Topic: [POLL] DT2 Status; how many net inclusions should it take? - page 2. (Read 960 times)

No, that's not how it works.  No amount of inclusions or exclusions affect my trust network.  Only my inclusions and exclusions have any effect.  If I have my trust system depth set to 1 or (the default) 2, then those who are included by the members I've included will have an effect.  Again, you're missing the point; this proposal has nothing to do with inclusions and exclusions on their own.  It's about those 100 or so members who are on DT1, and the affect their inclusions have on the system as a whole.



Indeed, they have been chosen by a very small minority of the community:


A little over 5,000 users have voted, and those votes affect the forum's trust system for millions of users.  Not my idea of good representation.  Doubling the threshold for DT2 inclusion isn't going to fix all the abuses from which the trust system suffers, but it'll make it a bit harder to abuse.

---

I disagree.  Let's be real, this is theymos' forum and he may disagree with the premise of this thread.  What he chooses to do is purely up to him, but he's been accommodating in the past.  Not long ago I made a stink about all the AWS scammers in the digital goods section, and he responded by banning those sales:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52093309

I voted for third option Net of 1 with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.
If we are already changing how DT2 members are elected maybe we should think about reducing number of DT1 members as well.
One part of DT1 members could be moved to DT2, and I don't know exact number but I think we do need some reduction, like some members suggested before.
I am not great in math, so I will leave calculations to other people.

No shit; it's definitely not the way it used to be.  I haven't read this thread in full (yet), but IIRC before Theymos made the rotating system change, a member needed two DT1 inclusions in order to be on DT2--and even then, if some other DT1 member(s) decided to exclude you, off DT2 you went.  

I say all of that because that's exactly what happened to me at some point in 2018, right around the time the merit system came out.  Blazed and Hilariousandco included me on their trust lists, but OgNasty and Tomatocage subsequently excluded me.  T'was a very strange period indeed.

I voted for two inclusions, but seeing as how there are so many DT2 members the standards really ought to be higher.  People might forget that even being on DT2 brings with it a lot of power with respect to the weight of your feedback and to a lesser extent whether people will automatically trust you when doing a deal.  It's not a trivial matter--not then, not now.

G'damn, you are the reigning master of statistics and of forum history.  I bow humbly before you, sir LoyceV.

Whatever the net everyone is thinking, it is obvious that a net of 0 does not work properly, very easy to misuse.

This is a very good question. History tells us that there are very little chance for him to do something about it. He must have other priorities 😉

However, those changes would only affect a small number of people who use the auction sub-board; we want to see something more general, and we have had a few suggestions over the years, but none have been implemented. This OP pool is just one of many.

Edit: thanks for the reminder! 

I can: May 9, 2022

I noticed theymos only contribute to a topic he likes/support the idea.

Well, i can't recall the last time theymos implemented anything on this forum; I believe he's been preoccupied with the new forum software, I could be wrong, but I believe that most of our suggestions will be implemented in the new forum. theymos appears to be only concerned with the weekly DT elections and the yearly merits source appointment. All other suggestions have been like throwing water on the back of a fowl.

Do you think there is any chance that theymos will implement a change in this regard?

At the moment the most voted option is: "Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions"

From what I have seen in all the threads that make proposals for changes to the forum, in the end nothing is implemented.

IEEE computer floating-point arithmetic also has a negative zero but nobody with their fancy compiler optimizations respects that anymore.

---

Anyway, maybe it'd be better for at least a net 1 DT2 score with two inclusions.

How? They have blocked PM's from me since their tirade in 2017...


Given on the 2020-09-12, 22:09:04 you wrote this: (context - In relation to their two negative trust feedbacks)


You don't suppose they should have gone back over the dozen or so trust feedbacks on their alt accounts and made corrections?

No.  They consciously used two alts for negative trust feedback AND they have also in more recent times used the DT trust to engage in DT trust abuse.  Plain and simple.

---

---

Changing the number of DT1/DT2 required to enable the changes proposed by the OP will only mean someone with alts can and will use them to slam their distorted votes on others.

Oh, you are referring to the default, default settings. I made my argument in the post you cited that the status quo should remain.

The option to customize the number of net inclusions for someone to be included in your trust network is not currently available. Currently, if someone has a net 0 number of inclusions (with at least one inclusion), they will be in your trust network, and the only way around this is to manually exclude them. I was proposing to allow for you to require that at least x number of inclusions to be required for someone to be in your trust network if they are not explicitly in your trust list.

There is one thing you are leaving out -- the underlying reason why someone has this power is that many people have included the person in their trust list. Those who are on DT1 is (somewhat) random, and does rotate, however the people who are on DT1 are not arbitrary, they have effectively been chosen by the community to have this power.

I did at least two and a net of one.

although your net +2 is a tad stricter. I would think either one is better than current set of rules.

so far everyone voted for either of the two above.

I like the proposal too. At least it's better than having just one inclusion. But I will always like to have higher number of net inclusion. It reduce the chances of spam DT2 members. Right now it is too easy to be in DT2. No disrespect to anyone but many users are using it in their favour very easily.

Voted again but unfortunately I pressed the wrong option LOL
I wanted to go with Net of 3 or more DT1 Inclusions 😂

I really like this proposal, so I reset the poll and included this option.  If you've voted, please vote again.

Here is another nuance with the new proposals: DT1 lottery.

(double check the math below before making long-reaching conclusions, as it could be completely wrong because Saturday and... you know...)

If there are 125 candidates to select DT1 from (AFAIK typical these days), the chance of any candidate to be in DT1 in any given month is 80%. Under current rules, that's also the chance of a DT2 member to be in DT2 if that DT2 member has bare minimum of inclusions (one).

If we bump this up to two inclusions, then even if a DT2 member has the required minimum of inclusions (two), their chance to be in DT2 is ~64% since they need both of their "includers" to be in DT1 at the same time (0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64).

Of course it gets more convoluted once you add exclusions and/or more inclusions. For example someone with one inclusion and two exclusions (barely out of DT2 under current rules) still has a ~16% chance to "sneak" into DT2 if one of their "excluders" is not in DT1 (20% chance) and their "includer" is in. Adding two required "includers" drops that chance to ~13% (0.64 * 0.2 = 0.128).

If the DT1 candidate pool is 150, then the numbers above change from ~ 67% to 44%, and from ~ 33% to 15%, so a larger pool appears to make the proposed rules even tougher. But this doesn't consider the increased chances of someone being included or excluded by a potential DT1 member because there are more potential DT1 members.

Have you asked hilarious about this? Considering the 2 years between feedbacks, he might not even have noticed he left feedback from 2 different accounts.
Since hilariousetc has DT2 strength (8), DireWolfM14's proposal isn't going to change this.

I've voted "None of the above", because I agree with this.

I've said this before:

I used to browse the forum on occasion with the ;dt tag appended to every page, because sometimes it is useful to see what the vast majority of other users are seeing. I don't anymore, though, because DT is a complete mess. The number of users on DT2 with a single inclusion who have been included for all the wrong reasons is far too high, as Loyce's numbers above show.

I used to think like this too, but given what a mess DT is now, any inclusions/exclusions I make are based entirely on what I want to see when I browse the forum. It is my trust list, after all. Any effects this has on DT (short of blatantly inflating my own trust score) do not factor in to my decision at all. If I go way off base with my inclusions, then I'm certainly people will let me know and exclude me in turn. But I still agree that any one person should not have the power to add someone to DT2 without any input whatsoever from anybody else.

Here is an example of how a DT1 member is abusing the system:



by promoting their alt to DT2 status, their alt can then go on to give positive trust feedback to others - in this case unnoticed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=507936;page=trusted;offset=0;dt


Why does this matter?  The person who received these two trust feedbacks then has a higher overall score on BPIP and also in the forum:

https://loyce.club/trust/2022-06-25_Sat_05.09h/507936.html


on BPIP: https://bpip.org/Report?r=mosttrusted their score would be 614 not 624 - their overall recognition score would be 897.333 not 900.333 and put them into 17th place behind Lauda on a score of 898.000

(Let's not forget this user has in the past knowingly used the trust feedback by both their DT1 and DT2 to dispense *negative* trust feedback).

---

---

This is the slippery slope you go down - when you set the bench mark at one level, there will be those who are able to clear that hurdle and then are able to elevate those around them - sometime unnoticed, other times noticed after the fact.

I have no doubt DarkStar_ did not notice this - and I have no doubt DarkStar_ was NOT a participant in it occurring.

Counting zero as a positive score is an oddity I'll give you that.

I like it, this makes even more sense than requiring 2 inclusions.

Most of the members with 5 inclusions on DT2 have been on DT1 at some time. Asking for 5 DT1 inclusions makes DT2 harder to reach than DT1, so DT2 will be mostly limited to members who lost the monthly DT1-election.

I only added the negatives to show how many users are excluded. But it doesn't really mean anything for DT2. Most (2443) of the 2723 users with DT1 strength (-1) are excluded by a single DT1-member.

That's not right. It turns out the data I posted on "DT2" in this topic includes DT1-members. I overlooked that last night. The 614 DT2-members you mentioned from my other topic don't double count DT1-members.
I've added a warning, but won't do a recount.

But not exclusions that include a member in DT2.

So as far as I can see the list gives us information about the members in DT2 from 0 onwards but the negatives are only the exclusions, not being able to deduce if there is among these any DT2 member  (someone for example with one DT1 inclusion and excluded by another two DT1).

According to my count from 0 to 12 inclusions there would be 614 members, and according to the last Complete overview of users on DT1 and DT2 and their ratings there were 611 DT2 members.

It will probably be because there are at least 3 new DT2s since the last update.

In any case, it seems that there is no one of what DireWolfM14 said:


It is far from being a generalized problem.

In the end, the conclusion I draw from the discussion is this:


The 5 inclusions proposed by yahoo62278 are too radical a change in my opinion and I doubt that theymos would be willing to make such a change, besides it would mean moving to a somewhat aristocratic system.