Topic: [scenarios] Changing Merit and Activity requirements for DT1-voting - page 3. (Read 1356 times)

I have a suspicion that if theymos started actively blacklisting several members, CH would not like those results either...CH will probably blame it on you if someone gets blacklisted that CH feels should not be blacklisted.

Nothing - has been debunked

You are drawing false and misleading conclusions again. Perhaps I can just hire a secretary to post on my behalf. If that is not permitted then I will just ask my close friends who share my sensible opinions based upon observable events to continue my righteous work.

But do you now say sock puppets and those that use them are untrustworthy too? I wonder at your answer here??

I already said this end part before concerning theymos blacklisting trust abusers. Before this "debunking" (not debunking at all) so again your nonsense is observable.

Please stop derailing the thread.

Please contain yourself snitchy bitch.

So nice of you to admit sockpuppeting.


So now that your cockamamie theories have been debunked you want to go back to a top-down DT structure.

Facts based post

So it goes like this -


1/Loyce comes  to my thread (ignoring my local rules) and inserts a link to his new thread instead of just answering it on the original thread like i challenged him to do. I mean my local rules specify that anyone can post if the present their case on my thread. He does not he just links to it on his own thread.

2/ Loyce then creates a thread that
a/ makes false claims about me and my motives (not that they are relevant)
b/ presents a specious conclusion based on my proposal

3/Loyce then tells me I can not post on this thread because my reply was off topic
(It was on topic and was I answering his accusations and specious and misleading conclusions)

4. I tell him it was on topic and then challenged him and the other ass kisser asche telling me it was off topic to present a case as to why it was off topic. If they can then I guess it will be removed or I will adjust it.

5. Loyce pretends I am on ignore but then has somehow read the post where I said I need a few more hours sleep just after that. Also says he has not read the post anyway so how to know it is off topic??

6. Neither Loyce or the other ass kisser comes back with any case to demonstrate I was offtopic (because obviously it was not)

7. Loyce now says he wants to ban me from meta to silence me (well this account anyway) from presenting challenges he will not or can not meet.


This is just a prime example of how these people-- (Yes I mean most of you on meta) operate.

So back on topic (not that defending myself against accusations can be off topic since it was stated in the OP) and as I have said I am sure you can not base much on these predictive models since people could well change their lists as the system is changed.

You know what -- if Theymos started blacklisting people that  did not stick to red trusting

a/ scammers
b/ strongly likely to scam

then that could set an example and people may start using the system for its intended purposes rather than to prevent persons mentioning their untrustworthy prior deeds that are there for all to observe.

Sadly though. I happen to believe that if you are willing to sit there and sanction and support these kind of untrustworthy persons then you yourself become untrustworthy. Together these actions are impinging on the free speech of all members. Yes, I know this for a fact because others have told me they are not happy but will not speak up for fear of reprisals and having their account painted red.

I will likely not contribute further (or not too much) to this particular thread since I can tell my mere presence is distracting to all my admirers here that are starting to show up one by one.

so not even DT2 list would have a many changes if those new requirements were to be applied.

to be honest i did imagine i would see something like that, i just didn't think it would be this much similar 

That's what I did. Big surprise, high Activity users also vote for the same users.

nice work , but i thought cryptohunter wanted a change of voters not who would be eligible for DT.

for an example someone like me with over 250 merit but less than 1.5k activities , my vote shouldn't add to anyone.

so if someone needs 2 members with 250 merit + 1.5K activity then he won't benefit from his inclusion in my trust list as oppose to the current system.

 

sage advice from theymos on cryptohunter:

I just think he’d be a lot happier if he relaxed a bit.

Having him on DT1 would be a disaster in my opinion. I don’t think he’s a scammer at all but he’d be handing out red trust for arguments & disagreements all the time.

Because people just can't keep him on ignore. I understand the appeal of trying to refute his points, as I occasionally get sucked in to the same thing with flat Earthers, creationists, etc, but just like these latter groups, there is literally nothing you can say that will change his mind. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.

I've not been following his most recent nonsense (as he remains firmly on ignore), but it seems that Loyce has put his suggested criteria* firmly to bed, as it makes fairly little difference to the list of DT1s (and probably no difference whatsoever to the list of DT2s). Inb4 he decides you should need 2000 activity and 100 merit to be allowed to be on DT1.

---

*1500/2000 activity and 100 merit, if I read things correctly? What a coincidence that these criteria perfectly fit cryptohunter himself.

Loyce ——>

Just copy it to an editor, and use CTRL-H to replace a color

And there I was thinking about suggesting to have him banned from Meta and Reputation only. He'll be much happier that way

I think it’s absolutely fine the way it currently is & we need to stop giving cryptohunter the platform to carry out his pathetic tirade against what we have in place.

I don’t know why he has such an influence that we’re discussing him every single day.

If he doesn’t like the way things are here then there are other forums & he should go try them out.

A red-green colour blind member here, would you mind changing the one colour to lime green or blue in the OP. Sorry for the inconvenience  

Nice analysis, but in the end cryptoscunter is just going to have to suck it up regardless of whatever scenario you can come up with.  If he ever got onto DT, it would only serve his warped ego and not the community in any meaningful way.  It's also probably a moot point.  Theymos isn't likely to change all the requirements now because of some high-volume bitching from the peanut gallery.

I've also never understood the argument that decentralization=panacea that seems to get made so often on this forum, as if leadership itself is an inherently bad thing.  It isn't, and I would argue that scammers would thrive on a forum without a system like the one we have--and it's not exactly like they aren't already thriving.

OP, you should make a scenario exactly like ch4 but adding that anyone who adds negative or neutral trust to cryptohunter is automatically excluded. I think that is what he wants and would make automagically remove colluders according to him.

Are you blind, do you not see the references to me and my intentions on that post? these criteria are what I suggested you idiot I am not allowed to post on a thread inspired by me, with references to me, with false assumptions made about my intentions?

Present evidence for how it was off topic else you are lying. Tick tock.

What a bunch of jokers you are ... make false accusations about a person and they are not allowed to reply

LOL what a swamp meta is. Time to drain it.

I CHALLENGE YOU NOW TO PRESENT A CASE FOR WHY MY POST WAS OFF TOPIC.

edit - asche are you there asche?? where is the case for my post being off topic??  LoyceV?? are you there??  how about you? I'm waiting to be shown how my post is off topic?? I'll check when I wake up.

You are not scaring anybody. You are just fck**g annoying. Like a flee pocking you for hours without being able to stop it, always doing the same thing without any reason besides getting on other people nerves!

The fact he wants this to stay on topic is understandable, and after reading your long unnecessary post I am completely agreeing with his opinion on that.

The only thing he did was compare how different parameters would influence the trust network as it is today, and he did it well.

So why don't you and your superior mind go talk with others of your kind, and leave us retards alone here? Please?

Sorry local rules only count if they are in the OP.

My post is totally on topic.

I'm sorry that you are such a coward that feel you can come to my threads and type what you like but I am not allowed in your threads??

Why so afraid?

This is why one sided debates should not be allowed in meta.

Any mod deleting my posts is going to get called on each and every one of them from now on. I am only going to post on topic and relevant information based on facts and observable events.

Any deleting of these is crushing free speech and is politically motivated.