Topic: Request: Disable JayJuanGee in the Wall Observer thread - page 4. (Read 2097 times)

I am reading this. If you think this is a serious thread, you need to go fuck yourself.

I fucked all this up I will correct error.



we gave out 5769 merits between us and 51 banned users which is 51/5769 = 0.88 percent and does not match the 3.42% or the 2.68%

because in my case a very rarely give a 5 merit to a newbie I give a 1 merit.

this means my % is very likely to be higher due to lots of 1 merit posts to a newbie

2794 and 38 is 38/2794 = 1.36% not 3.42%. so it is not absolute number it is the % most likely found by different people merited .


that would mean I merited 1111 different people  a total of 2794 merits and 3.42% were banned giving 38 losers

is this the correct stat for me



and hueristic merited 485 different people a total of  2965 merits  and 2.68% were banned giving  13 losers


what number is correct for us.

38 banned vs 13 banned
1111 merited vs 485 merited
 2794 merits vs 2965 merits.
rank of 33  vs rank of 132  total people banned


this part was good:


BTW we both would be okay by my standards percent of non banned vs banned.

but for 38 out of 1111 different people merited does look better .  than my 33rd place for people banned

By absolute:

33. 38 (3.42%) banned users merited by philipma1957 (details)

132. 13 (2.68%) banned users merited by Hueristic (details)


By percentage:

2794. 3.42% (38) banned users merited by philipma1957 (details)
2965. 2.68% (13) banned users merited by Hueristic (details)

You can easily see how it looks way worse by absolute for those that disseminate large volumes.




Funny I was surprised to see Noic was banned when checking my list.

I think I remember his account getting hacked but couldn't find out anything on that after a search.

Good guy really liked him.

If you look at that list one guy or girl was over 60% and is now banned.

and the next worst is at 12%

hell theymos is over 6% lets ban him he does not make the cut. please note that is a joke.

I am not on the list because I am slower with my merits and really take time to not give merits easily to a newbie.

Why is that because back in 2019 5 or more people I merited were banned so I decided to be very deliberate with merits to anyone under 400 merits.

I reall never give to a guy with 100 posts and 110 merits as I suspect them as a merit alt being feed by a few legends.

Thus I give a lot to heros and legends.

Yeah baby, Ban the Heretic!



Jesus Christ have you ever heard of the saying

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt"?


You need to heed that phrase.

I actually don't really follow the Wall Observer thread discussions but I still like to see some funny things and random chatter that even though some people might consider it spam, it is one of the entertainments that I always see because apart from memes or news that are just copied from some social media but I think it is still very worth discussing and seeing because some still provide clear sources where it was taken from.

Speaking of JayJuanGee he is one whose posts are very tiring for the eyes because of reading them but it's actually very useful and I learnt a lot from him with knowledge especially about bitcoin which is very good indeed. As for his involvement in giving merit too I think he knows that those he gives merit to are worthy especially I like the way he is consistent in giving 1 although sometimes 2 but very rarely to give 2 in one post which actually reflects consistency and he always reads seriously about what he does both on Wall Observer and in other threads.
Banning him I think is not authority because it will only limit someone's activities even though it is undeniable that there will be people who take advantage of it to farm but I think banning JayGuanGee is like limiting someone's actions on the forum.

I would personally keep quiet in such matter because if someone like JJG is meriting the posts in WO then he maybe doing that because some of those memes maybe related Bitcoin and its price. I know that sometimes it's a little bit annoying when we see a user getting merited just by posting memes, but the members of the WO thread like memes that are related to Bitcoin and their love for Bitcoin makes them to merit those meme containing posts without any discrimination. I think they have been doing that kind of post meriting for a long time and no body has ever opposed their actions, and I also think that theymos is also aware of the activity in WO and he also hasn't taken any action to suppress the activity of that thread. I know that the ones who are posting those memes without proper referencing should be reported, but the ones who're properly referencing their posts may not be suppressed for the activity.

You maybe right in your approach because you don't want those members to be merited who aren't contributing to the forum like other contributing members. Well, in that case I also agree with your thinking, but such kind of activity is also taking place outside of WO thread and every member of the forum is aware of that. If we look at the local boards or local board threads then there are many such users who are taking advantage of the members and are getting merited for their posts. I'm not favoring JJG or any other member of the WO thread and I'm also not against the ones who created this thread, but I don't think that disabling someone like JJG from that thread would be any good to the forum because he has been a long time member of the forum and has contributed a lot to the forum. I hope that any decision taken will be in favor of the forum and we all will support those decisions.

Oh probably second or third thread here in Meta against wall observer or we can say limited Jay from sending Merit. I visited many times there but didn't made any post yet. I agree that most the posts are spam and just copied Bitcoin news from twitter with images.I think removing full thread or disabling anyone to send merit is not the right solution. Other threads can be created and infact everyone has own mindset of giving merit. Jay is giving only one Merit for each post he like and i think it will not be more profitable spammer to grow quick. I think the better way is to give neutral to those member who continuesly making spam there and that's all.

---

I remembered that once Nutildah requested him to stop helping spammers and below us the answer given by Jay

Quite an ironic topic, talking about the person who is next to you in the third person. JJG never responded if I'm not mistaken. Why decide what can be done to solve the problem when the person himself, who, as it seems to someone, creates a problem, is undoubtedly reading this? Have you tried asking him for his opinion? Do you think that JJG is a robot, and you can just deprive the robot of one of its abilities?
The Wall Observer branch is considered anarchic on the forum; if plagiarism and low-quality posts are allowed there, then the spread of merit is completely legal. I think that the merits are exchanged by the alternative accounts themselves within this thread. A few examples can be shown, and JJG is just the icing on the cake; using merit in this thread is tantamount to getting likes on Facebook.
The problem is those people who use the forum dishonestly.

Well, moderators are those who decide who gets banned, not users and I'm pretty sure they will see what's going on here if someone who takes this forum way too seriously decides to report it.

Moderators are not the concerns. Concerns are the forum users. They will use anything against you without considering a background of a mistake or parody [if you want to call it]. If moderators were the concerns then I would edit those posts after noticing it and since I did not do it, you would see my account was banned for plagiarism so far. None happened.

I don't see any reason why the wall observer section should be shutdown,  their are things that can be done for wall observer section to be clean and put in order which is by Implementing rules that members must stick to, it will help reduce the rate at which members abuse it, and if the section is being monitored it will surely help to be at the standard which the forum wants it to be.

Members do whatever they want in the board because the rules are not followed by actions. Their are still members in wall observer that are genuine with meaningful discussion.  Strick rules will make fake ones to stay away.

Those are two different cases imho as this thread is obviously  written in a ironic/parody tone (well not obvious enough based on some of the comments here) and even if someone reports it, I don't think that there's any danger for OP and if there is then this forum became a sad place.

I will suggest to put the whole thing in quote except the last line. There will be someone always who will find a wrong here and will want to accuse BobLawblaw for plagiarism or even want to make him low for it. Haven't we seen it not very long ago?

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

For those who are interested, the average for the top 256 (9 or more banned merited users) is a whopping 16.3%, which seems crazy high, but that's what it is. One standard deviation is 18.5%, so that means "abnormally high" would be above 34.8%.

Interestingly, 24/45 users that fall into the "abnormally high" category are banned. It seems most of these were accounts purchased to advertise an ICO or worse, and then they distributed the merits that came with it to a bunch of sockpuppets for the sake of bumping their thread.

I would have posted this in LoyceV's thread with the data but its locked.

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

Like Cyndi Lauper said in one of her songs: "bitcoiners just want to have fun"  

As people with "enough" money can give away for any cause they see fit, the same can be said about merit.

Let's be hones: some boards are harder to get merits than others, like Technical Discussions vs Meta. It is what it is...

We either accept it or talk about changing the rules with complicated scenarios that theymos might never implement: like doing for merit something similar to flags. Users can merit a post and their smerit decreases but the merited user actually receives the merit when at least 3 users merit the same post.

It may be a good idea, it may be stupid... but one thing is for sure: it's damn hard to come up with a fair algorithm that changes the game for everyone from that point on without any retroactive impact.

One of the last banned account I merited was for warning users that a certain ann thread had a wallet with malware. The irony is that the same user was banned for posting a malware infected wallet himself a few days later. It can happen to anyone. Doesn't seem fair to judge someone solely on this metric imho.

I think the three of you (Hueristic, nutildah, vapourminer) just hit on something important.

Having some way for the community to flag/hide shitty posts other than by reporting them to the mods (and hoping that they see things the same way) is an idea worth fleshing out.

I'm gonna call this proposal Project NOPE™ for Non-Organic Post in my Estimation.

Basically, there'll be a little NOPE button on each post, and if you click it, it'll hide that post for you and also for anyone that has added you to their NOPE list, kind of like a reverse-curation system with trust list vibes. If you don't trust someone's judgment with flagging shitty posts (and they're on the NOPE list of someone that you do trust with that) then you would exclude them from your list with a ~ (or tweak your depth setting).

I could see a feature like that cleaning up the forum real good. (Don't add me to your NOPE lists, because I'd wear that fuggin' button out.)

Edit: I suppose it's not super obvious how the above idea relates to WO being a known "soft spot" for merit fishing. I think the idea is probably more valuable to the forum as a whole than it is to WO specifically (but it would still help there, IMHO). Basically, you'd trust other people (of your own choosing, though there is a version of this idea with DT1/DT2 analogs: DN1/DN2) to hide posts from you that aren't worth reading. You can't merit posts that you don't see, so if the people on your NOPE list do a thorough enough job of hiding posts before they can be merited, then the people making those posts will keep coming up empty and eventually give up (I appreciate how silly it sounds to make other people responsible for hiding posts from you that you would have merited if only you had seen them, but I'm specifically addressing the way accounts try to take advantage of the willy-nilly way merit is handed out on WO and not talking about how this feature is intended to be used on the rest of the forum). Any gripes about this feature have equivalent gripes in terms of the trust system; if you say "Okay, but who gets to decide what makes a post worth reading?" then the equivalent gripe would be "Okay, but who gets to decide what constitutes active trust feedback?". One interesting elaboration would be to allow people on "DN1" to NOPE an entire profile instead of just individual posts.