Topic: [SURVEY] Who thinks the Lemmings should also be removed as Merit Sources? (Read 1081 times)

Looks as though one person has changed their mind about jumping off of the cliff:



Voting still open - vote now.

I've got not problem with you calling me crazy for having a different opinion on any given matter.

We express our own thoughts and are respectful of the others' judgement.

---

---

Other users who are critical have been belidgerant towards us.

That I don't approve of as it's not voicing an opinion whilst respecting the other person's views.

---

---

... And you're right, most people should have cast a vote or voiced an opinion by now.

Thanks to all for your thoughts.

In my original response, Timelord responded to your post, so my responsive post was only addressing the two of you.  Perhaps I could rethink my comment to include the other 6 as well?  hahahaha.. but it might not be as good since I am not sure about who those other six might be, and it really seems like a waste of time.. since I already made my comment and my comment was sufficiently fair and backed up, like I already mentioned.


I did not see any source for your comment in which theymos chooses merit sources based on their being trusted or a part of DT.. He did make some comments about his wanting to have merit sources to be fairly well established in the community.. but   really he has discretion regarding the criteria to employ for merit sources, and even if theymos might want to get away from centralized aspects of forum systems - there are likely some difficulties in terms of tweaking any of the systems from time to time.. including the seeming infrequencies that he had made changes to the merit source members, and sure there might be some overlap like I already recognized that point. 

It seems that we are starting to repeat ourselves.. or at least I feel that my comments have already been made and already stand, so I don't really have anything further to add in the direction of the comments that I already made.. even though you seem to want to get me to change my comments and to proclaim that you and/or Timelord are not crazy or that you and/or Timelord are no longer crazy.. hahahahaha  I don't have enough information to change what I had already observed in that direction.   

I didn't attach any emotions to my statement, and I don't care what you think of me as a person or whether you agree with my vote or not. BTW, there were 8 members who voted for the first option, but you chose to call out only Timelord2067 and I.


Well, the DT and Merit systems are not the same, but being on DT most of the time automatically qualifies you to become a merit source because anyone on DT is trusted enough to do the right thing, so yeah, both systems aren't the same, but they benefit each other..

My responsive comment was sufficiently backed up, so it does make sense. 

In this case, crazy relates to mostly bad conclusions and bad logic, but sometimes crazy might also relate to wrong understandings of the facts, which it seems that most of the facts are sufficiently understood.. even if some of the facts might be being weighed differently.. for example, it could be argued that you and Timelord believe that the merit system and the trust system is the same thing, and that was part of the reason why I provided the Venn diagram in my subsequent response (within the same post) in order to show that there could be some shared ideas yet the interpretation of the weight of those ideas goes into different directions, in which I am characterizing both yours and Timelord's interpretations of facts through logic and conclusions reached to be crazy.. and the easier (short-hand) way to say that is just to refer to both of you as crazy.... even though it really remains an attack on your ideas not about either of you as a person.. .because maybe each of you are not actually crazy?  perhaps?  there's a chance.

It makes no sense to criticize those who disagree with you because their opinions do not affect your own. It's a vote, and people's opinions vary depending on how they perceive and comprehend the situation.

---

We could argue that 54 participants are insufficient to draw conclusions about or decide the fate of 3 million forum users, but 70% is far too much. It has been more than a week and nothing has changed yet. I don't think anything would change even if the pool ran for a year.

My sarcasm was lost on you

Had to Google the reference, but think it's more likely this meaning of lemming rather than the rodent:


Which is ironic, as remembering the game Lemmings (absolute classic), there are always some lemmings that lead the way differently. Doesn't always lead to destruction.

It would probably help if the topic title wasn't about cute little rodents.

But why?
Here is an example: I remove myself from the DT as matter of protest against what was happening between Lauda and Theymos back in the day. I didn't like the war between them two and didn't want to pick a side. It was too much drama which wasn't on my taste. That aside, I kept giving merit to people, and kept browsing the forum, If I was a merit source back them this suggestion will quite reduce my ability to be beneficial to the forum.
The political games have nothing to do with the posting quality and people ranking up. I see no connection there, sorry.

Thanks for voting - I appreciate it.


I hadn't refereed to a specific case such as being striped because of merit selling (you would imagine they would have their merit source capabilities removed if that were the case)

What I was talking about was those who have *requested* they be removed from DT1 then also be removed as merit sources.

I voted with NO, just because I never seen a Merit Selling DT1 tagged and stripped from this trust powers  and still being a Merit Source. Maybe I missed someone?

Trust and judgment over quality of the posts have no crossing lines.

That's your personal opinion. If I trust you based on our trading history or your conduct on the forum, it matters very little to me if you are DT or not, or if you are a merit source or not. I don't see why my opinion about User X should change because he no longer wants to be on a forum trust list. It's still the same person who was there last week. And now all of a sudden he isn't trustworthy and shouldn't be allowed to distribute merits as a source either? Sorry, but no.

When it involves data and statistics, it's always explicit and yet confusing. He didn't surely get what you said and because of how you composed your English, or rather his preconception.
Actually as of when I responded to the poll, 16.7% + 12.5% which is approximately 30% of people that participated disagreed with me.

I never said 30% agree with me - rather what I said was approx 30% of respondents disagree with the person I was responding to.

Please refrain from pushing your view in such a biased manor.

Are you being serious or just trolling right now? I'm sorry but I really can't stand misrepresentation of statistics, it's disrespectful to the data and it's participants.

Only 16.7% have said Yes to your poll, therefore disagreeing with the 3rd option. The 2nd option is "not sure", and doesn't support the 1st nor the 3rd option, despite your interpretation of it. Even with 12.5% saying "something needs to change" it doesn't mean they support the proposal, it could mean they think something completely different should change, otherwise they would have voted for the 1st option.

Please just accept 16.7% agree with you, not 30%. Next time, maybe try avoid having contradictory answers like "not sure / something needs to change" in the same poll option to avoid this misinterpretation.

Perhaps instead of relying on the voices in your head whispering narratives about me, you read my words I've said here.


... and ...

Since when has interaction been a prerequisite for distrust?  I've never interacted with Faketoshi, but I can still tell they're a skeezy sack of crap.  You've been on my radar for a while and this topic has convinced me that your motives are suspect and you're attempting to manipulate DT and merit to your own ends.  As such, I don't trust your judgement.  It's as simple as that.



No one should be allowed to form a negative opinion of you based on your words and actions?  It's called "consequence".  I'm afraid you have to learn to live with it.

Thank you for answering my question - I do appreciate it.  It's insightful and shows a different point of view.  Approx 30% of respondents don't agree with your answer and have responded accordingly.



I asked a question and you gave an answer.

Thank you.

---

---

This should never be allowed to happen:

I asked a question and have been verbally attacked and then the person has then gone on to DT distrust me.  I have never interacted with this person prior to this thread.

https://ninjastic.space/post/60776729


https://loyce.club/trust/2022-08-20_Sat_05.08h/131361.html

---

---

Actually no @DooMAD, I don't have a beef with anyone - I asked what people's views on a subject were and they responded respectfully and I have replied to their questions with my views in a likewise respectful manor and the conversation has progressed.

Nothing more.

I voted for the 3rd option because I don't see much correlation between merit and trust. Though,  majority of the merit sources are members of DT.
Decentralizing the DT by making it possible for everyone's vote to count in the DT is already a big win for the whole forum.

What I would say is that if anyone is removed from DT due to abuse of it and it is confirmed that the person is a merit source, he should also be removed from being a merit source. This is because if one can play the trust system, he could also play the merit system.