Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 115. (Read 85467 times)

DT2 members are there because they are trusted by DT1 member(s).
DT1 members are there because they are trusted by others.
If you trust a DT1 member's judgement, why shouldn't that trust extend to those that he/she in turn trusts (unless specifics indicate otherwise) whether you personally know them or not?

This is the old list (i.e. the list from a few days ago, not from the old system). This just contains the new members from the new system.

What about showing trust in local boards? Especially those containing sections that have a link to the marketplace "Altcoin ANN, services, mining,...etc."

---

Have all members "added to the DT trust list" been warned to review their ratings? There are many positive or negative feedbacks without citing sources

(sorry, you were fast to reply)

Yes that's was the case, but it happened rarely. Where I can find the old list of the DT1/2 now?

Thanks Lauda.

None other than a net positive number of inclusions by DT1 members. Those merit criteria are for DT1 only.

What’s the criteria to be in DT2?

I think I have only 1 person with 250+ earned Merit ‘trusting’ me?

Well exactly like you for instance red tagged for being untrustworthy before , now somehow off the hook and not only trustworthy again but deciding on who is trustworthy... sounds like a fun system that people can place a lot of faith in.

Need someone to compile old vs. new DT2 list again to make it easier. Plus it isn't a weekly rotation anymore and the changes should be less drastic moving forward.

This was always the case.

Disprove anything my post says.. I will not be silence by you.

This is a forum.  I will reserve the right to produce evidence that supports my view. If you do not like it slap me some more red trust. It is the fuel upon which I run. Mr trustworthy poster boy for DT1  haha

get back on the meds, leave the grown ups to talk

xxxx love ya sweet cheeks xxxx

oh no someone waking up....welcome to wonderland how did that red pill taste.

100 persons approx (250 earned merits I mean screw the old legends and posters who cant hang around meta all day) who derive the fact they deserve like 70% + of their merit from THEMSELVES are therefore now in control of both the merit system of control and the trust system of control. These now control every members ability to be paid2post and trade as a non tagged scammer. Some wanting themselves 2 paid2post accounts to sig spam cos 1 was not enough... details below.

Pull up on bpip  pharmacist,suchmoon locyev, o_e_l_e_o, foxpup tman, lauda, owlcatz, iasenko , all their "pals" then check their top 10 fans and receivers ....LOL  out of 150k users they just all happen to be riddled amongst each others others top 10s

then look who voted who on here - what the same people all meriting the same people all voting for the same people in DT

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

Wow can't see any connection can you?

NO COLLUSION??

Merit = trust? when the merit is gained subjectively from themselves?? then deciding they are also the most trustworthy?? hmm

Then look on the

Proven liars , Proven double standards, people proven to  start 2x accounts and get busted sig spamming and trolling for real.. for extra  btc dust,

Now with the  new algo I see more people added - that's great news lets take a look. Oh shit they seem (read their post history and look on BPIP ) as obvious friends and sympathisers of these colluders.

earned merits = honey trap to find colluders to avoid putting in any positions of trust?

LoyceV the most merited (except special characters) show me 10 of his best posts right here NOT JUST SOME STATS HE PULLED OFF THE SERVERS AND PRODUCED IN LISTS OR GRAPHS.  Show me some great insights he has made original posts then do the same for the pharmacist AKA HUGE BLACK WOMAN  sig spammer got busted for trying to get on a higher rate of SIG SPAMMING.

Or if you want to pull this FACT BASED post apart which discusses the new algo to find the most suitable persons for the DT lists then I look forward to that.

Likely it will be deleted because of off topic or annoying, too long to read, does not agree with us, trolling aka bringing facts.

Wanna fix it quick, change it to activity 1500 + earned merits 100 max and black list anyone who has proven or been implicated in any financial wrong doing, proven to lie etc... no point starting with a ton of bad eggs you will just get more people who are ....bad eggs.

There's no quarrel, I already excluded you. You have no place being in DT, especially not when you reject the idea behind it. Now move along, this is beyond your belief system.

Me too. I have never participated in bounty, shady stuff or etc., and I will not. Congrats to all.


Please do not start. You did not even know about my existence before creating this topic. And as I said before, if you want to find a person to quarrel, then you need to find another user, because this is not for me.

I really can't. I'm just playing devil's advocate on your idea. Maybe the DT2 member was only added by the DT1 user for a legitimate reason, and that DT2 member happens to have left a trust rating for a legitimate reason to the DT1 member. Anyways, I don't think we will see extensive cases such as the case of CITM's idiocy (who's not the brightest fellow around). However, given that DT2 is growing too large for my liking you may have a point (keeping track of everyone will be very difficult).

Why? Can you give an example?
Note I'm just referring about the case when that DT2 was added only by that single DT1 user, so they would't be DT2 otherwise.

Correct. The thing that I have requested has not received a response so the behavior remains the same.

Yeah, but if you completely eliminate it then you might also hurt legitimate users.

Well, yes, you're right. Improving our own default trust shouldn't be a factor to add someone to DT2 at all.

They're on DT1 by the algo, but excluded by the live (so can change any time) inclusions/exclusions system.

I mean the list published in theymos' post shows Og and zazarb, both of which I think are excluded.

I think I answered my own question . Exclusions are not reflected in that list.