Re: Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis.
⭐ Merited by The Pharmacist (2)
https://archive.fo/WeJk2
xtraelv
You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement that confirms they subscribe to the same political (where the board is concerned - approval of or non approval of certain members regardless of whether they are proven scammers or not or on other political matters regarding the running of the board) views or have the same ideas as those meriting them.
You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here. This is merely political noise.
Since my name is on your list I'd like to see the evidence implicating where I have done that. (Invoking the local rule)
As a standard I will compare it to how you have spent your merits.
Local rules - NO PERSON that does not substantiate their answer with facts and observable events may reply. If you wish to voice a groundless opinion which when called on it will not be able to provide evidence or corroborating events to back it up then I wish you to NOT post in this thread.
You will also notice these person withhold merit from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.
I disagree with this statement. I have given merit to numerous people I dislike or have argued with previously when I feel their post is worthy of it. I am not a merit source so the smerits are for me to spend as I see just. I also don't always have smerits available to give.
Sometimes people can give very valuable contributions - even though I may not be aligned with their opinions.
Examples of people I have had disputes with or that dislike me that received merit from me: (Not a complete list)
February 04, 2019, 09:34:15 PM: 1 to Quickseller for Re: Discussion about subjective behaviors that may result in a red tag.
February 04, 2019, 06:26:33 AM: 1 to TECSHARE for Re: The most iconic bitcointalk threads. History on Bitcointalk.
January 30, 2019, 02:01:01 AM: 1 to mdayonliner for My philosophy to entrust and ~distrust members
October 15, 2018, 01:41:52 PM: 1 to S_Therapist for Re: Wall of fame / shame. Shit posts so bad that they are actually funny
There are also numerous people that I do not particularly like or have had no previous conversations with that received merit.
Merit is given purely for the quality of the post. I think I deserve an apology for the accusation.
Their connection/collusion/political allegiance is also clearly evident on the DT inclusions exclusions.
My exclusions list is purely based on people who I don't trust , have a manner which I believe to be incompatible to be on DT1 or whose trust feedback I disagree with (e.g. have people listed as trusted or red tagged).
People on my trust list are those whose [opinions) feedback ratings I (generally) want to see.
I disagree with the bickering and you will notice that the majority of people on my trustlist are people who contribute positively on the forum and have moderate views.
The people that are more vocal I believe to have a positive contribution to the forum.
A lot of people I agree with and disagree with also don't appear on my list because they may be involved in disputes where I am not prepared to take sides on.
The reason you are excluded on my list is not because I have an extreme dislike. I just believe that with the sheer number of negative threads you make in various places, the unwarranted personal attacks that you have made on me and others and the feedback that you have left previously for others and the people you trust and distrust does not align with my values.
Your own trust and exclusion list looks very political:
xtraelv
You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement that confirms they subscribe to the same political (where the board is concerned - approval of or non approval of certain members regardless of whether they are proven scammers or not or on other political matters regarding the running of the board) views or have the same ideas as those meriting them.
You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here. This is merely political noise.
Since my name is on your list I'd like to see the evidence implicating where I have done that. (Invoking the local rule)
As a standard I will compare it to how you have spent your merits.
Local rules - NO PERSON that does not substantiate their answer with facts and observable events may reply. If you wish to voice a groundless opinion which when called on it will not be able to provide evidence or corroborating events to back it up then I wish you to NOT post in this thread.
You will also notice these person withhold merit from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.
I disagree with this statement. I have given merit to numerous people I dislike or have argued with previously when I feel their post is worthy of it. I am not a merit source so the smerits are for me to spend as I see just. I also don't always have smerits available to give.
Sometimes people can give very valuable contributions - even though I may not be aligned with their opinions.
Examples of people I have had disputes with or that dislike me that received merit from me: (Not a complete list)
February 04, 2019, 09:34:15 PM: 1 to Quickseller for Re: Discussion about subjective behaviors that may result in a red tag.
February 04, 2019, 06:26:33 AM: 1 to TECSHARE for Re: The most iconic bitcointalk threads. History on Bitcointalk.
January 30, 2019, 02:01:01 AM: 1 to mdayonliner for My philosophy to entrust and ~distrust members
October 15, 2018, 01:41:52 PM: 1 to S_Therapist for Re: Wall of fame / shame. Shit posts so bad that they are actually funny
There are also numerous people that I do not particularly like or have had no previous conversations with that received merit.
Merit is given purely for the quality of the post. I think I deserve an apology for the accusation.
Their connection/collusion/political allegiance is also clearly evident on the DT inclusions exclusions.
My exclusions list is purely based on people who I don't trust , have a manner which I believe to be incompatible to be on DT1 or whose trust feedback I disagree with (e.g. have people listed as trusted or red tagged).
People on my trust list are those whose [opinions) feedback ratings I (generally) want to see.
I disagree with the bickering and you will notice that the majority of people on my trustlist are people who contribute positively on the forum and have moderate views.
The people that are more vocal I believe to have a positive contribution to the forum.
A lot of people I agree with and disagree with also don't appear on my list because they may be involved in disputes where I am not prepared to take sides on.
The reason you are excluded on my list is not because I have an extreme dislike. I just believe that with the sheer number of negative threads you make in various places, the unwarranted personal attacks that you have made on me and others and the feedback that you have left previously for others and the people you trust and distrust does not align with my values.
Your own trust and exclusion list looks very political: