Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 5. (Read 85467 times)

I foresee a massive abuse of power coming from this user. Just posting for timestamp.

Theymos reshuffled DT1.

Removed:
     1. Legendary fronti (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (294 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Legendary babo (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (2753 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary ibminer (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (1458 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Copper Member Mitchell (Trust: +52 / =1 / -0) (953 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary Avirunes (Trust: +13 / =0 / -0) (466 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary NeuroticFish (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (5115 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Staff achow101 (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (4765 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary DaveF (Trust: +33 / =2 / -0) (5181 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Legendary klarki (Trust: +1 / =2 / -0) (1937 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary Jet Cash (Trust: +3 / =1 / -0) (1903 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Legendary condoras (Trust: +11 / =0 / -0) (596 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Legendary buwaytress (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (2570 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Legendary webtricks (Trust: +5 / =1 / -0) (1477 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Legendary imhoneer (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (1207 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. Legendary wolwoo (Trust: +0 / =2 / -2) (834 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. Legendary El duderino_ (Trust: +27 / =2 / -0) (10598 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. Legendary Coin-1 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (1910 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. Sr. Member Agrawas (Trust: +57 / =0 / -0) (478 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. Legendary TheBeardedBaby (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (3101 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. Legendary DdmrDdmr (Trust: +8 / =0 / -0) (9717 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. Legendary Lakai01 (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (2349 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. Legendary lovesmayfamilis (Trust: +25 / =2 / -0) (3906 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. Copper Member DireWolfM14 (Trust: +21 / =1 / -0) (4088 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. Copper Member Harkorede (Trust: +5 / =2 / -0) (752 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. Legendary zasad@ (Trust: +3 / =3 / -0) (3903 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. Hero Member Lachrymose (Trust: +4 / =1 / -0) (931 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. Legendary NotATether (Trust: +5 / =1 / -0) (5718 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Added:
     1. Administrator theymos (Trust: +28 / =0 / -0) (10480 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. Staff HostFat (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (195 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. Legendary Carlton Banks (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0) (2057 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. Legendary gbianchi (Trust: +4 / =1 / -0) (1435 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. Legendary stompix (Trust: neutral) (4847 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. Legendary arulbero (Trust: +7 / =0 / -0) (1012 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. Legendary Lesbian Cow (Trust: +55 / =1 / -1) (744 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. Legendary minerjones (Trust: +154 / =0 / -0) (2321 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. Legendary irfan_pak10 (Trust: +16 / =1 / -0) (614 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. Legendary yahoo62278 (Trust: +39 / =2 / -0) (3197 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. Legendary sandy-is-fine (Trust: +7 / =0 / -0) (220 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. Legendary SFR10 (Trust: +22 / =0 / -0) (2160 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. Legendary ekiller (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (612 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. Legendary finaleshot2016 (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (906 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. Sr. Member comit (Trust: +54 / =0 / -0) (71 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. Legendary krogothmanhattan (Trust: +103 / =1 / -0) (2663 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. Legendary JollyGood (Trust: +16 / =3 / -1) (1328 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. Legendary KTChampions (Trust: +6 / =0 / -0) (1609 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. Legendary GreatArkansas (Trust: +3 / =0 / -0) (1220 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. Copper Member logfiles (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (1454 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. Legendary coinlocket$ (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (1498 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. Legendary witcher_sense (Trust: +15 / =0 / -0) (3967 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. Copper Member shahzadafzal (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (2506 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. Legendary morvillz7z (Trust: +5 / =0 / -0) (1974 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. Legendary Bthd (Trust: +2 / =1 / -0) (2405 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. Legendary YOSHIE (Trust: +10 / =1 / -0) (1725 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. Hero Member decodx (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (770 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

I think it's a bad copy-paste of the text "Pardon?" converted to ASCII art with an old FIGlet font named "ogre" (http://www.figlet.org/fonts/ogre.flf):


   ___              _            ___
  / _ \__ _ _ __ __| | ___  _ __/ _ \
 / /_)/ _` | '__/ _` |/ _ \| '_ \// /
/ ___/ (_| | | | (_| | (_) | | | |\/
\/    \__,_|_|  \__,_|\___/|_| |_|()

---

It's pretty childish/tiresome the way you do that, by the way. When someone takes the time to explain their thinking to you, don't compact their post down to some reductive phrase like "Echo chamber". Once in a while that move is funny, but I've never witnessed you execute it properly. Your attempts mostly just leave you looking like you're unable to hold up your end of the conversation. To the person you're doing it to (and intelligent onlookers), it also acts as a sharp disincentive to engage with you in the future (maybe that's your goal? If so, keep it up, I guess).

LoyceV, why don't you become impartial and stop contradicting yourself, thus you'll can read that err... thing?


You are also in the gang of "impartials and self contradictory ones" thus you'll never understand!

---

This must be the most lame way to try to drag attraction on your neutral feedbacks: write them as neutral ones (knowing that otherwise even more DT1 users will exclude you, lol) but add some red there to make the magic inside the brain so the reader will associate them with negative ones.

This guy really has some imagination!

---

]

Oo

Sacré bleu! I don't understand how someone could stop distrusting a "racist / a troll / a conflictual person / a FUDster / someone playing trust games". Seriously! How can him stop distrusting me?

It seems to say "Pardon!" but if someone really wanted to apologize they wouldn't do it in gibberish and then attack the person they're asking "pardon" from so I'm probably wrong.

Agreed. That's why I took years before I excluded him. I believe his intentions aren't bad, but his methods don't fit DT.

I think he's asking if you use a Radeon GPU or have one that he can borrow....or something.  I was never great at deciphering heiroglyphicated nonsensiwords.

And since I've got absolutely nothing to do with this drama:  Let's party like it's 2016!!!

Also: C'mon, LoyceV.  It's been understood for years that at best Timelord2067 is 'touched'.  Many believe he has no malicious intentions (myself included) but can go from 0-100 within minutes if provoked.  And on top of that, I think there's some sort of language barrier that nobody has yet to climb over successfully.  Not for lack of trying, either.

Evidently you never read what I wrote.

You stopped being impartial a long time ago and you contradict yourself with your "do as I say, not do as I do" rhetoric.

Interesting.

So you're saying 87% of the feedback you left was unnecessary. I'm glad you finally realized what many others have known for a long time.

My neutral feedback on you is spot on and well deserved:
There's more to a Trust list than inclusions:
I want to see most of the feedback left by those users by default.

---

---

@Timelord2067: what's with the red font in neutral feedback?

It looks like you're abusing an unintended forum shortcoming.

You left me wrong feedback a week ago


I did not create that topic because he left that feedback, it was because he left this:
"Unfortunately I do not have any concrete evidence but I have a strong suspicion that this user is an alt of elmanchez (u=2553198) and ps34 (u=2751022). If dealing with this user, I suggest you trust him no more than you would the other two. If in doubt, use escrow. DireWolfM14"

DireWolfM14 accused me of being an ALT of a scammer without any evidence at all, without a REF link or anything, that's why I created the topic.
And I think many more at this forum would do exactly the same if this would have happen to them, so if you gonna leave me feedback, at least say the truth in it. I would appreciate it, I don't like lies or liars.
Just because people leave neutral feedback doesn't give them the right to leave pure lies as feedback.


Also I want to ask you one thing
Why did you leave this feedback? I don't want to try to start a argue or anything, I just wonder why you feel that it's your business to leave feedback to someone I did lend out money to?
I can understand why DireWolfM14 did it, even that it's not his business either, because Sakanwa should get a DT tag.
But you not even on the DT list?






It seems that it's very important for you to be on the DT list, if you review 3000+ feedback, it must have taken hours of hours.
And that you have done this is a sign that you av listen to the reputable members that told you to change approach, and you should get respect for that.
Good luck to get back into it DT, and if you do, I hope you don't abuse it once more.

Best wishes / CC.

Are you though? I haven't been in meta for weeks if not months but it feels like I never left because I still find your off-topic whiny-ass stalker nonsense in one of the first threads I open. So thanks for making me feel right back at home but maybe try growing up big man.

Remember posting this:


Yep - did that weeks months ago.  I now have ~390 trust feedback down from the previous ~3,050 - so which one is wrong?


So if my Trust feedbacks are correct ^(*), ^{and I predominantly DT trust DT1 users,} why aren't you doing as you tell others to do?


I am - are you?

Lol Thanks for point out this impossible edge-case scenario. Obviously, I did not have something like that in mind. But I believe that some tweaks can be added in order to avoid such situation, if a change would be made.

nutildah also has a point when he says that

Probably I did not come up with the best idea but in my mind there is still a contradiction regarding the current state of the system -- meaning the fact that you still have some DT1 powers although you are excluded from DT1...

I'm afraid I can't figure this out without a glass of wine ^{[After reading the first 3 lines, I was on the verge of tagging Loyce as a spammer]}. 

The real question for the people who don't get the explanation here, can you link every row from top to bottom by crossing "excluded" without crossing the word exclusion?  No joke, I'm actually playing word Plinko in paint with that wall of text!

Thanks for coming up with that example... I was prepared to elaborate if somebody questioned it but I'm glad I didn't have to 

I agree with you, abuse will look easier now, if a good-quality poster wants to abuse the system, then it is easily to create 8 accounts, add 10 merits to them, vote for himself, and all he needs now is one vote out of +250 merits.
Preventing such a user from voting or increasing the difficulty of choosing, such as 100 merits instead of 10, will reduce the abuse of the system.


I have divided it into several blocks so I can't read it.

Let's say 2 DT1-users have no inclusions from other DT1-members, but they exclude each other. In the current system, they both have DT1 Strength (-1). Following GazetaBitcoin's suggestion, their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded.Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. .......

It nevertheless has sense. When a reshuffle the calculation of votes pro and contra can change so there can be a chance that in next time the same person will get more positive votes than negative. And you can never know before reshuffle. If you'll make a decision about someone's inclusion in the list of eligible ones before reshuffle then there could be an abuse of a system when some group will decide to exclude some other group when there will be more representatives of a first one than of a second one. And if it will affect the reshuffle the second group will never return to DT1. So right, we have a situation when there are some users with negative power in DT1, but IMO there's less chance of abuse.