey leave
g) And many more...
Isn't it hard to tweak to accept absence letters and keep activity level of DT1 and DT2.
I will add forms to submit
a) One - day Inactivity Leave (letter)
b) Three - day Sick Inactivity Leave (letter)
c) Yearly Holiday of 15 days, 1 month, 1 year, 2 to few years (letter)
d) Wedding Inactivity leave
e) Accident Inactivity leave with / without proof
f) Space Journey leave
g) And many more...
Isn't it hard to tweak to accept absence letters and keep activity level of DT1 and DT2.
If DarkStar_ was genuine in removing UID's simply because they were inactive, he'd remove UID's such as
(snip)
Done.(snip)
then that list should also be excluded...
I can still trust their judgement even if they are inactive...
Last posted a month ago = inactive?
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
That's my point exactly - if they were genuine about removing UID's (by their yard stick of just one month)
This.
On the subject of forum activity and eligibility for DT consideration, Theymos' provision
Not logged on for 72 hours =/= inactive.
It doesn't affect me personally as I log on just about every day, but say one of the 250+ merit Gate Guardians had an accident or something and not log on at DT revision time, then it could get undesirably chaotic for "fringe" candidates.
Quote
You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
might be a bit tight in practice.Not logged on for 72 hours =/= inactive.
It doesn't affect me personally as I log on just about every day, but say one of the 250+ merit Gate Guardians had an accident or something and not log on at DT revision time, then it could get undesirably chaotic for "fringe" candidates.
I thought that being online in the last 3 days was a bit strange too, but within context I had read it as a requirement at the time that theymos updates the list (about once a month), so it would not be an ongoing issue unless it was a status measurement at the time that theymos was taking the snapshot. Probably a more meaningful measurement would be to require being online at least half of the days of the previous month rather than looking at a potential snapshot of just 3 days.
On the subject of forum activity and eligibility for DT consideration, Theymos' provision
Not logged on for 72 hours =/= inactive.
It doesn't affect me personally as I log on just about every day, but say one of the 250+ merit Gate Guardians had an accident or something and not log on at DT revision time, then it could get undesirably chaotic for "fringe" candidates.
Quote
You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
might be a bit tight in practice.Not logged on for 72 hours =/= inactive.
It doesn't affect me personally as I log on just about every day, but say one of the 250+ merit Gate Guardians had an accident or something and not log on at DT revision time, then it could get undesirably chaotic for "fringe" candidates.
(I think you missed the point on that one). 
I do get you, I will say in the case of Zepher, he will be back - some RL stuff has got in his way is all.
Last posted a month ago = inactive?
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
That's my point exactly - if they were genuine about removing UID's (by their yard stick of just one month)
Last posted a month ago = inactive?
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
That's my point exactly - if they were genuine about removing UID's (by their yard stick of just one month)
If DarkStar_ was genuine in removing UID's simply because they were inactive, he'd remove UID's such as
(snip)
Done.(snip)
then that list should also be excluded...
confirmed alts, all had a last sign in date of 2018!
/s
love your efforts really dude
/s
love your efforts really dude
(I think you missed the point on that one).
Last posted a month ago = inactive?
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
That's a bit overzealous isn't it, a month is barely a decent holiday.
Same with TomatoCage:
monbux
Zepher
james.lent
Muhammed Zakir
Code:
Last Active: 04 May 2018, 09:46:06
monbux
Code:
Last Active: 28 August 2018, 04:08:22
Zepher
Code:
Last Active: 15 November 2018, 23:00:55
james.lent
Code:
Last Active: 19 November 2018, 21:04:01
Muhammed Zakir
Code:
Last Active: 16 December 2018, 11:27:34
confirmed alts, all had a last sign in date of 2018!
/s
love your efforts really dude
Jump to: