Pages:
Author

Topic: [SURVEY] Who thinks the Lemmings should also be removed as Merit Sources? - page 2. (Read 1023 times)

legendary
Activity: 3696
Merit: 2219
💲🏎️💨🚓
...

Thanks for bumping this thread by repeating your view from earlier.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
I hadn't said there were not the least of which I'm not employed to verify merit sources who are for the most part unnamed.  That's part of the issue - there are no checks or balances for those appointed to the role.

A few merit sources have been removed for abuse/misuse of the merit system. Everyone of us can do "checks and balances", i.e. report abuse to theymos and he does sometimes remove merit sources. Tying merit source positions to being in DT1 makes no sense and solves nothing.
legendary
Activity: 3696
Merit: 2219
💲🏎️💨🚓
Second: I'm curious if you can show a few examples of non-DT1 Merit sources who you believe Merit bad posts.

I hadn't said there were not the least of which I'm not employed to verify merit sources who are for the most part unnamed.  That's part of the issue - there are no checks or balances for those appointed to the role.

any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.
No, they don't want to be able to create DT2-members and the drama that comes with self-scratching.

Yeh, there's circumstantial evidence a current Staff member is doing that Dabs thing...

... and it isn't Welsh ...




The thing is, I bet you don't trust a lot of DefaultTrust,

Hardly surprising given in just this thread I've been called all kinds of things (crazy etc) simply for asking people's opinions all the while I'm engaging in respectfully responding to questions put to me.




Overall this survey/proposal is completely ridiculous,.

It's a survey, not a proposal.

Nothing more.

Don't forget to vote.
sr. member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 343
Hhampuz is the best manager
I'll vote for NO!
There are some users here in forum who are member of DT1 and also they are merit source but as we all know that DT members has a different obligation by the merit source because as we all know that merits source has an obligations to give  merits to those merit worthy post or reply. And also in short DT members is for trust feed back purposes.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.  So, why should we trust them to dispense merits?

No, that's not what they're saying, not all of them anyway. They're saying they don't want to be part of default trust level 1 and seeing the mental gymnastics in this thread it's not difficult to understand why.

Besides trust is expressed by other users; "wanting" to be trusted or not doesn't mean much. For example if I said "I want to be trusted" that doesn't mean I would be. Similarly some users who wanted to be excluded (marlboroza had an appeal like that a while ago) didn't get their wish because other users still trusted their judgement.

What's their end-game?

This isn't a game. Or - if it is for you - maybe some people don't want to participate.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 2204
Suchmoon provides an interesting response because there's clearly a difference between being eligible and being excluded. Let's check with Google definitions shall we.

Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Yes I see your point, blacklisting is a much better term to describe this, noted. I got the impression Timelord2067 was referring to being excluded in this context (blacklisting), but who knows at this point.

If one requests theymos to be blacklisted (made ineligible) from DT1, that has nothing to do with being excluded as per trust system settings above.

Blacklisting is a form of exclusion in the generic context, this would be where the confusion lies rather than contradiction. But really at this point this argument is based on semantics.

Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.  So, why should we trust them to dispense merits?

Someone who either requests to be removed from DT1 eligibility (blacklisted) or otherwise removes their trust list inclusions (in order to become ineligible) is not saying they don't want to be trusted, but only that they don't trust the system at most (unless you're like eddie13 and simply too lazy to recreate one). Some would argue it makes them a more trustworthy DT member, as one without desire for power of influence:

they don't want to be able to create DT2-members

Overall this survey/proposal is completely ridiculous, as the results show. The suggestion is that DT(2) members who don't trust the system shouldn't be trusted, or be merit sources. If anything they'll be in a better position to be distributing merit as they won't be wasting their time with DT drama such as this nonsense thread as well as others, so should have more time to find merit worthy posts ironically.
staff
Activity: 3276
Merit: 4111
Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.  So, why should we trust them to dispense merits?

What's their end-game?
Hard to really say without actually knowing how we're referring too, but there's plenty of reasons why someone might not want to be on DefaultTrust, including one which has already been mentioned; drama. While not all DefaultTrust participate in the drama, there's plenty that do get sucked into it. However, aside from that there's the extra scrutiny of leaving trust feedback, they might not want to be held as accountable, since whatever a DefaultTrust does can effectively have a larger impact than a user that isn't on DefaultTrust, I can see how that would worry some users.

The thing is, I bet you don't trust a lot of DefaultTrust, while another user might trust all of them. I myself, have found respect, and would trust certain users that aren't on DefaultTrust, so it's swings in roundabouts. DefaultTrust doesn't automatically qualify as trustworthy for everyone, same as not being on it, especially if it's self elected.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
I believe most merit sources don't actually go looking for meritorious posts
What makes you think it's a requirement to "go looking" for posts? I'm a Merit source, and I read what I want to read. If that's worth receiving Merit, I Merit it. On rare occasions, I check someone's post history to see if I can dump more Merit, but nobody should expect me to read topics I'm not interested in.

FWIW: people have also requested to be removed as Merit source. It has nothing to do with being on DT1.

I'll include this image since what merit source should do is find and give merit to post that are objectively good quality.

Look what you did! Now you got yourself an Untrusted neutral feedback diary entry from Timelord2067 too Cheesy
Does this post make me get another one? I only have 2, so 3 more to go!

I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.
~ I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.
First: this is about users who requested to be blacklisted from DT1. That doesn't mean the community doesn't trust them, quite the contrary.
Second: I'm curious if you can show a few examples of non-DT1 Merit sources who you believe Merit bad posts.

any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.
No, they don't want to be able to create DT2-members and the drama that comes with self-scratching.
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 6382
Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!
Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.

I think that this is incorrect. Because if one cannot be trusted, then he's basically a scammer. I don't think anybody wants to be seen as a scammer.
Imho one who has requested to be removed from DT wants to stay away of the DT/trust drama. That's all. (I am very new in DT and I may be more aware than the long timers on the pressure that comes with being part of DT, especially DT1)

And based on this logic, since it's not a scammer, he can still give out merits impartially, nothing stops him from doing that. And merits don't come with the same amount of drama like DT.
legendary
Activity: 3696
Merit: 2219
💲🏎️💨🚓
i.e. user voluntarily making themselves ineligible for DT1 does not mean excluded, or untrustworthy, or not good enough to be a merit source.

Contradictions aside - any person who requests to be removed from DT1 is saying they don't want to be trusted.  So, why should we trust them to dispense merits?

What's their end-game?
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Quote
Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your[/u][/b] trust network.

You just contradicted yourself.

As you yourself quote, exclusion from your own trust network - not everyone else's.

There is no contradiction.

If one requests theymos to be blacklisted (made ineligible) from DT1, that has nothing to do with being excluded as per trust system settings above. "Excluded" in the trust system context would mean other users excluding that person via their trust lists. You should know because you are excluded. That's not what happens when theymos blacklists (or the user clears their trust list).

i.e. user voluntarily making themselves ineligible for DT1 does not mean excluded, or untrustworthy, or not good enough to be a merit source.
legendary
Activity: 3696
Merit: 2219
💲🏎️💨🚓
Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Quote
Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

You just contradicted yourself.

As you yourself quote, exclusion from your own trust network - not everyone else's.




Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status

No. No I don't.




Try to stay focused on the discussion instead of personal attacks, please.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
As far as I've seen recently, only one DT1 member recently requested to be removed, others are simply no longer eligible because they don't have trust list inclusions anymore. No request made.

You can't really know if someone requested it or not unless they announce it but that makes no difference in this context. Removing one's trust list has essentially the same result (with regards to DT1), just without sending a PM to theymos and delayed until the end of the month.

Suchmoon provides an interesting response because there's clearly a difference between being eligible and being excluded. Let's check with Google definitions shall we.

Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Quote
Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

Anything else is muddying the water for no good reason.
hero member
Activity: 2268
Merit: 669
Bitcoin Casino Est. 2013
I hope I am not late with the vote. So, let's cut to the chase and my vote is No - the merit sources should stay as is.

In my own opinio, I don't think that it is right solution/idea to also remove your role as a merit source when you want to be removed from being a DT member. To become a merit source, you must first complete the task (Applying for merit source thread) needed before you become a merit source and it is to be decided if you are to become a merit source or not. To become a DT1, you don't need an applying to become a DT1 member thread as you guys know that it is about Trust system.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 10424
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.
I appreciate the vote!  It looks like you and I are not the only ones who think the two rankings are indeed intertwined.

The two of you are crazy.

Detached from reality.

Wanting to see the world in a way that it is not, and a way that you wished that it were.


 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status (likely because of all the drama caused by users just like Timelord2067).  So now Timelord2067, because they are a vindictive and petulant child, wants to have their merit source status revoked as well.  Despite the part where most of these users are considered valuable contributors to the forum.
He's not the only one who has issues with other users, so why would you say he's the main reason for some DT1 members boycotting the system? BTW, it's a pool, and he's not the only one who voted. Yes! I believe the whole DT squabble began with the recent reputation drama, and Timelord2067 was not even a part of it. Saying he is the cause of the entire drama is an unfair judgment lol. You're overstating things..

Most of the time, I try not to get very much involved in the various interpersonal battles, yet inevitably there may be some needs to attempt to follow some of the matters in order to attempt to understand some of the context for various claims that members are making in regards to the conduct of other members or some of the changes in forum rules/practices that they might be suggestion to potentially be  solutions to the various problems that they perceive to be happening.

Over the years, I have had some mixed interpretations of some of the issues set forth by Timelord, and surely sometimes he brings up decent points and/or frames some of the subject matters in ways that are worthy of consideration and even might be ideas that no one else is raising and should be considered.. This framing of the merit source versus DT1 matter surely is not even close to one of the times that seem to be worthy of considering based on the way that Timelord is framing the topic.  

As almost all opposition responses have pointed out, Timelord's whole premise seems to be off since the DT system has different underlying goals as compared with the merit system, even though if we were to draw a Venn diagram with two topics like the one on the left below, we would likely see that there can be some overlap too (the A & B portion), but the mere fact that there is some overlap does not mean that they are the same thing in the majority of circumstances as Timelord seems to be wanting to imply with the way that he is presenting the topic in this thread.

staff
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1610
The Naija & BSFL Sherrif 📛
No.  You couldn't have read the OP very carefully:
I had too much cheese let's say I skipped!!  Grin

Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status (likely because of all the drama caused by users just like Timelord2067).  So now Timelord2067, because they are a vindictive and petulant child, wants to have their merit source status revoked as well.  Despite the part where most of these users are considered valuable contributors to the forum.
He's not the only one who has issues with other users, so why would you say he's the main reason for some DT1 members boycotting the system? BTW, it's a pool, and he's not the only one who voted. Yes! I believe the whole DT squabble began with the recent reputation drama, and Timelord2067 was not even a part of it. Saying he is the cause of the entire drama is an unfair judgment lol. You're overstating things..
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

If the person requested to be removed from DT1 then more than likely they were trusted enough to be in DT1 to begin with.

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT but that's not what the OP is after for obvious reasons.

Isn't that the point of the thread? I mean, I based my vote and opinion on users who were excluded or kicked out of DT, not on those who left on their own.

No.  You couldn't have read the OP very carefully:

Who thinks those who have requested they be removed permanently of their DT1 status should also be removed as Merit Sources?

Timelord2067 has beef with some of the users who volunteered to surrender their DT1 status (likely because of all the drama caused by users just like Timelord2067).  So now Timelord2067, because they are a vindictive and petulant child, wants to have their merit source status revoked as well.  Despite the part where most of these users are considered valuable contributors to the forum.
staff
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1610
The Naija & BSFL Sherrif 📛
And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.
I don't agree with that at all.  There are plenty of trustworthy members who aren't on DT, and there were even more before Theymos changed DT to a rotating system.  Aside from that, someone just has to demonstrate that they have an interest in keeping the merit system running smoothly and can show they have a good eye for quality posts. 

You are correct, but I was referring to those who were kicked out of DT for whatever reason and continue to hold merit source positions. I mean, I wouldn't trust such a user to distribute merits effectively; it takes someone trustworthy and unattached in his dealings to distribute effectively.

And I believe a user who isn't trusted enough to be on DT1 should be trusted with something as important as Merit source position.

If the person requested to be removed from DT1 then more than likely they were trusted enough to be in DT1 to begin with.

The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT but that's not what the OP is after for obvious reasons.

Isn't that the point of the thread? I mean, I based my vote and opinion on users who were excluded or kicked out of DT, not on those who left on their own.
staff
Activity: 3276
Merit: 4111
The poll would make more sense if it was about those who are excluded from DT
Which is what I tried touching upon with my reply. If that was the case, I'd say you might have a case. Although, ultimately its down to theymos, and therefore theymos is the one that has the review the trust exclusions or trust ratings left on a user, and make their own decision.

Willing fully requesting to be removed from the trust system or opting to clear your trust list as a protest, I don't see as connected with how trustworthy a user is, and therefore shouldn't effect their merit distribution.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 2204
The DT1 members who have requested to be removed from DT1 are indeed excluded Q.E.D.
I know you love redefining commonly used / common sense words and phrases but no, they are not excluded in how this is understood by most users (~ in the trust list). They are merely removed from consideration for DT1. Most (if not all) remain in DT2, which also confirms that they are not excluded.
Interesting response.

As far as I've seen recently, only one DT1 member recently requested to be removed, others are simply no longer eligible because they don't have trust list inclusions anymore. No request made.

Suchmoon provides an interesting response because there's clearly a difference between being eligible and being excluded. Let's check with Google definitions shall we.

Quote from: Eligble definition
having the right to do or obtain something; satisfying the appropriate conditions.
 
Quote from: Excluded definition
deny (someone) access to a place, group, or privilege.

Having to include definitions of relatively basic concepts here to highlight the clear difference is somewhat embarrassing I know, but somewhat required it seems.
Pages:
Jump to: