Fuck you and your legitimate questions
That's it, I'm gonna put eleven tildes in front of your name
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 113. (Read 85615 times)
That's it, I'm gonna put eleven tildes in front of your name
yes because if there are 2 unknowns added every month, we ~ and they retaliate with ~.. how long till the whole of DT-1 is full of excluded people?
The ultimate in decentralization
Yes., Retaliatory exclusions are going to be the new fad. Tie those with people being afraid to exclude and we have as much as a shit show as the last system
Worse now because it is infested with proven liars, double standards hypocrites and possible extortionists, and those others that ignore the facts that are presented to demonstrate this.
Oh well better to make it a total mockery and get some huge extortion scheme going via DT members to blow the entire thing up. Boom.
Besides I suspect there could be some mutual annihilation / chicken-and-egg problems if exclusions are made to work the way you're suggesting. Let's say you get excluded by a bunch of people offended by you calling them "princess" and TheFuzzyStone's exclusion of you tips your balance to negative and you both have the same exact score otherwise. Which one of you should be excluded?
Fuck you and your legitimate questions.. guess we will have to see how bad the situation gets
Which promotes gang-like retaliatory exclusions [1] (the first case is TheFuzzStone, who only excluded TMAN and suchmoon because they excluded him (for legitimate reasons)).
I feel like this is already going on and these changes actively work against it. For example, TMAN and owlcatz have excluded me without explanation even though I have reached out for one via PM. I'm conflicted whether or not to exclude them, because aside from their surprising and sudden exclusion of myself we have had nothing but positive interactions and even transactions (with owlcatz). Most of their feedback, in fact almost all of it I can agree with wholeheartedly. I am failing to find a legitimate reason for them to have done so, and so I am only able to conclude that their trust-list seems to be frivolous and unprincipled to some extent until further explanation is provided. I am giving these users the benefit of the doubt at the moment, and hoping they provide me with an explanation at some point, because I have never had a problem with them.
I wouldn't know. However, why would you exclude someone just because they exclude you especially given that you agree with most of their feedback? That's not how you are supposed to use this system. And no, they don't owe you an explanation just as you wouldn't owe anyone one.I think there is justification behind excluding somebody that excludes you. Unless you are distrusting of yourself and approve of their exclusion, how can you do anything other than disagree with their exclusion? Once you realize that you disagree vehemently with their trust-network, it makes perfect sense to exclude that person from your own trust-network. All of this is assuming you disagree with their reasoning to exclude you in the first place, but in rare circumstances there is agreement and accountability from the excluded that wouldn't be appropriate in most cases. Self-Defense is different from retaliation, is it not?
Disagreeing with someone's exclusion of self, and then excluding them because of it is not self-defense. It is retaliation (look up definitions and examples if unsure).Besides I suspect there could be some mutual annihilation / chicken-and-egg problem if exclusions are made to work the way you're suggesting. Let's say you get excluded by a bunch of people offended by you calling them "princess" and TheFuzzyStone's exclusion of you tips your balance to negative and you both have the same exact score otherwise. Which one of you should be excluded?
Although very unlikely, good question.Yes., Retaliatory exclusions are going to be the new fad. Tie those with people being afraid to exclude and we have as much as a shit show as the last system
Kind-of. It will be very hard to keep track of everyone as is. yes because if there are 2 unknowns added every month, we ~ and they retaliate with ~.. how long till the whole of DT-1 is full of excluded people?
The ultimate in decentralization
Yes., Retaliatory exclusions are going to be the new fad. Tie those with people being afraid to exclude and we have as much as a shit show as the last system
Does it matter though?
yes because if there are 2 unknowns added every month, we ~ and they retaliate with ~.. how long till the whole of DT-1 is full of excluded people?
I'm just saying that "~" shouldn't be seen as a weapon to kick someone out. I don't trust someone's judgement and/or their trust list - I exclude them. But they have been "elected" just like me so I can't really claim that they shouldn't have a right to "vote" inside DT1.
Besides I suspect there could be some mutual annihilation / chicken-and-egg problems if exclusions are made to work the way you're suggesting. Let's say you get excluded by a bunch of people offended by you calling them "princess" and TheFuzzyStone's exclusion of you tips your balance to negative and you both have the same exact score otherwise. Which one of you should be excluded?
Allowing Excluded DT-1 Members votes to still be active is a hole in the system.
I disagree. I think this gives the kind of decentralization and depth to the trust system that we're trying to achieve. This avoids making it so a handful of DT1 users are able to control the entire DT.Those users that are excluded from DT1, but meet all of the other criteria of the new system are certainly members that should have their votes be valid, in my opinion.
[1] You got nothing to lose (probably), and you get obsessed by negative emotions. If you don't get in, you won't feel permanently excluded to begin with.
I thought you said there were no gangs? so now there are gangs? just you are not in a gang even though looking and bpip fans and receivers lists and dt list support and posting history makes it look like you are?
Or one gang says no other gangs allowed?
Perhaps game theory says gangs must be combated with other gangs? makes sense to me
I mean tman, suchmoon, lauda, gang... complaining about other gangs and their exclusion?
Are gang inclusions allowed ? just not exclusions? I don't get how it works?
What about the legitimate reasons he may have been excluding for?
1. supporting liars.
2. being liars
3. implicated in extortion rackets
4. trust system abuse
5. something about escrowing that people were complaining about
I mean just adding possible insights into things I could not say for sure. However I would certainly exclude you those kinds of people from a trust based system
yes because if there are 2 unknowns added every month, we ~ and they retaliate with ~.. how long till the whole of DT-1 is full of excluded people?
The ultimate in decentralization
Which promotes gang-like retaliatory exclusions [1] (the first case is TheFuzzStone, who only excluded TMAN and suchmoon because they excluded him (for legitimate reasons)).
I feel like this is already going on and these changes actively work against it. For example, TMAN and owlcatz have excluded me without explanation even though I have reached out for one via PM. I'm conflicted whether or not to exclude them, because aside from their surprising and sudden exclusion of myself we have had nothing but positive interactions and even transactions (with owlcatz). Most of their feedback, in fact almost all of it I can agree with wholeheartedly. I am failing to find a legitimate reason for them to have done so, and so I am only able to conclude that their trust-list seems to be frivolous and unprincipled to some extent until further explanation is provided. I am giving these users the benefit of the doubt at the moment, and hoping they provide me with an explanation at some point, because I have never had a problem with them.
As per the OP, retaliation is not welcome. Therefore, I'm unsure what's theymoses game theory reason for allowing this.
I think there is justification behind excluding somebody that excludes you. Unless you are distrusting of yourself and approve of their exclusion, how can you do anything other than disagree with their exclusion? Once you realize that you disagree vehemently with their trust-network, it makes perfect sense to exclude that person from your own trust-network. All of this is assuming you disagree with their reasoning to exclude you in the first place, but in rare circumstances there is agreement and accountability from the excluded that wouldn't be appropriate in most cases. Self-Defense is different from retaliation, is it not?
Does it matter though?
yes because if there are 2 unknowns added every month, we ~ and they retaliate with ~.. how long till the whole of DT-1 is full of excluded people?
and to back that up he has excluded all 3 of us who kicked him for no other reason than revenge - if this happens every month it wont take long until the whole system is a mockery - My suggestion would be to remove all excluded DT members "votes and exclusions" from the calculation, this will give a cleaner system.
Does it matter though? I excluded him because I just don't want his ratings or the ratings of his "unique subordinates" (members of TheFuzzStone's trust list who aren't included by other DT1 members) to pollute the trust scores I'm seeing. Same reason I excluded some others. The fact that it kicks them out of DT1 is a result of multiple users doing the same and that retaliatory exclusion is meaningless because it can't achieve the same result. On the other hand, if those who include TheFuzzStone see this tantrum and change their minds - that's great. In general though I think exclusions should be more common and less drama-prone, particularly once we get close to 100 members.
for legitimate reasons
Which are? 
and you get obsessed by negative emotions
No at all! About negative emotions I answered you here.and to back that up he has excluded all 3 of us who kicked him for no other reason than revenge
Lauda was excluded until today. For you two, see this please.Liar, you ~ me and Suchmoon after we both had Excluded you - dont bother lying I saw it when I looked at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview once the new list was announced.
also read the fucking rules man
Allowing Excluded DT-1 Members votes to still be active is a hole in the system.
I disagree. I think this gives the kind of decentralization and depth to the trust system that we're trying to achieve. This avoids making it so a handful of DT1 users are able to control the entire DT.Those users that are excluded from DT1, but meet all of the other criteria of the new system are certainly members that should have their votes be valid, in my opinion.
[1] You got nothing to lose (probably), and you get obsessed by negative emotions. If you don't get in, you won't feel permanently excluded to begin with.
Allowing Excluded DT-1 Members votes to still be active is a hole in the system.
I disagree. I think this gives the kind of decentralization and depth to the trust system that we're trying to achieve. This avoids making it so a handful of DT1 users are able to control the entire DT.
Those users that are excluded from DT1, but meet all of the other criteria of the new system are certainly members that should have their votes be valid, in my opinion.
Side-Note: I am not advocating for TheFuzzStone, as I have no idea who that is.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/some-thoughts-about-the-old-new-trust-system-5096740 which shows he has no place being in any position of trust.
and to back that up he has excluded all 3 of us who kicked him for no other reason than revenge - if this happens every month it wont take long until the whole system is a mockery - My suggestion would be to remove all excluded DT members "votes and exclusions" from the calculation, this will give a cleaner system.
Yeah that sounds like more powers to centralise
LOL what about your abuse of the DT system and the fact you support a proven liar or maybe the fact you feel the need to splatter your sexually deviant posts all over the board?
or this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/laudatmanminifrijironmarvel2owlcatz-extortion-attempt-1764757
You admitted red trusting people for presenting facts relating to scams.
and to back that up he has excluded all 3 of us who kicked him for no other reason than revenge
Lauda was excluded until today. For you two, see this please.Once there's more than 100 users who would be selected to DT1
Allowing Excluded DT-1 Members votes to still be active is a hole in the system.
TheFuzzStone - he was added today, myself, suchmoon and your lover all excluded him - myself mainly due to his retarded thread yesterday
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/some-thoughts-about-the-old-new-trust-system-5096740 which shows he has no place being in any position of trust.
and to back that up he has excluded all 3 of us who kicked him for no other reason than revenge - if this happens every month it wont take long until the whole system is a mockery - My suggestion would be to remove all excluded DT members "votes and exclusions" from the calculation, this will give a cleaner system.
"Don't trust. Verify."
--> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49232976 Once there's more than 100 users who would be selected to DT1
Allowing Excluded DT-1 Members votes to still be active is a hole in the system.
TheFuzzStone - he was added today, myself, suchmoon and your lover all excluded him - myself mainly due to his retarded thread yesterday
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/some-thoughts-about-the-old-new-trust-system-5096740 which shows he has no place being in any position of trust.
and to back that up he has excluded all 3 of us who kicked him for no other reason than revenge - if this happens every month it wont take long until the whole system is a mockery - My suggestion would be to remove all excluded DT members "votes and exclusions" from the calculation, this will give a cleaner system.
The main reason that I went for this solution rather than forcing custom lists is that I would like to show some trust indicator to guests. But before doing that, I want to see whether these modifications can actually be made to work. If not, then I may go to the force-custom-lists solution, and that's incompatible with guests seeing any trust indicators.
I appreciate the decision of showing trust to guests. Here is another reason why it's important to enable it soon: In my new topic for newbies about Bitcoin vanity addresses (vanitygen) user Velkro left a comment and he supports bitcoinvanitygen. com a well known online 3rd-party scamsite for vanity addresses in his signature. Users from outside of the forum don't see his trust rating and can't follow the links to his trust page to read more. If we don't warn manually, like LoyceV and I did, it's still very likely that users from outside the forum will get scammed.
Jump to: