I was on the DT2 list for a very short time. Just started to paint the farmers account - immediately disappeared from the list (probably due to the fact that dropped TheFuzzStone) 
Added you in under me man, you should be on DT
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 114. (Read 85467 times)
Added you in under me man, you should be on DT
I was on the DT2 list for a very short time. Just started to paint the farmers account - immediately disappeared from the list (probably due to the fact that dropped TheFuzzStone)
I hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing to leave valuable trust feedback. The lesson that I have learned is that making valuable trust feedback matters even if you are not on DT1 or DT2.
I'm honoured and surprised that I have become a DT1. Thank you for the promotion.
You probably deserve it Jet Cash. You put a lot of time & effort into this place, I guess that hasj’t gone unnoticed & your name now resides amongst the forums big hitters.
You’re in my trust list, not that it’s a great feat but yes, well deserved.
Use your new found authority well my friend
I’ve just posted on another thread on some concerns on how red-tagged accounts may vary in accordance to the monthly DT composition from a user’s perspective, and if that could lead to a red-tagged account being so one month, but off the hook the next (if accordance to DT composition).
One can always switch to see the DT view on a given profile (by adding ;dt to the URL), but the more the customized Trust lists extend, the more visions of the Trust numbers do we have on the forum.
The Feedback also I figure can change from the Trusted Feedback list to the Untrusted Feedback list, or vice-versa. If DT1 composition (the integrating DT members) changes noticeable from month to month, I think this could be somewhat a feature. Default Trust colours and numbers were rather stable until now on a tagged account, but I wonder if making the system rather dynamic will have weird side-effects such as the above hypothesized.
Can the above happen, or have I misinterpreted something here?
<…> Once the account has been flagged as a bought account, it becomes worthless. <...>
I’ve been wondering if all the DT changes that are now taking place could have an on/off reading of red trust. I mean if people are now encouraged to create their own Trust lists (the vast majority won’t), and assuming a Campaign Manager decides to do so, the trust scores he will see (numbers on the user profile) will vary from that of the DT vision. One could, under the DT vision, have red trust and not under a specific Custom Trust List, or vice-versa. One can always switch to see the DT view on a given profile (by adding ;dt to the URL), but the more the customized Trust lists extend, the more visions of the Trust numbers do we have on the forum.
The Feedback also I figure can change from the Trusted Feedback list to the Untrusted Feedback list, or vice-versa. If DT1 composition (the integrating DT members) changes noticeable from month to month, I think this could be somewhat a feature. Default Trust colours and numbers were rather stable until now on a tagged account, but I wonder if making the system rather dynamic will have weird side-effects such as the above hypothesized.
Can the above happen, or have I misinterpreted something here?
Just started to paint the farmers account
In my opinion, the way you leave trust ratings shouldn't change depending on your inclusion of exclusion from Default Trust. That would seem to be an indication of exactly the kind of user I wouldn't want in DT. What makes you all of the sudden want to go around tagging people that you otherwise wouldn't? What is stopping you from continuing to tag people that you believe should be tagged? DT comes with more problems than perks, don't be upset.
Just got more then what I expected. Surprised to see my name on DT1 final list. I will revise my custom list once again. I believe no one will misuse his/her feedback from my custom list. Almost them was DT2 from beginning except few.
Congrats buddy. You deserved it. I have no idea that my wish can come true so soon.
I will like to see you in DT as well.
Congrats to everybody who got in DT1/DT2.
Whelp. Looks like I'm on DT2 now.
Well don't blame me - I put you on my trust list before all this happened.
I put TMAN on there as well, but only because I don't want him calling me a Flash Cunt.
The New DT2, as we know is constantly shifting and changing. Definitely too early to start drawing conclusions, in my opinion, as people are still scrambling to update their list to be more appropriate for the changed system. For example, I was on DT2 this morning and now I am no longer on DT2 at the time of writing this; give it some time for the dust to settle before formulating judgement based on who is currently in DT.
We've had dozens of people in and out of DT within the past couple of days and I doubt the current users are going to be the same users tomorrow.
A lot of people are being forced to rethink the way they structure their custom trust lists, then rethink them again and then realize someone they thought was their friend actually excludes them. Something we can all relate to is volatility, and all I can say is buckle up.
We've had dozens of people in and out of DT within the past couple of days and I doubt the current users are going to be the same users tomorrow.
A lot of people are being forced to rethink the way they structure their custom trust lists, then rethink them again and then realize someone they thought was their friend actually excludes them. Something we can all relate to is volatility, and all I can say is buckle up.
Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
An important thing to realize here is that it never really was a good idea to rely on DT. It was just a perceived view of a trust. There were many scammers in the DT, so how trusted was it after all? So many reasons why relying on a DT was and remains to be a bad idea.
It's just more obvious now why relying on DT is a bad idea.
I think the % of scammers on DT went up dramatically with this new system, but it’s still early. I’m sure at some point things will work themselves out and this will be a positive for everyone. If not, it definitely encourages people to rely on their own lists, so mission accomplished.
My point is that this new DT perceived trustworthiness is better aligned with real trustworthiness.
I disagree, but I have no desire to sling mud as I’ve already made my opinions on certain users and events known. Ultimately, it’s just a rating system. If it makes more people happy than it does upset, which it appears to, then it’s hard to not see it as a success for the forum.
Am I understanding the 'random subset of 100 users' statement correctly?... that we will ultimately end up with a DT1 list of 100, before exclusions, when more people fall into the criteria?
Once there's more than 100 users who would be selected to DT1, a random subset of those eligible will be selected each month. Or that's my current thinking, at least.
This will help prevent people from being unfairly attacked by even a majority of DT1, since some month you might lose the dice roll and find yourself in the minority for a while. As I mentioned in the OP, it creates more of a credible threat of retaliation, which I believe will have a moderating effect overall.
It's a good thing that there are way more DT members. This incentivizes users to properly develop their own trust list rather than stumbling on a path of lunacy as we have scores of users sloshing about the feedback sewers. Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
Yes, that's my intention. Once someone thinks, "DT is basically OK, but it's a bit chaotic, and every now and then I see something that I disagree with," then they've graduated from trust-newbie and are ready to build their own list. The old system was too safe/static/universal/untouchable.
(But I don't want DT to be absolute garbage, either, since trust-newbies need some guidance.)
Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
An important thing to realize here is that it never really was a good idea to rely on DT. It was just a perceived view of a trust. There were many scammers in the DT, so how trusted was it after all? So many reasons why relying on a DT was and remains to be a bad idea.
It's just more obvious now why relying on DT is a bad idea.
I think the % of scammers on DT went up dramatically with this new system, but it’s still early. I’m sure at some point things will work themselves out and this will be a positive for everyone. If not, it definitely encourages people to rely on their own lists, so mission accomplished.
My point is that this new DT perceived trustworthiness is better aligned with real trustworthiness. (Regardless of real trustworthiness being low or high).
Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
An important thing to realize here is that it never really was a good idea to rely on DT. It was just a perceived view of a trust. There were many scammers in the DT, so how trusted was it after all? So many reasons why relying on a DT was and remains to be a bad idea.
It's just more obvious now why relying on DT is a bad idea.
I think the % of scammers on DT went up dramatically with this new system, but it’s still early. I’m sure at some point things will work themselves out and this will be a positive for everyone. If not, it definitely encourages people to rely on their own lists, so mission accomplished.
Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
An important thing to realize here is that it never really was a good idea to rely on DT. It was just a perceived view of a trust, not too well aligned with reality. There had been many scammers in the DT, so how trustable was it after all? So many reasons why relying solely on DT was and remains to be a bad idea.
It's just more obvious now why relying on DT is a bad idea, but DT still has use cases due to this forums nature of e.g. not moderating scams.
Edit: reworded etc.
It's a good thing that there are way more DT members. This incentivizes users to properly develop their own trust list rather than stumbling on a path of lunacy as we have scores of users sloshing about the feedback sewers. Beyond that, the value of DT has been diluted immensely and thus reliance upon it as a proper vector for trust isn't the most brilliant idea.
Am I understanding the 'random subset of 100 users' statement correctly?... that we will ultimately end up with a DT1 list of 100, before exclusions, when more people fall into the criteria?
I think so? Theymos needs to add some of the newer vital information into the first post.Whelp. Looks like I'm on DT2 now. Does that mean all the merit beggars I negged for shadily propositioning me (and failing at it) are going to be out for my blood? (And also cryptohunter, who can't seem to stop chasing my tail for some reason, and who is no doubt going to somehow integrate this new development into the existing foxhole butt-sniffing pussy-petting conspiracy/orgy that I could never keep track of.)
That is correct. Welcome to the club. Actually, I will probably recruit you into the Cult of Lauda too. 
Whelp. Looks like I'm on DT2 now. Does that mean all the merit beggars I negged for shadily propositioning me (and failing at it) are going to be out for my blood? (And also cryptohunter, who can't seem to stop chasing my tail for some reason, and who is no doubt going to somehow integrate this new development into the existing foxhole butt-sniffing pussy-petting conspiracy/orgy that I could never keep track of.)
Guess this is my life now: youtube.com/watch?v=316AzLYfAzw
Guess this is my life now: youtube.com/watch?v=316AzLYfAzw
Am I understanding the 'random subset of 100 users' statement correctly?... that we will ultimately end up with a DT1 list of 100, before exclusions, when more people fall into the criteria?
Just got more then what I expected. Surprised to see my name on DT1 final list. I will revise my custom list once again. I believe no one will misuse his/her feedback from my custom list. Almost them was DT2 from beginning except few. And obviously I will exclude from my trust list if I found any valid accusation against any of them.
I will try my best to prevent scam/abuse like I am doing from beginning. Since I am really very new on trust network especially on DT1, I am expecting all old and seniors DT will help me always same like before. Thanks to theymos and who have voted me for DT1. And I think this is the opportunity to prove myself and help reduce scam/abuse from forum.
Congrats.. to all whoever on DT1 list. Let's work together to make a decent forum.
Edit:
Just remember now one suggestion. I believe its applicable for all DT network.
I will try my best to prevent scam/abuse like I am doing from beginning. Since I am really very new on trust network especially on DT1, I am expecting all old and seniors DT will help me always same like before. Thanks to theymos and who have voted me for DT1. And I think this is the opportunity to prove myself and help reduce scam/abuse from forum.
Congrats.. to all whoever on DT1 list. Let's work together to make a decent forum.
Edit:
Just remember now one suggestion. I believe its applicable for all DT network.
My suggestion is for OP to grow a thicker skin about these things.
@tmfp
I can "trust" a DT1 because I think he has good judgment but not his buddies added just for fun.
I can trust a user for money but that doesn't stop me from thinking that his judgment is borderline.
@Lauda @Dmrdmr
thanks a lot
I can "trust" a DT1 because I think he has good judgment but not his buddies added just for fun.
I can trust a user for money but that doesn't stop me from thinking that his judgment is borderline.
@Lauda @Dmrdmr
thanks a lot
<...> Where I can find the old list of the DT1/2 now?
I think coinlocket$'s older version of DT contains that. See Is the Default trust system still working/active?. It was created on the 5th of December 2018, so that should be the old version. Jump to: