Topic: Who exactly told theymos to change the threshold to 250 cycled merits? - page 5. (Read 1601 times)

I don't think theymos needs to be told anything.  I also assume that he spends much more time looking at the data than most, and likely is just trying to make the best decision in the interests of the forum.

I would rather have it centralised where one person whom is fully accountable and seemingly fair (and does not overly set to silence free speech)  has total control of a trust system than I would see it pseudo decentralised to a bunch of people that contain many proven untrustworthy persons of ill repute who will try to use red trust for selfish means.

I care nothing for being on DT or merit source. I will willingly be blacklisted from all that if we can construct systems of control here that are not being used to silence free speech.

Theymos although seemingly taken in by the likes of suchmoon and even lauda and overtly and openly calls such double standards untrustworthy scum "excellent members" he himself does not seem to want to silence free speech because he could quite easily do so.  I would rather have 1 person who is fairer (albeit in my opinion mislead in key areas by observably untrustworthy and rotten scum) have control of a trust system rather than hand it off to a bunch of persons that are crushing free speech.

I have been told as I have said some legends and other members support what I am saying but fear to speak out for themselves. This board must not allow this kind of sentiment. People must be free to say what the fuck they like as long as they are not scamming or promoting scamming projects or ripping people off - then they must not be silenced or threatened with red trust for saying things that goes against a small group of persons personal agendas. Absolutely they must not get red trust for presenting facts regarding the wrong doing of those that are part of the DT system.


Having said all of that. If we have to have it decentralised let us at least make a real attempt at making it decentralised and not wide open to gaming and abuse motivated by self rewards that result in free speech being crushed and a pseudo decentralised dangerous system. Let's tighten it up or go back to Theymos says who is in the trust system and he puts clear guidelines for red trust and also hopefully criteria a post must meet to be merit worthy.

I accept that we just change the attack vectors but surely we can make it harder to abuse that it currently is. It is wide open and offers motive and reward for doing so.

I have better suggestion, all members can vote (with small requirement to prevent abuse), but have different vote weight/power which based on sigmoid function. The hard part would be choosing which function is used and set it's notation value.

But DT system can't be perfect and most of user's suggestion only change or add more attack vectors.

---

I'll just requote my own post. TLDR : DT system has always been and will be centralized.

Hmmm

So I see in this thread so far.

1. No rebuttal to my claims that 100 merits + 2000 activity (1500min) is superior in the terms that I already laid out.
2. A bunch of merit cyclers that benefit from these easily gamed and subjective systems making false claims as to why I am suggesting that it should be changed to 100 merits + 2000 activity.
3. Some noob ass lickers (@coolcryptovator merit source wannabe)  telling me they are to be trusted more than some legends I have known here for nearly 6 years who have held at points millions of dollars of crypto and never once abused that. Whilst making false statements to ass lick his master suchmoon. CAN YOU GUESS WHO IS TOP MERIT FAN IS??? YES YOU HAVE IT ---SUCHMOON?? the merit merry-go-round (not political at all)
4. People commenting here who are proven untrustworthy and have no place commenting on a trust system.
5. Jetcash an observable joke of a member who is terrified of even reviewing evidence of wrong doing (yeah great one for DT and merit source)


@The Pharmacist AKA Huge Black Woman - Merit source and DT1

Can you give me one reason I should believe anything that you say since you are a proven greedy sneaky devious racist trolling sig spammer using sock puppets to grind more btc dust from this board?

Someone who claims his crowning achievement here is joining a "highly paid sig campaign"  ?

I thought I was on ignore? what happened with that?

How do you have the bare faced effrontery to even comment on a trust system? and when I see you lecturing others on financially motivated shit posting I keep thinking your account must be hacked or you have lost your mind entirely.

Keep spamming  your sig under those net negative shit posts and you will soon have enough to afford another computer. How are you staking your  pivX that I sold you? on your phone?

@suchmoron

I see another false claim from you here again. I have said I have no desire to be on DT at all ever. So that nulls your latest piece of net negative dirt you have contributed to the board. Let's change it on the proviso that I am auto blacklisted from DT ( i have no time for snitching around for small time shit like you all day - I tackle scams as I always have HEAD ON  not crying here on meta and snitching to higher authorities)  Never mind whiny bitch "Alex", now that I have seen what you (apparently don't) look like then we should change your rank to drab snitchy bitch.

Also you told me in black and white that good poster /bad poster were MEANINGLESS without criteria and definition?? Now you want to use merit as some objective score with that means great poster and indicates the level of trust you can place on them?? Please bitch stop contradicting yourself over and over in public.

Again - I thought I was on ignore? what happened?

So again. Present a sensible argument for why we have 250 merits for key trust determining positions when it is observably gamed cycled junk that is misleading with regards post quality and has nothing to do with trust)

As if any system would provide.

1. financial motive for abuse
2. no framework at all to guard against abuse
3. reward the abusers with the potential to crush free speech and silence dissenters ?
4. assign trust to those that observably game and abuse the systems the most LOL


Let's just remove merit for anything other than leveling up past snr
Lets make DT 100 earned merits and 2000 activity + some observable trading activity if you want.

Its ironic that OP asks such a loaded question with no proof that Theymos was told to do anything, yet requires posts here to offer proof to back up whatever is stated.

I don't think it's likely that Theymos was listening to anyone in particular when he made the 250 merit thing.  He's always struck me as the type of person who reads suggestions and weighs the pros and cons but who usually does something that only resembles what was suggested.  He's certainly bright enough to have come up with that figure on his own, and I think that's exactly what happened.

Did cryptohunter and his posse really expect to immediately take over DT?  That sounds like extremely delusional thinking, and if you need a reference for a history of that, just take a quick glance at his post history, which I won't bother to link to since I'm writing this on my phone.

So you will not stop DT-talk and Merit-talk. Do you? Your total concept based on remove new faces from DT1. 250 earned merit is not better than 100 earned merit? So why you always mention about activity? Lot of account here with more then 1500+ activity but they didn't earned a single merit. So he is newbie in my opinions since already 1 year+ merit system implemented. What kind of trading history are you want to suggest? Forum isn't involved with any trading and I don't think it will happen on future. No one told theymos to increase 250 merit, its came out from discussion. And theymos have enough knowledge to take decision.

As suchmoon said you want only eligible yourself on voting system . Still you could vote 11 DT1 by 10 merit each. Learn to stay happy with whatever you have.

I'm not sure what I'm going to feel about that, focusing on ousting from DT1 or something. I support your stand in not joining any group or something. It's best to watch and eat popcorn, lol.

I'm just seeing this now and I know that there is the plan to have a new forum or something. I visited the link and I have seen familiar usernames there. I joined it also but didn't post anything yet, just read some stuff.

I think that this is a natural way of life. It happens in the real world, in a country, a state, a city, and wherever there are differences towards individuals in how the ruling power rules or something. If it's the right thing, it will go right, but if not then it won't.

Don’t know about you guys, someone did PMed me to join a group of people wanting to oust DT1. I don’t want to join any group, I just want to have some chill chill way of reading and do whatever I want here. Some people are excited on testing Epochtalk (I’m one of them), and still at this juncture are some people talking about merit + DT1, you can try and test it here -> https://www.cryptos-currencies.com. Feel enthusiastic on new stuff. I know you want change, you’re not a shitposter (IMO), you can do better than these.

Feels like some people here are living in an era wherein they want change, but, they are not doing anything to change it and just do some activities that will hindrance that change they want. Managing forum is not easy; voice out what you think is right is enough, stop reverberating it – like a broken record.

I am not against OP or group of people - the situation.

LOL, I'm not gonna quote the OP out of respect for those who have her on ignore but if I have such enormous influence over theymos I'd like to ask him to change her rank from Legendary to Whiny Bitch.

The requested 100 merit / 2000 activity threshold fits the OP's account and doesn't fit some other accounts whom the OP has a grudge against. What a coincidence. Not sure though if the OP grasps the difference between voting for DT1 and being eligible for DT. Probably not.

Perhaps he reviewed how the new system would work and adjusted accordingly.

I broke the cycle and gave you a merit.


We have to keep in mind that the merit system has only been around for a year and a couple months. So, 250 may seem like a lot now, but a year from now it might not seem like that at all.

The original proposal was 100 earned merits.  The first time someone appeared to question the rationale behind that appears to be this post by LFC_Bitcoin.  Then o_e_l_e_o commented here that it was "not a particularly high bar to be set".  The first reference I can find to 250 merits is TMAN's post here.

I think it's unlikely any one person specifically instructed theymos to change it, but with several people calling it into question, it probably prompted a judgement call.

I like the concept of merit recycling, so I've changed my personal text to reflect this.

Local rules - anyone can reply who can substantiate their post with observable events or facts. No person can voice opinion without presenting credible evidence to substantiate it. Else I would like their post removed like mine always are even when they are on topic, relevant and supported with credible evidence or observable events.


Originally I noticed the DT new mechanism hinged upon they key positions of 100 earned merits.

Who here told coaxed Theymos to up it to 250 earned merits?

My money is on suchmoon? seems to have too much influence here like instructing him to remove my merits from an objectively merit worthy post that stood worthy of merit (compared to most of the trash she merits) regardless of honest intent as specified by the merit source.

My question remains unanswered as to what the reasoning is on upping it to that level since we know that centralises it greatly to the same people that ride the merit-merry-go-round

What is the point of making a pseudo decentralised system that actually just centralises it and places firm control of DT into the hands of those that observably

1. cycle merits amongst themselves.
2. collude to include each other on DT
3. collude to exclude mostly the same members from DT
4. Can be seen discussing and colluding if key trust support should be pulled or given depending on others trust lists essentially cherry picking who they want in the trust system.
5. Wtf has merit got to do with trust? A long history here is far more important. Since if you have not done anything untrustworthy for 5 years then you are more trustworthy than those getting merits from proven untrustworthy persons for supporting their agendas and ideologies to me. Also that account is far more valuable since it will take years to replace -- no short cuts. So if you are risking something far more valuable then you are less likely to scam.


This is not decentralising it it is centralising it and at the same time allowing free speech to be crushed on this board.



I would like to know

1. who told theymos to raise to 250 merits?
2. why it would not be better to make it 100 earned merits + 1500 activity or even 2000 activity?
3. some trading history perhaps??

It would then

1. decentralised DT far more
2. take much longer to power up an account for DT hence giving more history to examine before trusting
3. make it harder to collude for the observable colluders in the merit-merry-go-round
4. free speech gets a break from the jack boot of the merit/dt colluders.
5. If you have been here years you are far more likely to be wealthy and not need to scam like noobs. Your account is also far far harder to replace now. You are talking years not just a few months like some DT have been here.


Let's revise it to 100 earned merits and 1500 activity. That is a much more important account to lose and will become more so over time.

I see a bunch of noobs on DT that have no place being there only to serve their merit merry go round masters and serve their direct will. They have no history to examine and their accounts are not worth much in terms of replication. Some are barely snr members?

The entire thing is observable ludicrous.

The old system was far better than this.

Even up it to 2000 activity hence if you are proven untrustworthy and black listed then that is going to be YEARS to replace that account under a sock.

Throw in the requirement for 50 successful trades if you want.  Although of course that can be gamed.

It can all be gamed to an extent it is just making it harder and harder to game that is the key.

I see ZERO improvement here so far using this new pseudo decentralised system for trust. Let's revise it to be truly decentralised. Let's get some sensible elder members on DT and those that have ZERO untrustworthy deeds in their OWN history here.

You don't have judges who are proven previous criminals do you? or proven liars? or those that clearly demonstrate sneaky and greedy actions for financial reward?? wtf is this board turning into?  These people should be the ones glowing red not the ones painting honest members accounts red and only allowing their "pals" onto DT to condone and add support to their wrongdoing.

I've been watching this and now that this bunch of colluders are firmly entrenched in the DT system there is no way to see them removed unless by their own will. Since they are all mostly "merit" sources too the entire thing is completely ludicrous.