Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 11. (Read 85792 times)

It is not ridiculous.  Just because it is the annoying refrain of scammers caught with their hands in the cookie jar doesn’t make it untrue:  Helping oneself to those proverbial cookies is a privilege of such persons as you.

You, yahoo, spent a very long time running an ad campaign for a scam.  Everyone knew it was a scam.  It caused massive controversy.  You did it anyway.  It must have paid well.

When a DT finally stood up and declared that he would tag you for this, he had the unwavering support of exactly one other DT.  He was promptly ~kicked out of DT, under the flimsy rubric of your supporters taking a twisted, self-contradictory position in a contemporaneous case.  His only 100% firm supporter in DT soon left the forum forever—probably for other reasons, but certainly in a state of disillusionment.

To the best of my knowledge, you never paid any consequences for any of this.  Under the public pressure raised by someone who essentially sacrificed his DT status to oppose you, you finally stopped advertising a massive scam—and that was that.  You walked away scot-free, with whatever profit you had thereto gained from your running of signature campaigns for exactly the type of scam that is designed to swindle naïve newbies.  IMO, you deserve permanent negative trust feedback and a Type-1 flag.

You kept your reputation, your business, your DT status.  You comfortably and hypocritically ridicule talk about a “DT mafia”, when you yourself are exemplary of it.

Perhaps I should not be so surprised.  Once upon a time, theymos, this forum’s administrator, used to advertise in his own signature an overt “Get Rich Quick... Bitcoin Ponzi scheme” (quote-unquote).  In the same era, in that cultural atmosphere, this forum was a tower of HYIP scams crowned by pirateat40.  It was worse than the sleaziest parts of defi today; perhaps it has not changed as much as I had believed.


Democracy.

New DT is the result of theymos abdicating the responsibilities of sound leadership.  Old DT was bad:  Instead of fixing it, theymos made it worse.  Fixing it would be too much trouble:  It would surely require cracking down on some high-trust, high-inclusion users who are thoroughly, very profitably corrupt.

---

https://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html



HTH.

---

Did you ask Blazed before showing that off?

Personal Messages are not private.  There is no rule against disclosing them; and sometimes, they should be published.  For good reasons—I think that excessive reluctance to publish PMs that show wrongdoing has sometimes caused long-term damage to the community.

Publishing PMs to brag and show off seems like an exercise of poor judgment, at best.

I was going through all of my PMs, a lot of which I kept from my early days on the forum, and I came across this back-and-forth between myself and Blazed.  It  just goes to show you (anyone who might not be familiar with how things were prior to Theymos's rejigging of the DT system) that being added to DT2--not even DT1, which was the holy grail for trusted aspirants back then--was a pretty big deal.



Plus if I recall correctly, Blazed had to run it by his DT "sponsor" to see if it was cool, and there had to be two DT1 members adding me to their trust list just for me to get on DT2.  Hilariousandco did me the honors.

And then I got booted off a short time later for some reason, and then re-added not long after that.  2018 was all about strangeness on bitcointalk.

I don’t even think it is a matter of if a particular rating shows up by default or not. I think the intention is to get people to look at the context of the rating and it’s references and come to their own conclusion. This reduces the impact of a frivolous negative or positive rating, while maintaining the ability of the community to warn others about potential scammers.

So? My point was we have only ~120 candidates, while theymos seemed to have expected to reach "hundreds", therefore stricter eligibility requirements are unlikely.

Not sure why you quote me with a response that isn't relevant to what I'm saying or what I'm replying to. Make a post without quoting if you want to say something unrelated.

I'd agree. Introducing a lottery would seem designed to make DT dysfunctional to experienced users and encourage them to exclude default trust and rely on their own chosen trust list. But at the same time leaving a DT system in place where actual scammers will still be likely to be seen as tagged by newbies who haven't worked out how to use the trust system yet. If the idea had really been to make it some kind of democracy then it would be based on the most votes counting. No democracy enters all candidates with a minimum number of votes into a lottery.

Yeah, I'm aware of the lack of exclusions and such, but I could have sworn that wolwoo was booted off DT (presumably for good) a long time ago.  I haven't checked yet, but I think I have him on my exclusion list, and I wouldn't have put him there had there not been some kind of incident (which I'm only vaguely remembering, but I do think there was one).

Yeah, you were around to remember the old days, as were a number of members I'm seeing in this thread--not all of whom were on DT back in the day, but I'm sure they remember how difficult it was to get on even DT2.  When I was being "vetted" for DT2, hilariousandco/Blazed/Lauda started a discussion about new additions, and it was a big deal.  It should be a big deal, because of how much power-through-feedback comes with it, as well as the power to potentially scam because of DT status.  I've said this probably 30 times: "Master-P, anyone?".

A group of 20 is too small for DT1, especially given how many members there are on the forum right now, but I do think it should be smaller than what it is.  DT1s can create DT2s, so I'm sure all the smarty-smart people here can do the math as to what tweaking the system can do (and has done).

Man, has it been that long?!  Time certainly does fly, doesn't it?  I guess that's why it seems like I haven't been paying attention to DT goings-on for what seems like forever.  I stopped caring once Theymos implemented the rotation system, though it didn't turn out to be a complete disaster like I thought it might.

Reducing number of people will only create more complains from majority members and they will say how it's impossible to ever become DT member.
I didn't reducing number of DT members is bad, but you would exclude some very good members that are contributing forum a lot.
As for scammers part, I am not so sure, but you can post information in public if you know DT1 scammers, don't speak in codes.

theymos is currently selecting 100 random, eligible users to be on DT1 each month. He has been doing this for the past 3 years.

---

I think the intention is to make individual trust ratings less meaningful and to encourage people to make independent judgments about the risk to dealing with a person, rather than relying on the subjective opinions of a few people.

You don't think it already looks like that? No matter what system is in place, there will always be people complaining of the DT mafia or something ridiculous. We should hold elections every 6 months or year, 20 DT members selected and they are allowed 20 inclusions to DT2. I'm not trying to exclude people but at the same time, half of them don't even know what the hell they are doing or are scammers waiting to be caught.

No, this is about the users who can vote for DT1-users. A Newbie who received 250 Merit can vote for DT1 too, and a Member can reach DT1.
You currently are included by 5 users with 250+ earned Merit and 1 users with 10-249 earned Merit:

I've never really looked into the criteria for becoming a DT1 member; it's interesting that I met almost all of the criteria here; the only one I'm a little confused about is the bolded part; does this mean that a user must be a Hero rank or higher to become a DT1 member? Because one must have received 250 merits from two different users?(500 merits)Could someone please explain this part to me? I'm befuddled; the more I read, the less I understand.

Being active is already part of the requirements:


Merit requirements (10+ and 250+ merit user votes) could be increased considering merit "inflation", because people only gain merit and never lose it. However:


And we're not at "hundreds" yet, so it seems fully within theymos' expectations and I wouldn't expect any such changes any time soon.

Only 20 DT1 members for forum that has thousands of active users (and millions of registered) is not good, and it would look more like a closed cult or a sect of specially elected users.
I agree that current DT system needs to be improved maybe most for DT2 members, but I wouldn't reduce DT1 members five times.
Better number would be 50 DT1 members that is 50% reduction, and I would increase number of inclusions for DT2 members like LoyceV suggested.
It would be interesting to add something like activity strength that would reduce your DT level if you are inactive, and increase it if you are active user.

I think I'm going to nickname you "Bitcointalk encyclopedia".

Txs for the explanation.

I think this one will happen about a week before KYC, so not very likely. It was suggested several times in the past years, and I once checked the numbers: it would reduce the number of users on DT2 by about 50%. And it would end all "selfscratching".

I can imagine it's not easy to implement, because the 1 inclusion not only applies to DT1 and DT2, it works all the way down to DT4 depending on your own trust depth setting. And changing how that works might be undesirable.

That seems like a good idea to me.

Those of you who have been on the forum for a long time, what do you think is the probability that theymos will make such a change? I think he very rarely makes changes and that he thinks long and hard before making them.

That's going to be a monthly thing, but to make it 20 would actually be interesting. Raise the requirements, and also raise the requirements for DT2.
But it's not going to help: eventually, anyone can get enough inclusions to qualify again. So the only thing I'd really like to see is 2 instead of 1 inclusion to reach DT2.

Perhaps because theymos randomly selected the users that eligible to become DT1, as been stated the criteria below. But since many DT1 excluded him, he's no longer a DT1 and he's not on DT 2 too because no one DT1 user trust him wolwoo trustlist. So there's nothing to be worried.

---

Pardon me since I don't know how the situation when there's only 12 users selected on DT1. But if theymos reduced 100 to 20 users to become DT1 users on every month, I think it's doesn't good since it makes the forum more centralized and perhaps theymos picked wrong users as DT1. Let's say he picked a group that abusing a trust system and they're trusting each others, it will mess up the forum with their not appropriate feedback. Not to mention not all 20 users will become DT1 as we didn't know those DT1 trust list and which user they distrust. 100 users are make sense for me.

This new way is terrible, seems like anyone can make DT. Back in the day when it was 12 users or whatnot, DT meant alot. I agree something needed to change, but 100 DT1 users is crazy. We need to hold an election or something and elect 20 users for DT1.

The DT1-lottery doesn't account for exclusions, but he had DT1-strength (-15) until the most recent change: