Topic: My musings about the trust network (Read 640 times)

Its not your fault your actions have a resounding effect, but it is my fault my actions have a resounding effect huh?

You want to know why? I will cut you some slack, since you are a noob here. This goes back a VERY long time, and involves many conflicts you have no knowledge of, and have no reason to care about because they don't involve you. Also, I am just a very stubborn motherfucker who refuses to submit to manipulation or intimidation as a matter of principle. One would think this would be a highly valued characteristic in a protocol designed to prevent fraud, but apparently the exact opposite is true.

One needs to question, why?

And I'm sure that's a huge factor.  I'm not faulting anyone for their use of trust settings.  Notice theymos isn't weighing-in on any of these debates?  He set up a system that's decentralized.  It's up to us to make sure it works for everybody, not just a select a select few.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: I set up my trust list for my own personal needs.  I never asked anyone to be on DT1 or 2, and I'll keep setting up my trust list for my personal needs if I get kicked off both.  It's of no fault of mine that my actions have a resounding effect on the forum as a whole.

However, there is a method to my madness, as I've tried to illustrate in my original post.  And that's exactly the point, maybe the method of madness I employ is the reason I'm on DT1 (still.)  And those who stack their trust-list with every single trade partner they've ever had, or their friends, or their countrymen?  Probably not.

But you know what the best part is?  Those people can still use their trust list the way they want.  It still works for them to go on as if nothing happened, because really nothing particularly important happened.  They just got kicked off DT1, no big deal, life goes on.  Or is it such a big deal?  If it is, one needs to question why.

Just out of curiosity, why does this look funny to the "rest of you", whoever this tightly knit inner circle might be...


Most local forum participants don't even speak proper English to come here and participate in any meaningful debate except in their local section, so naturally most of their interactions and trust selections will consist of the people they can comfortably communicate with.

In your analogy, this would be like Genghis and a couple of his buddies walking into town, generally minding their own business and setting up a new office somewhere, and suddenly Fiona, Sally and Daniel get very upset that these guys might make a living in their home turf, and decide to torch the offices of the newcomers, or at least "disenfranchise them" as you eloquently put in one of your earlier posts

Why does it terrify some people so much, when some guys who mostly hang out at their own section get to participate in these really minor forum dynamics like Trust and Merit...

If the local sections are contributing to the hits, engagements, statistics and the overall value-added of this website (which are recently in decline by the way), in a decentralized and fair system, shouldn't they also be entitled to some benefits ?

Why is it the case that some of you (who also incidentally each get a lion's share of source merits to distribute every month) seem to have a sworn agenda to prevent this from happening ?..

Yes, if you were honest and your concern was my inclusions, and not just looking cool for your new nepotist buddies by targeting me, you would have contacted me directly. You came to a conclusion first then decided to craft your narrative around it.

Narcissistic? So this is not a fable? You just got done telling me this thread is not about me, and here you are admitting "the final straw" just so happens to be exactly the same scenario that you cite as an excuse for excluding me. I think he doth protest too much.

Regarding BitcoinSupremo, he absolutely did not condone violence. He stated his personal views. He didn't make a call for violence. Homosexuals should be free from violence, and homophobes should still have free speech. Taking a freedom from one group to give to another is not freedom, that is despotism.

That said, in reality it has nothing to do with his politically incorrect words, really it is about targeting him for openly criticizing the nepotism, hypocrisy, and double standards of those maintaining a tight stranglehold on the default trust. Much like this thread itself, it is all part of a coordinated attack to bring retribution for the crime of resisting the nepotism in public. If it wasn't specifically crafted to attack, as I already stated, you would have simply raised your concerns to me personally. Of course that was never your goal.

If there is one flaw in my actions to which I will admit it's not taking the time to PM you and discuss my actions with you privately.  I do like you so perhaps I should have given you that courtesy.  In fact, I should probably start giving everyone I choose to exclude that courtesy.  But your repeated insistence that this fable I've constructed was purely about you is quite narcissistic.  It's not a good look, man.

To be specific, a homophobic bully who condones violence against those who's sexual orientation he finds distasteful was the final straw.  There are and were others, which is what caused me to remove you from my inclusions six months ago.  By not including you the issue was solved.  The issue remained solved until a few days ago when you convinced a disenfranchised ethnic group that you were on their side.  Ironically that ethnic group became disenfranchised for the very same reasons I excluded you.

Unfortunately I can't take you at your word, because if you were being honest, you would have simply raised the issue to me personally instead of attempting to avoid this critical examination of your actions entirely with this whole theoretical scenario, followed by empty pedantry, then by another empty excuse with no actual explanation of the flaws you are supposedly addressing with my exclusion. This is the behavior of some one managing a narrative, not some one with organic motives.

So once again, I will ask, specifically what is wrong with my inclusions? Who, and why?

I use the words that come to mind, substantial or otherwise.  

For clarity I'll try to answer with less pedanticism:  I excluded you because I don't agree with your inclusions.  I don't care to have those whom you've included affect my trust network's ratings and reviews.  That's it, as simply as I can articulate it.

 

Well, okay then.  I'll take you for your word, I hope you can take me for mine.  I'm not trying to be accepted by any club, least of which one that will have me as a member.  I'm not trying to punish you, and the fact that you see my exclusion as a form of punishment speaks volumes about your desire to be on DT1, and that makes me question your motives.

No, I don't think you're a scammer.  Yes, I do believe you are a trustworthy individual, and I find you a valuable contributor to the forum.  I also think you'd be a pleasant dude to share a beer with.  But I don't like how you build your trust-list.

Those are nice fancy words. Makes it feel like they had substance. You still didn't explain why you removed or excluded me, but you sure made it sound like you did huh?

I excluded you, as most of my exclusions, because it is apparent to me I was excluded in an attempt to satiate the existing group of nepotists controlling the DT. The pattern is consistently retaliatory and timed with critical statements of their behavior or that of their pals. Then right out of Goebbels handbook, they accuse me of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. I have been watching your trust list for a while and have watched you ooze your way into the clown car with your virtue signalling inclusions and exclusions, and it worked! You are now part of the in club. Congrats. All it cost was your principles. Now here you are justifying punishing and excluding some one from a system of trust who you know damn well wouldn't steal from a billionaire, to preserve your own special boy status. Good for you. I hope that works out for you. I predict it won't, but good luck anyway.

Lol, no ignorance needs to be feigned.  It's really, really NOT all about you.  Really.

I excluded you because your inclusions are counterproductive to my trust-system philosophy.  Why did you exclude me?  Answer carefully, because it looks like retaliation.

There was a time when I had you included in my trust-list, but about 6 months ago I realized that your inclusion was incongruent to the development of my trust network.  So I removed your inclusion.  

If only gifs were an argument, maybe you would have a point. He is doing what all people terrified of addressing any conflict do, they dance around the subject never addressing it directly. If he had messaged me or even said my name instead of this transparent theoretical which everyone knows the subject is about, at least he would have the nuts to make a direct accusation. Of course he doesn't so he has to hide behind his shield of theoretical situations as if everyone doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course this way he doesn't have to actually defend or debate his position either, because it is all theoretical see!

Oh yeah, shame on DireWolfM14 for sharing his thoughts like a little girl. Your tantrums are so grown up.

That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.

I've added your excellent explanation to the OP of my Trust list viewer topic:

when you chop up quotes they can mean what you want them to I guess.

suchmoon has adopted a different approach ... simply quote a reference to one thread then make a reply to a different thread. LOL

Or steamtyme who cuts my quote short to make it appear I am incredulous that homophobics are not DT1 worthy. When I was incredulous that scammers and racists were and homophobics not.

Let's only do that if you are making it clear you are not really attempting to tackle the central points.

It is GOOD that you admit viewing direwolfs trust list would support our argument.
Since you believe it is generous to call observable undeniable instancesn and their undeniable implications.. a pathetic attempt at making and argument, then you will have no issue debunking it here. Or helping direwolf to debunk our central points. That his musings are bogus or else he is not following his own advice.

So look, anyone here on meta is free to debunk our points. Get on with it.

What is the betting you will not try and if you do try you will fail?

Have you noticed yet we don't have our central points debunked? ever?

why? because they are true and correct.

Once this is all fixed up and honest members are not wearing scam tags or living in fear of getting scam tags from scammers or their supporters. Then we will have very little interest in meta board. For this to happen measures need to be put in place to make that impossible.

If you need more clarity on the central points again, the just ask. We are always happy to present our case over and over.

I myself have a hard time imagining it. Like your good "friend" cryptohunter, you've always proven too lazy to find publicly available information, even when it would support your (what I'm generously calling) arguments.

So now we have it.


They try to prevent you with hoarding their cycled merits.
They try to prevent you by finding ANY excuse to claim you are financially high risk,

If you get the earned merits and they can not find any excuse to say you are a scammer.

They will rthen use their subjective opinions of your judgement of others assumed character traits that either make them suitable or not for DT.

Just another layer of control to make sure ONLY THOSE THEY WANT get on DT1 if you are squeaky clean and get the 250 cycled merits threshold. So far very few have because the 250 earned merits are only given out to that threshold level to their alts or acolytes. TS is one of only a tiny few that have the merits and the clean sheet that are not 100% in their pockets so they are shitting bricks.


This dire posting burger flipper can't even create a sensible and credible case, and refuses to present the RESULTS of his musings and produce his own trust list so we can EXAMINE his judgement CAN HE??

Imagine if we found his trust list riddled with those that have observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing ?? then what about his musings?

BRING YOUR TRUST INCLUSIONS LIST DIREWOLF so we can see if we should follow your guidance and direction to creating our own trust lists. Let's not discuss the possible theoretical results of who would then be there. Let us look at the real time results of your musing and guidance now.

WHAT YOU DON'T WANT PUBLIC ANALYSIS OF YOUR TRUST LIST ? where you are FORCED ON THREAD to say YES OR NO to whether their observable and undeniable actions were trustworthy and show good judgement one by one??

BRING IT. WE CHALLENGE YOU TO DO IT NOW.  Then we may look again at your musings.

That won't be necessary, because the timing of my essay and your inclusion into DT1 was purely coincidental.  Really, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it.  But now that you mention it, there is a significant resemblance.



I understand that big words are hard on you, but you really could have avoided all that hyperbolic kvetching if you would have taken the time to learn the definition of just one word:

LOL at you devouring your own pretzels freshly expelled semi undigested by your merit cycling , trust inclusions/ exclusions  " alleged but fully observable" friends.

"unless" it is rather that you can not read... he will ask alice unless her boyfriend is not around at the time. That does not mitigate ANY of the potential hazards of letting Alice anywhere out of your sight with a large wad of your cash. Unless you could install some reality of the REAL world and her REAL associations.

Well done for accusing us of twisting others words whilst you twist our words and dire posting burger flipper words. Brilliant agent fox poop. ALso willing at once to accept a scenario magnitudes less probable than some girl having her phone grabbed from her and shouting at the thief give my phone back or I report this to the cops. LOL what a vile merit cycling vixen.

And then Agent foxpoop said..... hahahaah

So a good way to not have honest people on DT is to say they have bad judgement and rather have scammers on DT because you say they have good judgement. See how this works you take away the objectively verifiable HAVE THEY SCAMMED OR BEEN INVOLVED IN FINANCIAL WRONG DOING ( lots of DT1 have been) then you replace it with some subjective garbage LIKE do we the scammers on DT  SAY they have good judgement or bad judgement so along with the subjective merits we give out its ike a double security measure to make sure we don't get honest people who will stop our scheme we have going.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really though,

Alice probably designed our DT election process (then was talked into making it worse by jeff and bob)  then went off believing all those very kind and respectful people on meta that are very nice to her (face) are also to be trusted to act totally selflessly when there is money on the table and no more accountability to anyone except themselves. Also didn't notice that they were a bunch of servile sneaky back stabbing scamming trust abusing scum who like to feel they at last have some small amount of power at long last after being bullied all of their pathetic lives.

Luckily some of those excellent people on meta have been trying to back stab alice lately and not been so nice she notices. Alice is starting to wonder if these people are not as trustworthy as she originally thought. Let's see how it progresses now that her REAL friends have shown up on meta to reveal the TRUTH to alice that she has been taken for a mug and it is time to face the observable instances of wrong doing that those nice friends on meta have been up to , and how they have clubbed together to silence her new REAL friends whilst attempting to stay in positions of power to cream off all of the best sig campaigns and act out their revenge for being bullied all of their lives.  If Alice wants REAL friends who want to really help her then she must stop assisting those back stabbing, scamming, and ruthless slime balls silencing via spamming, trolling, trust abuse, weaponizing gamed and abused metrics.

That's all to complex for most meta dwellers and far too long. These posts are primarily for the people that will read this board as students of the root hub of the paradigm shift that is about to take place, and Alice if she is waking up.

Alice (the real alice) may be intelligent but has been brought up by a scientist on an island 300 nautical miles  SSW of the Fiji

Actually that scene in twins with the smooth talking fellow underwear admirer is brilliant. It is almost a perfect analogy of how it works around here. Suchmoon befriends Him, then signals for tman or lauda on the bike to grab the case of money and goods.... haha then after they are accidentally harmed whilst robbing (given red trust and booted off DT the first time) he takes pitty on his poor new pals and tries to help fix the damage. LOL brilliant

Here is the suchmoon edited version that cuts out the part where she signals to her pals to steal the case to make it look like theymos just being careless and inconsiderate and heavyhanded..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS-zP7JWJUo

any witnesses that have the full clip then please produce it.



The scene where jeff asks alice to LIFT the merits bar to 250 earned. Helping those poor victims that could be out there about to be harmed if the wrong people with not sufficient cycled merits were to get on DT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADFz4JYOVWw

You see if you raise a members merit score to greater than 250 then the automatic assumption they are trustworthy cuts in and you can scam and get away with it.


Movie of  alice once she has been on the mainland a while and met a new REAL FRIEND and REAL LEGEND  discussing their  latest views on bob an jeff and their merit cycling bitches haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzvFNLAnYNw



OR perhaps...


Theymos arriving at meta board for another long day ahead...haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DjGVcFwD3I

Vod clearly having a good time...lol



Meanwhile cryptohunter (played by the same actor our fav) on route to the DT1 merit cycling party....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9FYBjSc3cU

Excuse me I forgot to introduce myself " I'm Cryptohunter and I love my unsullied trust score"....  haha

Tman I don't like you using foul language, not a classy auction scammer like you haha

What a true lengend that guy was.

Take your time read a post understand the users point of view before you start replying. Hope you saw this part of my post qouted above before you started providing stats and giving pointless interpretation.

Statistics (in Daily merits over local boards) show that there are not significantly merits distributed in most of local boards. There are only a few of them have significant merits distributed per day: Russian, Turkish, and German.
Median values are p50 values in the below table.
Fortunately, there are not many outlier days (that presented by red circles)
In my understandings:
- Trust relates to trading with others
- Feedback, you can leave feedbacks for so many reasons, not only trading issues, and trustworthiness. (One can leave feedback with spam posting behaviour, like @The Pharmacist and @actmyname did before merit system; and for many other reasons).
To be in DT team, users need to have enough Trust vote, and long history in DT team. If someone only voted (enough) into DT team, a few hours or days, personally I don't see them as real DT members. It takes time to verify their received trust votes, and their acts with DT-member powers.
It is just for very serious and noisy cases because the main ideas of theymos to create Trust system years ago, and adjusted it at least three times (I am not sure, but maybe: Original Trust system; Default Trust change; Trust flags), is to stay away from those things. He wanted decentralized solutions from community-led interactions.
If one DT1-member abuse Trust list by including so many 'friends', other DT1-members will exclude that one from their trust list.