Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 56. (Read 85606 times)

Lauda is blacklisted from DT1 (not excluded), and is still on DT2 (proof).

Loyce is right. Excluded DT1 members can't "vote" for (or against) DT2 members. So Lauda gains DT2 "strength" compared to the previous DT1 "strength" because exclusions from TECSHARE et al don't count against Lauda anymore.

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

No. if Lauda is excluded from DT1, he cannot be on DT2. I think your assumptions as to whose votes count might be flawed.

If you are on DT1, your trust list flows down regardless if your ratings show up or not.

Lauda had (2) net-inclusions on DT1.
Lauda now has 6 net-inclusions on DT2.
Lauda got blacklisted from DT1.

I have 2 scenarios
1: suppose Lauda wasn't blacklisted, but got 3 more exclusions from other DT1 members. That would mean Lauda was removed from DefaultTrust entirely.

2: the current state (Lauda blacklisted from DT1). Now suppose Lauda gets the same 3 exclusions from DT1. That would mean Lauda still has 3 net-inclusions on DT2 and remains on DefaultTrust.

This means it is possible that a DT1-exclusion leads to a member being on DT which wouldn't happen without blacklisting. This is probably caused by the fact that excluded DT1-members can vote against other DT1-members, but they can't vote against DT2-members.
Is that the intended behaviour of the DefaultTrust system?

I have excluded Vadi2323. I can understand opposing a flag but red trust is inappropriate.

Great! This is an appropriate change for the reasons I previously cited. It is also appropriate to blacklist him manually rather than let it happen over time also for the reasons cited previously, although he may have requested to be blacklisted.

Whoa, you were fast on detecting that. Is there any official reason why? I do agree with your previous statement in that making the process more democratic a step forward.

Update: Lauda has been removed from DT1.

DT member sent negative feedback to victim and opposed red flag together with some other signature participants

---

Maybe social experiment system needs additional changes?

I don't find OgNasty to be controversial. In fact, the only controversial thing I can think of OgNasty ever doing is wearing a signature of a shady company for a couple of weeks that I don't believe had actually scammed anyone (but IIRC were operating in a very shady way). When OgNasty was 1 of ~10 DT1 members, he had excluded many people who were very high profile because they posted a lot, but had no real trading experience and had no business being on DT.

In regards to your point that theymos is not acting as a dictator, you fail to account for the fact that whoever controls the algorithm controls the output. He also has great influence on the inputs by controlling the merit sources and how much each source gets. When google doesn't want particular pages displayed prominently on their search results, they don't blacklist websites, they just tinker with the algorithm to get their desired results.

There are also many examples of people leaving many controversial ratings over time who are already on DT who see no real pushback against their ratings. There are also examples of people facing retribution in the form of frivolous negative ratings (bill gator), and trust exclusions (bill gator and teeGUMES) for making statements that goes against the "crowd".

In order for the trust system to have any credibility, there needs to be rules (some of which were recently implemented with the flag system), and they need to be enforced (which does not appear to be the case). When the system is not being used appropriately, there needs to be intervention, period. If there is no intervention, those who speak out will see mass exclusions, and others will see this and be afraid to speak out. Without intervention, the forum will become more like most countries in the Middle east, China, or North Korea, in which citizens are jailed when they are critical of the government.

Yeah, I bet Lauda pissed off a lot of DT1 election/merit farmers from local sections.

Lol, I missed that

I think it's commendable that theymos is trying to not be a dictator here.

OgNasty currently has 16 inclusions and 16 exclusions on DT1.
Lauda currently has 26 inclusions and 24 exclusions on DT1. A month ago, the number of inclusions was 26 higher than the number of exclusions.

Judging by these numbers, I'd say Lauda is now more controversial than OgNasty. I also think the current DT-system is something Lauda can't win. I described a hostile takeover scenario in January, and I think something similar will eventually remove Lauda from DT: Lauda excluded and tagged many users and that lead to many users excluding Lauda in exchange (see most excluded users). Once more users meet the Merit requirements for DT1-voting, DT1 becomes more decentralized and more and more of the users who excluded Lauda get to vote against DT1-members.

Some people removed their trust list entirely, and some people presumably did not post within the last 30 days, both disqualifying their eligibility.

Interesting how the number of eligible users went down from 111 to 104. That means only 4 members got Theymos Snapped this month.

This was a rhetorical question.

Lauda should be blacklisted for what happened when the flag system was implemented, along with his long history of abusing the trust system, among other reasons why he is untrustworthy.

Blacklisting Lauda would be mostly symbolic because he almost certainly had the foresight to either build up or buy alt account(s), some of which are likely unknown to the administration. Further, people who are separate from lauda have noticed how he made a name for himself, and are mirroring his previous actions, and are trying to emulate him in an attempt to achieve similar results. (I think lauda did some other things that others have not picked up on that were not genuine on the part of lauda, that cemented his support among certain very influential people). My opinion is the damage to the community caused by lauda is irreversible. 

Dabs was the larges "selfscratcher". He dropped from +42 to just +6 without his own DT2-inclusions.

No.

Was Lauda not blacklisted because of his shenanigans when the flag system was implemented?

Removed:

Added:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51673716

I don't think this is normal DT behavior https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/crypto832-reputation-discussion-hardware-section-5152921

Agreed. Kudos for preempting the semantic circus and being specific. You can definitely tell he consulted some legal guides