I don't think exclusion behavior has changed.
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. 
Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 116. (Read 85606 times)
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. 
I'm honored to be DT1 too! I'll re-check my trust list again.
I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
-snip-
That doesn't discourage it, it completely eliminates it!I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
-snip-
DT1 has been reconstructed with all of the criteria.
Does this account for exclusions?DT1 has been reconstructed with all of the criteria.
Does this account for exclusions?
I'm honored to be DT1 too! I'll re-check my trust list again.
I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
If a DT2 member is added only by one DT1 user and the former left positive trust to the later then it should not appear as trusted on the DT1's profile.
So in practice the DT1's default trust should not be affected by changes made by that DT1 user to their trust list.
I'd like to propose a change to discourage DT1 members from adding users to DT2 just to improve their own trust:
If a DT2 member is added only by one DT1 user and the former left positive trust to the later then it should not appear as trusted on the DT1's profile.
So in practice the DT1's default trust should not be affected by changes made by that DT1 user to their trust list.
Try to not take that DT position too heavily.
You can't truly judge people properly based on a couple of messages in the Internet. I am not too fond of placing strong ratings, positive or negative, especially based on nothing but messages. Something like person's judgement or trustworthiness cannot be properly evaluated based on a couple of messages here and there. People may talk on different context levels or have other kind of communication problems, etc., misunderstandings happen all the time. Cultural differences, language barriers, different values, different moods... etc..
You can't truly judge people properly based on a couple of messages in the Internet. I am not too fond of placing strong ratings, positive or negative, especially based on nothing but messages. Something like person's judgement or trustworthiness cannot be properly evaluated based on a couple of messages here and there. People may talk on different context levels or have other kind of communication problems, etc., misunderstandings happen all the time. Cultural differences, language barriers, different values, different moods... etc..
Code:
achow101
actmyname
asche
BitcoinPenny
Blazed
coinlocket$
Coolcryptovator
cryptodevil
Cyrus
DarkStar_
dooglus
EcuaMobi
gmaxwell
greenplastic
Halab
Hhampuz
hilariousandco
iasenko
ibminer
ICOEthics
Jet Cash
JohnUser
krogothmanhattan
Lafu
Lauda
Lesbian Cow
LoyceV
marlboroza
minerjones
Mitchell
monkeynuts
mprep
OgNasty
owlcatz
qwk
SebastianJu
suchmoon
TheFuzzStone
The Pharmacist
theymos
TMAN
tmfp
TookDk
vizique
Vod
Welsh
xtraelv
yahoo62278
yogg
zazarb
actmyname
asche
BitcoinPenny
Blazed
coinlocket$
Coolcryptovator
cryptodevil
Cyrus
DarkStar_
dooglus
EcuaMobi
gmaxwell
greenplastic
Halab
Hhampuz
hilariousandco
iasenko
ibminer
ICOEthics
Jet Cash
JohnUser
krogothmanhattan
Lafu
Lauda
Lesbian Cow
LoyceV
marlboroza
minerjones
Mitchell
monkeynuts
mprep
OgNasty
owlcatz
qwk
SebastianJu
suchmoon
TheFuzzStone
The Pharmacist
theymos
TMAN
tmfp
TookDk
vizique
Vod
Welsh
xtraelv
yahoo62278
yogg
zazarb
I plan to do it again early every month from now on, with adjustments as needed. But if we assume that this general system continues forever, the long-term goal is to keep the critera basically stable and then let the list actually grow over time: the goal is not to constantly select the "top 50 forum users" or similar, but to select a wide swath of users who are basically acceptable.
[1] This isn't even a joke anymore.
I'm honoured and surprised that I have become a DT1. Thank you for the promotion.
You are not the only one surprised here, now I ended up on DT1 if that's not a mistake, of course.
This is more than unexpected. I'll be very careful with my further trust/feedback judgements.
I'm honoured and surprised that I have become a DT1. Thank you for the promotion.
M (number of V vertices) is not given right?
M is the number of vertices in the input graph, and is known. The number that should be in the optimal output is not known.
Typo on your end in the 2nd optimal solution? I figure you meant either v1 or v3 for one of those vectors?
Right, thanks.
DT1 has been reconstructed with all of the criteria. Old:
I plan to do it again early every month from now on, with adjustments as needed. But if we assume that this general system continues forever, the long-term goal is to keep the critera basically stable and then let the list actually grow over time: the goal is not to constantly select the "top 50 forum users" or similar, but to select a wide swath of users who are basically acceptable.
Code:
achow101
actmyname
BitcoinPenny
Blazed
Cyrus
dooglus
gmaxwell
greenplastic
HostFat
JohnUser
krogothmanhattan
Lauda
Mitchell
monkeynuts
OgNasty
owlcatz
qwk
SebastianJu
suchmoon
The Pharmacist
theymos
TMAN
zazarb
New:actmyname
BitcoinPenny
Blazed
Cyrus
dooglus
gmaxwell
greenplastic
HostFat
JohnUser
krogothmanhattan
Lauda
Mitchell
monkeynuts
OgNasty
owlcatz
qwk
SebastianJu
suchmoon
The Pharmacist
theymos
TMAN
zazarb
Code:
achow101
actmyname
asche
BitcoinPenny
Blazed
coinlocket$
Coolcryptovator
cryptodevil
Cyrus
DarkStar_
dooglus
EcuaMobi
gmaxwell
greenplastic
Halab
Hhampuz
hilariousandco
iasenko
ibminer
ICOEthics
Jet Cash
JohnUser
krogothmanhattan
Lafu
Lauda
Lesbian Cow
LoyceV
marlboroza
minerjones
Mitchell
monkeynuts
mprep
OgNasty
owlcatz
qwk
SebastianJu
suchmoon
TheFuzzStone
The Pharmacist
theymos
TMAN
tmfp
TookDk
vizique
Vod
Welsh
xtraelv
yahoo62278
yogg
zazarb
actmyname
asche
BitcoinPenny
Blazed
coinlocket$
Coolcryptovator
cryptodevil
Cyrus
DarkStar_
dooglus
EcuaMobi
gmaxwell
greenplastic
Halab
Hhampuz
hilariousandco
iasenko
ibminer
ICOEthics
Jet Cash
JohnUser
krogothmanhattan
Lafu
Lauda
Lesbian Cow
LoyceV
marlboroza
minerjones
Mitchell
monkeynuts
mprep
OgNasty
owlcatz
qwk
SebastianJu
suchmoon
TheFuzzStone
The Pharmacist
theymos
TMAN
tmfp
TookDk
vizique
Vod
Welsh
xtraelv
yahoo62278
yogg
zazarb
I plan to do it again early every month from now on, with adjustments as needed. But if we assume that this general system continues forever, the long-term goal is to keep the critera basically stable and then let the list actually grow over time: the goal is not to constantly select the "top 50 forum users" or similar, but to select a wide swath of users who are basically acceptable.
This looks like quite a step backwards in terms of decentralization.
I wonder how it would look like if the voting power was capped at 10 and 2 respectively, e.g.
72 merits - has 7 votes
105 merits - has 10 votes
560 merits - still has only 10 votes
Same with 250s, i.e. anyone between 250-499 merits has 1 vote and anyone >=500 has 2.
Code:
~snip list~
Code:
979216: RuSS512
925926: gawlea
227450: identifyuser
915311: mstfprcn
944905: saulzaents
1331637: zentdex
Some of them are still included, only one still includes another user:925926: gawlea
227450: identifyuser
915311: mstfprcn
944905: saulzaents
1331637: zentdex
Code:
mstfprcn->Kubra Dam
@theymos: should the custom trust list of a banned user be deleted? If I understand correctly, their existing inclusions still count towards voting.
Look Like LoyceV forget ATMcoin in list who is also banned.
I do not think satoshi will be coming to vote.
These 2 should be blacklisted from DT eligible list as well as voting too.
Apja94
pitipawn
Relatively new users put in their trust list those who have interactions with.
I just started my list and it's far from being ready, so I've added those whom I know well and I feel OK to add them. Looking through the other people's (DTs) lists, I see users I never heard of, or never saw ( or at least remembered with something) so they are quite unknown to me. I'll share some free time to check them, but this is a long term process.
I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation. Regarding SaltySpitoon I've crossed some of his posts, but I'm not so familiar with the user.
I just started my list and it's far from being ready, so I've added those whom I know well and I feel OK to add them. Looking through the other people's (DTs) lists, I see users I never heard of, or never saw ( or at least remembered with something) so they are quite unknown to me. I'll share some free time to check them, but this is a long term process.
I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation. Regarding SaltySpitoon I've crossed some of his posts, but I'm not so familiar with the user.
I like LoyceV just fine but 6X as many votes as SaltySpitoon? lol no..
If you put it like this, it is weird indeed. For what it's worth, I have SaltySpitoon in my trust list.Quote
I think the DT1 list would be nice with around 50 members on it anyway..
Just a thought: what if theymos pickes a number for DT1, and adjusts the requirements on the fly in order to reach that amount?Another thought:
At the moment a relatively new user can be voted into DT1. Isn't it better to require at least some time on DT2 (or even DT3) first, so that others can judge how the user is doing?
Nothing about them. If you're excluded, you're excluded.
As it was before a person needed more inclusions than exclusions by 10 [or 9? to have (0)].
Now any single 1 exclusion is the final answer? Whose exclusion counts first?
I think the DT1 list would be nice with around 50 members on it anyway..
At that point abuse would be somewhat noticeable and keeping track of every DT2 will be difficult.I like LoyceV just fine but 6X as many votes as SaltySpitoon? lol no..
Is LoyceV 6X more trusted to make good votes than SaltySpitoon?
These votes have nothing to do with how trusted someone is. Stop confusing concepts.Is LoyceV 6X more trusted to make good votes than SaltySpitoon?
Does the algorithm decide "most useful" before taking into account how many exclusions a member must overcome to stay on DT1 or after?
Exclusions are processed at the very end.What about all the extra votes someone needs to overcome rivals exclusions?
This loos like quite a step backwards in terms of decentralization.
Given the previous size of the DT list, it really isn't.To reduce the size of the DT1 list it could easily have been changed to 30 10 merit votes and 5 100 merit votes or something rather than greatly centralizing voting power.
I get the 10 merit standard, 100 merit standard, even the 250 merit standard, but anything over 500 merits is rediculous and depends too much on where you post, what you post about, and who your friends are..
I like LoyceV just fine but 6X as many votes as SaltySpitoon? lol no..
Is LoyceV 6X more trusted to make good votes than SaltySpitoon?
I think the DT1 list would be nice with around 50 members on it anyway..
Does the algorithm decide "most useful" before taking into account how many exclusions a member must overcome to stay on DT1 or after?
Exclusions are processed at the very end.That is no good IMO..
What about all the extra votes someone needs to overcome rival exclusions?
This loos like quite a step backwards in terms of decentralization.
Given the previous size of the DT list, it really isn't.Does the algorithm decide "most useful" before taking into account how many exclusions a member must overcome to stay on DT1 or after?
Exclusions are processed at the very end. Yes, true, and where the user Veleor?
Piggy uses theymos' Merit data dump, which updates on Friday. Veleor didn't have 250 Merit earned yet last Friday. By now he would have 1 vote. Jump to: