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

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.

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.


This isn't a game. Or - if it is for you - maybe some people don't want to participate.

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.


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.


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:


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.

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.

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.

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

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.

No, they don't want to be able to create DT2-members and the drama that comes with self-scratching.

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.

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?

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.

You just contradicted yourself.

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

---

---

No. No I don't.

---

---

Try to stay focused on the discussion instead of personal attacks, please.

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.


Exclusion in the trust system context is defined here:

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


Anything else is muddying the water for no good reason.

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.

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.


 



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.

I had too much cheese let's say I skipped!! 

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..

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


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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

 

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

Interesting response.

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.

Thanks for stopping by.


The DT1 members who have requested to be removed from DT1 are indeed excluded Q.E.D.

Feel free to expand on your vague comments and don't forget to vote in the survey.

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.

I'd argue that only one of those things is a position--the merit source "job".  DT members aren't expected to do anything whatsoever, aside from continuing to leave accurate feedback and basically being honest in their dealings on and off the forum (wasn't there a DT member who was removed because he was sent to jail for credit card fraud?  I can't remember his name, but it was a couple of years ago).  But if you're picked to be a merit source, it's expected that you're going to actively distribute merits, be fair, and not abuse or misuse the system.  If you don't give out any merits, I'm pretty sure Theymos would remove you--therefore, unlike being a DT member, you can't just do nothing.

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.  There's no need whatsoever for a potential merit source to be on DT.

Your post is redundant as you quote me in saying:


I appreciate the vote!  It looks like you and I are not the only ones who think the two rankings are indeed intertwined.  Merit Sources are in fact laying the foundations for those who want to be DT1 by giving them the merits they require to be DT1 in a portion of 250/10 split merits.

---

---

Vote now!

Have your say!

I voted Yes! Looks like i'm the only one on a different page.

These are two sensitive positions that I would classify as "volunteer" because there is no monetary compensation. 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. A user who lacks good judgment when providing feedback may also lack good judgment when dealing with merits.

Someone who has the ability to manipulate his DT position should not be given/allowed to remain as a merit source.

A biased person will always be biased.People don't change power only brings out the true color of everyone..

If this is a criteria for Theymos to select merit sources, then you would have been correct when you say if a member stops being DT1 they should also relinquish their merit source position, but i have read the thread on the requirement if a member wants to be a merit source and theymos didn't stipulate that you must be on DT1 rank to be a merit source, so other than those that said Theymos sent them a personal message to be a source of merit, the requirements for those applying is:

---

If Theymos agrees that in his hidden criteria to be appointed merit source you should be on DT1, then i think many people will agree with you, myself too. In my opinion the only reason why a merit source should be removed is if they are hoarding merits for a long period of time.

I saw a drama in Reputation about DT, I took an example from the topic @yahoo62278, there I can draw one conclusion, indeed what @yahoo62278 said is true and also I saw other members complaining about DT.

In my opinion, they don't blame and don't ask for the two SURVEYS below to be removed.

They're just tired of drama, all they want is:

Myself included, also suggesting the above, changes, I don't think the removal of DT and Source merit is victimized in all the drama.

I count only two or three who've gone down the path of actually requesting to be removed from DT1 while around four or five (if I'm reading BPIP correctly) have taken the soft approach of removing their DT trust lists - for the time being - effectively removing themselves, but not actually being removed point blank from the system.

---

---

Perhaps if they did we'd have less fatalities on the roads.

As other users have stated, there is no correlation between a merit source and a DT position. They are both distinct and functions independently of each other and as such, it should be exclusive to what actions or inactions that could result from the stands of either.

Users might choose to be vote out of DT or be removed as a merit source whol they uphold the other. It's entirely an idea of choice and if we are to be true to ourselves, having to choose is a critical part of cryptocurrency and being able to express it makes us even more stronger.
Them getting to choose where they could perform best is a good for the forum and having that influenced by an exclusively distinct function doesn't make a lot of sense.

Do the police hand out degrees?

It took a lot of years for theymos to come up with the trust system we have now (and at least 3 s systems have been implemented already, 2 being trashed).

A merit source is there to find posts that contribute effectively to the forum and actively read and take part in a large amount of discussion. A trusted member has built trust with other users (in most cases) which is an achievement but may come to the forum with different interests than that of a merit source.


Theymos' idea of the merit system is similar to that of the report to moderator system (I say that because it's easier to find the report to moderator quote): "Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports." they had a similar rhetoric for the merit system when that was first out too.

Voting no. Similar to what I have said in the past. Trust should have nothing to do with feedback. So in this case DT status should have nothing to do with being a merit source.
There are probably some merit sources in some local boards that will never be off DT2 if they are even there because there is just not enough traction to get them to DT1

With that being said, I am off DT1 lottery at the moment and am not a merit source so if I was yes to both I might feel differently, but I don't think I would.

-Dave

Archived for future reference: [1a]


That's the best counter suggestion you can come up with?

DT1 and merit source are completely different, a DT1 member have a power to join the vote of DT system which is about feedback relation while merit source have a power to give many merits that deserve to get merited which is about rank relation. I don't see any reason why DT1 and merit source should be combined, does all DT1 is a merit sources? AFAIK it's no (CMIIW)

If he's become DT2 and still become a good merit source, then he's good.

So my vote is no.

I'm sure most will understand that I'm not proposing a DT1 member automatically be anointed as a merit source and that role be taken away as a part of the monthly lottery.  (We'd have the reverse - more members clamouring to be a part of the DT1 lottery)

I feel that to be appointed a merit source one of the stipulations should be that you are at the very least a DT1 member.  So, it would stand to reason that if you request to be removed as a DT1 member, then you are in effect relinquishing your right to have the roll of merit source assigned to you.

I would be keen to read @theymos' thoughts on this (and the overarching DT1 "issue" that is occurring in some quarters).

If merit transactions are still loosely monitored by the forum (and the admin team when made aware), would there be a reason to do this?

If there's been a system change where being dt1 automatically makes you a merit source and I've missed that then that'd be different but I think the two accolades should stand on their own as much as possible.

Have people given reasons for withdrawing from dt1 (surely you could just not participate if you didn't want the drama)? If there were cases of this and it become more evident there were reasons that conflicted with the user being a merit source afterwards then it'd probably be a good idea (done individually) but merits might be recognised more than trust so a dt1 member and merit source i could see stepping down from both at the same time if they didn't want the pressure of the trust system.

Instead of personal remarks against myself, do you have any suggestions of substance?

---

---

I find shock and awe gets a reaction where a less forthright comment gets no reactions.


I'm not suggesting they have the option to opt out of being a Merit Source should they request they be removed from the DT1 lottery, I'm suggesting it ^{(being a merit source)} be taken away from them.

I never said it was not a valid question. But the use of the word "Lemmings" in the title already shows a prejudiced view.

No, your survey is not arguing about a flaw in the merit system. It's rather about whether volunteer merit sources should have the freedom to opt out of another volunteer position in the forum

As I explained, anecdotally we can deduce who the various merit sources are (some have identified themselves in various threads discussing meriting/merit source applications etc)...

From those we can deduce are Merit Sources, my conclusions are based on my observations of their behaviour.


Well ... are there any DT2 merit sources that have *never* been DT1 ?  i.e. they have been voted up by a DT1 member/s rather than being appointed via the monthly lottery?


I believe that's what my survey is attempting to do.

There isn't any correlation, but Timelord2067 has been known to exhibit a weird form of pareidolia when it comes to forum-related associations, so maybe DT and merit sources being lumped in together is an extension of that.  No offense, Timelord2067; I know I'm not the only one who's noticed that trait, nor am I the first to have mentioned it in a thread.

So who are these members who are demanding to be removed from DT?  I've read about people clearing their trust lists (which I've recently done), but aside from marlboroza a while back I haven't seen any such demands.  Could have missed it, though.

In any case, I wouldn't even care if a DT member-merit source got booted from the DT list by the community.  As long as they're handing out merits appropriately and not abusing the system, they should stay merit sources.  Think about how many sources we have now and how long it takes for members to rank up.  If you started removing sources simply because they wanted off the DT list, it'd throw a monkey wrench in the merit machine that might be hard to fix.

I will choose that merit source should be left alone regardless of being among DT1 or not, but this may not be perfectly answered because if DT system is regarded to be flawed, so thus merit system. I wonder why they want theymos to make some changes to DT while not complaining some changes for merit source. I expect merit system to be more decentralized than theymos packing most smerits to just few people. Both are not perfect but both are helping, nothing should change is what I think.

I'll be honest, I was also struggling to see the correlation between the two. However, I guess there's one point to be made. If a user isn't trusted in the first place, do we trust them to distribute merit appropriately? I guess that's the only major question I can see from this. However, if you're trusted, and you've just asked the community to not include you in their trust lists, I'm not entirely sure why that would effect their judgement on being merit sources. If theymos has a problem, he will, and has removed merit sources.

I also voted no for the time being, unless I'm missing the point here. Feel free to enlighten me.

This is my vote (too). The drama about Trust is one thing, meriting posts that deserve it is another thing. Yes, sometimes people merit posts expressing views on the trust system, and yes, people tend to merit the posts expressing views similar to their own instead of good posts, still, the merit system is imho in a much better shape now that it was 1 year ago (just a random date in the past) and I don't want to risk making it worse (we do need the merit sources).

And back to the Trust system, that one may need improvements. People removing themselves from DT1 or clearing their trust lists are just a symptom of all that. And those are valid choices; people should not be punished for that.

---

Edit:

I don't agree with OP, still, I find it a valid question. Not really worthy for a poll, still, a valid question.

If you don't know who merit sources are, how do you know how "most" of them act?

Your views could of course be correct and there could be a sort of merit back scratching among sources, but I do not still get the correlation to default trust and a users decision to want to be excluded from it.
No system is perfect, but if you believe the merit source make up is flawed and abused, you can make an argument against that directly.

Thanks for voting - I appreciate it.


I believe most merit sources don't actually go looking for meritorious posts, rather they gift them amongst other DT1 or Merit Sources with feeble stories of some sort of Trickle Down Effect to the lower ranks.

Most Merit Sources were anointed originally while others have campaigned to be given their rolls.

I voted "No - the merit sources should stay as it is"

I honestly do not see the correlation between both, besides being volunteer positions (especially merit sources) that users do not get any benefit from. Being a merit source does not come with extra benefit or obligation besides taking your time to find and merit deserving posts, and stay away from dubious merit activities.

Merit sources do not have to carry the mantle of Default trust and shouldn't if they don't feel up to it or interested.

---

The topic title already gave away a prejudiced view from you

I am taking a quick survey:

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

The three voting choices are as follows:

• Yes, removed as Merit Sources if they request permanent removal of DT1 ranking
• Not sure - something needs to change.
• No - the merit sources should stay as is.

Discussions welcome as are votes.

One vote per user - you can change your vote as and when you feel like it.

---

---

This survey is to get a feel for other users' thoughts - I have no idea who is actually a merit source given @theymos does not appear to advertise such information ^{(and we only have anecdotal information to support any theories who they are)}.  But, given others are calling for change in the DT1 ranks - perhaps now is the time to examine who is a merit source and as the poll asks, should they be merit sources if they do not want to carry the mantle of the rank of DT1.