Topic: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting - page 2. (Read 1356 times)

The one where you went full retard and got nuked: https://archive.fo/SBoeG

I would appreciate if you could do that with your main account too.

Actually, you asked for 'observable events'. My comment above proves with ~70% chance that you're a liar and have an alt account.

I'm sure that it's your specialty, because no one on this forum tried so hard to justify the known scammers for their political goals, as you do.
Due to the fact that you're losing credibility and constantly insulting other members, no one takes you seriously.

Possible not the same as PROOF ... Possible not the same as compelling evidence.

Yeah, that proves I have a sock puppet you idiotic little asskissing scab.

I gave some merit to some person that out of this entire dirt pit that had some spine.

If he came back  I would give him more merit for his posts demonstrating his courage.

Where as an ass licking little dreg like yourself deserves only a real legends contempt and derision.  

That is not proof or even strong compelling evidence that I have a sock puppet.

I do not have a sock puppet account here. So your false accusations to kiss ass just make you look pathetic and desperate for some kind of acceptance amongst the other more credible dirt bags here.

Who are you again? that's right Nothing and nobody. Just start a zero day old sock puppet account and post. its pretty much what you have now anyway. Noob trash with zero achievements here.

Don't worry one of the "high paid" sig campaigns will accept you in a few months if you ass kiss enough.





@suchmoon.

you are getting more desperate - ban evasion ? wtf are you blathering about now. Which account that is banned do you suspect that cryptohunter is an alt of now?  

I don't need scam accusation I see a scam i call it a scam and create an all out war with the scamming little dirt bags pushing it until others start to accept it is a scam and start to bail and spread the news about their dirty tactics. That would be too head on for you. Stick to reporting and snitching with some red little marks.

These new icos popping up are like mushrooms and only the very most greedy and stupid are going to risk burning btc on that junk these days most know these are white paper (toilet paper) dreams that are just marketeers with no developers behind them to push their dreams and talk into reality. It is the semi established and established projects with shady narrow distributions that seek to collude and manipulate the markets whilst sucking in semi savvy investors that are the biggest threat here. Unregulated ICO by its own nature is mostly a scam especially "capped" sold on out in 10 seconds crap for 2 million USD hits exchange with a CMC 100M . This is a 100 percent premine in POW terms and will suck investors in over time before it collapses in on itself to nothing.

POW should be the only method of distribution. I'm glad the scamming icos are doing one good thing ruining that method of distribution. ICO is now almost a dirty word.

Let me do this, if you don't mind.

~

Account: cryptohunter

Possible connected profile: Chosen Username

December 20, 2018, 09:04:29 PM - The report on cryptohunter's plagiarism was published.

December 21, 2018, 08:21:36 PM - Chosen Username has registered and claimed that s/he has a Legendary account.  


December 26, 2018, 08:08:53 PM - Chosen Username has received 2 merit from cryptohunter for this post: marlboroza using ""plagiarism"" as weapon to silence critics

Not for having sockpuppets. For ban evasion.


See that would have been a good path into DT and you would also have much more influence to effect change. Bust those scammers and post evidence in Scam Accusations.

Okay  snitchy calm down...

Whatever, theymos removed the merits from my excellent post that stood on its own merit for being excellent and merit worthy far more than all the crap you send merit to and way better than the net negative trash you receive merit for. The reason for removal was said to be political. When I discussed it with stingers he mentioned he would be giving it to good posts that he agreed with. Oh no how terrible and political.

Oh really?? you think you can have people banned for having sock puppets do you?? well good ban the pharmacist then.
Who do you think you are miss I will have you banned. Will you have him banned right now? get on it.

Is English something you struggle with?  "well this account anyway" does not essentially mean I have any other accounts currently nor essentially that i even intend to have any other accounts at all myself. Just because your limited capacity does not allow you to consider any other possibilities that sentence could be alluding to is not my issue. Get further education before putting emphasis on words that do not prove at all which you wrongly believe they do.

Your case as always is weak bordering on pathetic. Your problem is that you do not realise that I hold all of the cards. I just see no sensible argument from your side of things. You all have observable untrustworthy histories and double standards and observably politically cycle the merits and all observably include each other and exclude as a colluding group.

 It's like a turkey shoot for me really. I feel only saddened by the desperation and dirty levels you will all sink to to keep some grasp on your abilities to put some little red marks next to people. LOL   -- Get a life suchmoon  and cheer up. There is more out there than long days scouring pages and page of text for whack a mole no consequence snitching and bitching. Find the big well funded and established scams then take them head on alone and see how you get along.

If you want I will tell you some great detailed experiences from my illustrious past here and you can close your eyes and imagine for a short time what it would be like to be .........a real scam fighter with balls. I warn you though it is no place for snitchy bitches that's mans work. None of this sneaky red trusting behind their back and telling tales on 2 bit start outs that have no support and no hope of going anywhere whack a mole junk, or some poor honest member COPY AND PASTING OOOOOOHHHHH NOOOOOOO some helpful article or evidence of scam or mining guide to help people. What a snitchy little twerp.


Find the real bad guys  and bust them. You won't have to look far. Start with your pals. Or maybe even get a mirror who knows who would think of stealing a persons mining equipment.  What's that?? you don't like allegations that can not be confirmed oh well at least there is some kind of  evidence for that and far more than you have for me having sock puppets and that does not stop you accusing me over and over in public does it.

Shut up girl you bore me with you junk. You have this tactic of avoiding the main content which crushes you and you snip little bits out you feel you have a chance at sniping at. Typical bitchy female.

False. Observe:


He simply stated he'll make users eligible for voting. No mention of "excellent posts".


If I had evidence you'd be banned. But you can observe this event (emphasis mine):



I know you don't like ScumBuster for obvious reasons but I don't need an alt to report posts... I do that from my account many times a day.

Wrong doing has been proven many times in the context of a trust system

a/ lying
b/ self confessed trust abuse (red trusting for a presenting facts of wrongdoing)
c/ sneaky and devious sock puppeting to racist troll sig spam for extra btc dust

that is if we leave out the compelling evidence for extortion from your other pals.

Sorry If I don't like your pals who are openly doing the things above.

Stingers was HONEST he said I will give merit to excellent posts that agree with my politics here.This is like saying I will give merit to good posts I agree with. YOU ALL DO THIS OBSERVABLY.
Suchmoon is DISHONEST because you clearly give merit on a political basis  and snitchy little bitch that you are report stingers for being honest and force theymos to remove merit given to posts that objectively on their own merits deserved ....yes you guessed it MERIT.

I have no idea why Theymos capitulates to your skanky ass every time you start snitching away. I mean I call it snitching but really he did nothing wrong. His mistake was just being HONEST. He should have just been a sneaky liar like you cyclers. .... err what we don't cycle it amongst ourselves its just out of 150k persons we believe ourselves deserve each others merit the most because we make such original thought inspiring posts that lead to huge ground breaking changes here..... haha oh really well come on present some of these master works so that I can admire them?? more like a bunch of cycled back slapping points for agreeing with each others gibberish and net negative nonsense.

You have nothing to throw back but a lot of screaming about "my sockpuppets" which is a false accusation. You have ZERO evidence and ZERO compelling examples of observable events to back it up. 

Again you complain about puppets yet support on DT and merit a known proven sock puppet sig spammer.

Double standards and false accusations you bring. Get back to your gutter and scramble around for something of substance before wasting my time again with your nonsense.

Honestly you normally put up a little more of  fight than this before you just start screaming unsubstantiated nonsense and run away. (Having said that it is nice to have you back again, I was feeling a little neglected).

Yeah. derailing a thread that originates from my idea, makes false allegations about my motives and makes specious case for why it is unworkable and not worth it.  Be rather difficult for me to go off topic especially as you keep blathering on about my "puppets" that simply do not exist.

Now prove it, bring some evidence or even some observable events that you can present or stop making false claims that I have lots of puppet accounts here. Do I seem like some coward or snitcher that needs a puppet account.

It is far more likely you use puppets than I do "Scum Buster".

I do not want anyone black listed from DT because I do not like them. I want them blacklisted because they have proven themselves to be either liars, trust abusers or sneaky and greedy for finacial gain OR they have supported these types willingly. Yes sadly most DT must be vanquished if you want trustworthy persons in DT.

Suchmoon claims you are untrustworthy and require red trust if you support even a "possible" scam. Therefore you willingly support proven untrustworthy scum then you are therefore scum yourself. You can not have double standards in public and expect to get away with it.

Sorry!!

I'm still waiting for actual proof of wrongdoing, preferably in another thread to stop derailing this one. Doctored screenshots sent by your sockpuppets don't count.

For someone so bent on "fixing" the system you're awfully lazy when it comes to showing what needs to be fixed. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting as a result of your rambling. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting just because you don't like someone. I doubt you'll see any blacklisting to help you or your sockpuppets advance in "the systems of control". But if you can show someone actually "gaming" the system - like stingers did - you might see some action.

But that would require you to do something instead of yapping, so it won't happen.

But then again no objective person who looks at the fans and recipients of you and your "pals" can believe it is "theoretical" it is clearly there in black and white. The merit merry-go-round.

Pull up the just the top 25 fans and recipients of you and the known "group of pals" each of your lists is riddled with each other. FACT

Match that with your

DT inclusions, the very similar "exclusions" and the way you all in "appear" in any threads calling anyone of you out on abuse or dare to suggest any changes to the systems of control you are gaming.

Nobody would consider that "theoretical" really if they are being sensible and did not have self interest in making it seem only "theoretical"

I would say persons acting in an observable close knit group like this are ripe for blacklisting immediately if you want a "decentralised" system.

You want a group of persons NOT likely to collude or the entire thing is pseudo decentralisation.

You have that with no punishment for flagrant abuse then you have a run away gang that can crush free speech in the name of catching a few 2 bit ico scammers. NOT WORTH IT.

Marketplace participation would be even easier to game than your theoretical merit circle. Go to the marketplace, post a thread, have your alts post in it, post some trade feedback... eligible to have influence now?

No to mention that business is done and scams happen outside of marketplace too (gambling, ICOs, etc). Merits at least can't be produced out of thin air by any random newbie and all transactions are public.

Using merit will prevent a farmer from voting many times with alt accounts, but only to the extent he does not receive merit.  If a farmer receives merit, they can effectively distribute that same number of merit to their alts in a circle (they may distribute less in order to avoid suspicion), and would potentially have an outsized influence on on is on DT.

Theymos has said he will blacklist anyone who is using alts to get into DT1

I have also argued in the past that I believe merit tends to be given to posts the person awarding the merit agrees with, which I predict will result in a cycle of those in power having more power, and any transgressions by those in power being overlooked.

Ultimately it comes down to:

Actually, these are theymos' last words regarding this matter.


   As stated by theymos, he does not desire blacklisting people that don't follow his views. It appears that if this does not work out, theymos is simply going to get rid of it entirely and enforce custom trust list. I also believe theymos is going to give this new system a try for more than a couple months before considering giving up on it. Perhaps he will tweek it a bit in the coming months. However, Loycev data suggests that this will only have a nominal effect. Therefore, given this data, increasing activity is likely not to be a tweek he will implement.
   As for your suggested approach to directly confront a potential scammer and then accelerating a response to eventually include red trust, I see nothing wrong with that approach. However, I also see nothing wrong with simply "snitching." Most law enforcement agencies that I know of use both approaches. When I was a bill collector, I frequently resorted to both overt and covert means to attempt to get the bill paid. Whatever works and did not violate the law was fair game.
    

Probably not. But merit is a good method to keep account farmers out of DT-voting, and I think that's why theymos uses it.

All of these scenarios only tinker around the edges of the DT system, and as you you shown, will only have a minimal impact on who is on DT1.

The new DT system is such that those now on DT1 have slightly more influence/power as those who were previously on DT2 under the old system and those on DT2 under the new system have slightly less influence/power as they did under the old system.

I don't think it would be appropriate for a high activity requirement to be on DT1 as many people over the years have been able to show themselves to be trustworthy enough to be on DT (and understand the system) after being here for only several months. Perhaps a requirement to have 150, or 200 activity to be on DT1 would be appropriate, although I don't think it would affect who gets onto DT1 >99% of the time.  

IMO a better question that should be debated is if merit is an appropriate indicator for someone to be able to have influence on the trust system, and if it is appropriate for many people who do not trade (participate in the marketplace) to have an influence on the trust system (that is suppose to help those who do participate in the marketplace).

@LoyceV

Can you please put together the CH scenario?  That's the one where you're position on DT1 is calculated solely by the number of times you've posted the words "Abuse" and "Merit" in coherent, well constructed sentences.

well these are Theymos own words are they not? I thought he said that recently in his guidelines.

I mean if you build a STRONG case someone is a scammer or going to scam then that obviously means it needs to be strong. If you are red trusting without believing you can present a STRONG case in Theymos's mind then you are risking getting blacklisted.

This will cut out the blatant abuse and petty arguments and he called me this I called him that crap that people think they can paint you with a scam tag for. Or perhaps because you said you enjoyed LEMON tea. BOOM you're blacklisted. People can express their like or dislike of a fucking lemon without fearing their account getting a scam tag. suchmoon can make false assumptions of me admitting I have a sock puppet and I can't red trust them for that. People can not use "scare quotes" and red list you because you thought these were "normal" quotes when they were apparently quoting what you just said 3 times in that sentence.. People can say what they like so long as they are not scamming people out of money or setting up a scam.

I mean really if someone offers escrow in a thread with little history anyone can post in that thread beware this person has little history and should be wary. Same for possible scam icos or anything "possible" just hit the thread saying this looks dodgy for X reasons and present the reasons. I never fought scams before by hiding away and snitching on them. Just hit them there hard and in the alt discussion board saying it looks like a scam and present the reasons why.

You could tell them if they are on self moderated  threads let you express your concerns on the thread and have them answered in public or then you feel that unwillingness to do this means they just crossed the threshold of "strongly" and will get some red pain until they change their minds.

There is no real reason to pain people red unless they scam or really appear to be setting up a scam. Call them out in public, if then they will not play ball... BOOM some red for them. It will then be their own fault.

No more using red trust to crush free and open discussion. This is not what red trust is for and certainly not for stopping persons telling the truth about other DT's prior wrong doing. That is the opposite of what red trust is for.

@suchmoon

Just contain yourself and make sensible posts that you can present some grounding for.

We know you are prone to making ludicrous statements that you are unable to present any kind of case for.

Take a moment to have a lay down. I think soon you will spiral into making "another" one of those types of claims.

I mean i see nothing on this entire thread except nonsense claims with no case behind them.

It's obviously "if you disagree with CH you're a scammer".

You make it seem like that is a total black and white decision. It isn't. Especially when you add some vague qualifier such as "strongly." Do you mean more likely than not or do you mean beyond all doubt?

So the false speculations and assumptions just keep pouring in.

Do you ever stop to think before posting pure drivel?

You can only be blacklisted for abusing trust.

Your job as a DT is (as far as red trust is concerned)

1. red trust scammers
2. red trust persons STRONGLY likely to scam

you red trust others you are blacklisted.

Trust abusers are banned it is quite simple.

Stop asskissing suchmoon, huge black woman etc... it's sickening.