Topic: [need DT] using multiple account, trading merit, self-talking, trading trust - page 2. (Read 2460 times)

What narrative?  You've had no involvement in this thread until you replied with this post which off topic and trolling bones261, Darkstar_, and LoyceV.

And now you're trolling me, so this will be the last reply I'll make on this subject.


Good idea.  Here, let me help you out and we'll get the whole exchange in the archive.

http://archive.fo/1ePGT#selection-36691.0-36691.48

Eh? Pardon? bones261 made a statement in post 4 and I asked for clarification of his statement - nothing more.  The reaction I got was about what I expected.  Interesting narrative you are trying to weave.

We don't have to be baby seated at every given opportunity. Not all rules are written to give room for diversity. The beauty of @wwzsocki case is the way both him and the DT members have handled it and it should be applauded. He has proven himself to be a reasonable human unlike other past cases were the accused uses the opportunity to attack the trust (DT) system. Kudos to all parties involved.

I want to thank those two DT1 members for removing the trust rating.

I will stop meriting @wwzsocki at all.

That's not nitpicking, it's a valid point.  It's obvious to me (and probably most) the merit system is intended to reward folks for contributing to the forum and making it a better place for all.  

Merit shouldn't be used to reward yourself, or help your friends rank up.  And I think those who are blatantly misusing it should be tagged.  I'm just not convinced that's the case in this particular situation.  

I know it's nitpicking but this (emphasis mine) is what I would consider a "rule" against meriting alts, along with the obvious ethical concerns:


It's true though that there is no enforcement of that by forum staff, so it's a gray area left to DT to handle.

Likely we are going off topic

---

That was point why I have tagged him. A well reputed user should not trade merit with his friend even they are not alt. Of course as a forum member we could send merit anybody if there is quality post even poster is friend or not. But they did extremely too much, judge yourself. Usually I didn't tagged merit abuser but this case drew my attention. If you use admin reference then yes, he deserve tag. They just not send to one but they trade merit each other and I don't think that theymos will encourage such as merit trade.

By the way, I just tag him for lesson. My intention wasn't not to destroy his account. I am saying again, "an well reputed member should not trade merit with his friend" Just send merit on quality post either your friend or not. It doesn't mean all of post your friend's is high quality and others all post is low quality.

@wwzsocki you should know how you have to handle your friend,  theymos didn't encourage to trade merit with your friend.


I am reconsidering to remove your feedback, hope you have lear lot from here. I don't know about other DT's they will remove or not.

Guys, please don't allow Timelord2067 to derail this thread with his trolling.  wwzsocki deserves the effort of staying on point. 

This never happened.

Do I dare ask for a link with context? Just a guess: this one? If you trust someone, you can include him on your Trust list, and if I want to see the same trust scores from LoyceMobile, I'd have to add the same users to that trust list too.
The only possible conflict lies within the voting for DT. (I use my Mobile to see trust from DT2 instead of my personal trust list.)

---

---

You're right, I'll end this now. Somehow I was summoned on page 5 with claims based on misunderstandings which I thought were cleared 3 months ago.

Yes, you are right, but that doesn't mean I haven't considered the facts.  I see a lot of facts that add up to a lot of circumstantial evidence.  It's all very suspicious.  Even if wwzsocki is telling the truth and crypto mania is his friend, there has obviously been an excessive amount of merit cycled between the two accounts.  That's an issue, but is it a red trust issue?  Once again I'll bring up that theymos isn't concerned about merit abuse, because of the decaying nature of sMerit.  There's only so much those two accounts can cycle, and at some point it will be completely depleted.

It's also worth considering the accounts and their behavior; are they beneficial to the forum?  I think the answer is yes, and you are entitled to disagree.  This shouldn't be something that influences whether they get red trust or not, but it does add to the circumstantial evidence supporting wwzsocki's claim.  His pattern of behavior does suggest that he may be telling the truth.

For the next point I want to make make I'll bring the famous tag line from the OJ Simpson trial: "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."  Does the evidence presented prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that wwzsocki and Crypto Mania are alts?  You may argue that this is a bad example (because we all know OJ is guilty,) I would argue that it's the best example.  The systems are only as good as the people implementing them, and people are flawed.  So, the system is bound to be flawed.  But if the system's flaws are biased towards the presumption of innocence, then they are flawed in the right direction, in my opinion.  

The trust system is decentralized, meaning you are welcome to tag the two account for any reason you choose.  I'm not asking any one to remove their tags, just consider your justification for doing so carefully.



That's thing, there are no official rules for trading merit with your alts (or friends,) yet there are a few activities that don't violate the rules but are sure to earn you a red-tag.  That's the issue with a decentralized trust system, it's bound to have flaws.  As a community we should work together to mitigate those flaws.



I beg to differ.  I think I've made my argument base on reason.  I have never crossed paths with wwzsocki or Crypto Mania, and I have no emotional attachment to either.  But I do have a vested interest in a fair and unbiased trust system.

Darkstar_ didn't give merits to his alt. The Lafu situation was harmless and no longer relevant. You really shouldn't say "to give trust" when you mean "to include [in trust list]", it's unnecessarily confusing.

Oh dear... here we go again...

Nice deflection by the way... 

What are you talking about? Darkstar has not given his alt account merits. It appears that you are confusing including someone in a trust list as giving merit,.

While I agree with the sentiment of your post...


Do you mean like how darkstar_ gave his own alt darkstar_alt merits and then both alts gave Lafu Trust?  Or the time LoyceV agonised over giving his own alt merits/trust? (Can't recall which is was - I thought it was an OP, but can't find it - maybe it was a comment).

Then there's your own bowing to peer pressure to remove trust.

You might like to think you're a fence sitter, but you can't even see the fence from where you are standing behind others.

I do too but they (DT member who have tagged him) can't based their judgement just on emotions, they have to work with facts and evidence and that's what they're doing until proven otherwise. My advice to @wwzsocki will be to continuing handling the situation calmly as he's doing and maybe over time he might get pardon and the tags will be removed but for the main time he should continue in his regular activities. Also don't over dramaticalize the situation to attract more tags if not you'll render the account you have worked hard ranking up useless.

I hate to see people that have put in some efforts into contributing to the forum get punished but rules are rules and we have to judge everyone equally.

@DireWolf you made your conclusion based on words not facts.


So...

"Thanks for valid suggestion @wwzsocki for your own guild. I will add this one too to your guild which I translated"
"Here you go, a merit"


Again, when was the source added?

I've been watching this thread from the beginning, and to be honest I want to believe wwzsocki.  He's not a spammer, he doesn't come off like an account farmer, he contributes to the forum, and all in all I think he's an asset to the German and Polish boards, and the forum community as a whole.  

As a testament to his character; look how he's handled these allegations: He's remained calm, not made any personal attacks against his accusers, taken all the criticism for what it's worth, answered the questions asked, and hasn't lost his composure.

His explanation even seems plausible.  I could see myself using one of my addresses to help out my brother, or a friend (who I've been trying to introduce to crypto) just the help them get started while they are still learning.  The only trouble with his excuse is that many many bounty spamming shitbirds have exhausted it as an excuse.  But wwzsocki isn't exactly a bounty spamming shitbird, now is he?

I don't see any reason not to believe him, and in the big picture, what has he really done to deserve all these red tags?  Theymos himself suggested that giving red-tags for merit abuse isn't a great use of the trust system (I'm paraphrasing because I'm at work and I don't have time to dig for the exact quote.)  Since I see no legitimate reason not to believe him I am leaning towards giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I would much rather see a guy who is suspected of merit abuse go free rather than see an innocent dude labeled with these tags.  Yeah, I see the amount of merit cycling between the two accounts, and it does seem excessive.  The use of the same address is also suspicious but not incriminating.

Now all of you folks that gave wwzsocki and Crypto Mania neg-tags are welcome to use the trust system anyway you choose.  That's what it's there for.  But please do consider your actions and their ramifications.  wwzsocki has just been kicked off his sig campaign, and I can only assume that it was due to this accusation and the related tags.  

For that reason alone, I hope I'm wrong and you guys are right.  It would really suck if you guys are wrong and he still lost his spot on that campaign.

This is a completely different situation.

Members from that topic have restored trust, because there were not proved connections between their accounts, while you have a fair amount of them.

~

You're constantly referring to some statement of Theymos. Could you provide a link to his comment?

Source is added later, right? What is the whole truth? Everyone can read that "not crypto mania's" guild. Well, that is very interesting merit distribution between accounts crypto mania and wwzsocki.