Bitcoin Forum

This is moved from where it is off-topic in one of my self-moderated threads.  For fairness, 1miau’s post will be fully quoted without alteration in Post #2 hereby.  (Forum feature suggestion:  Give self-mod topic starters the ability to move posts intact between threads.)

---

Again, with the n00b questions about “how does this work?”

The ~ means that I distrust your judgment.  No more, no less.  It is supposed to be neither a popularity contest, nor a personal insult.

Notwithstanding that you have exhibited high competence in some subjects that are irrelevant to the trust system, I sincerely distrust your judgment.  Although I am not required to explain my reasons to anybody, I will be kind to you, and illustrate with a real-life example how this is supposed to work:

• I saw significant evidence that you make reports to the moderator based on political disagreement (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5289261.msg55617247#msg55617247) with the author of a post.  This makes me distrust your judgment generally.  It is injudicious, to say the least; and if your judgment is so unsound with moderation reports, then mutatis mutandis, I distrust your tags.
  
  N.b. that although the posts were mine, I would apply the same criteria in any case—and I myself do not abuse the report-to-moderator function to suppress opinions (or authors of opinions) that I dislike.
  
  (Note:  I still intend to reply to you in that topic.  I still have reason to, insofar as you do not know what “spam” is; and I believe that it is your such misunderstanding that caused the whole débacle.  I tend to fall behind on posts that I intend to make, largely due to the time and effort invested in each.  It is an admitted problem of mine.  —Just as you saw me mention, I still intend to reply to mikeywith in that other Reputation thread...)
• Thereupon, I checked your trust page.  I noticed that you issue too much positive feedback for relatively trivial reasons.  I was recently discussing this exact problem with others here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5289738.msg55609571#post_trusting_trust_feedback) and in the Russian forum; and I have been intending to start a new thread about this, under which I plan to denote that you (and others) are excluded for this reason.  suchmoon’s lunacy has been distracting me from more important activities...
  
  Giving too much positive feedback too easily facilitates SCAMS.  Nobody complains about it—improper (or allegedly improper) negative feedback gets the attention, because people complain when they themselves receive negative feedback.  Whereas if you green-trust people incautiously, then it is only a matter of time and luck before the consequences befall people who trust your judgment.
  
  You issue positive feedback for economic activity valued as little as 0.0002 BTC (maybe even lower), apparently for first-time transactions.  When time permits, I intend to suss out JUST WHO THE HELL is bringing all such bad positive feedback into my trust network, and exclude them all.  ~~~~~~~~  It is not about you personally, One Meow.
  
  
  Quote from: nullius on November 16, 2020, 09:42:04 PM
  Quote from: nullius on February 24, 2018, 02:29:06 AM

  I am extremely conservative in matters of trust.  I do not trust easily; and most of all, I do not vouch lightly.  If you have been trustworthy to me and you do not receive positive feedback, please do not take that as a slight.  It simply means that I do not yet know you well enough to vouch for you to entire world.  Positive trust feedback from me is meaningful, because my standards are high.

  Quote from: nullius on March 08, 2018, 07:15:12 PM

  I am ultraconservative in matters of trust;

  Quote from: nullius on February 07, 2018, 07:39:20 PM

  ... “trust is hard to earn, easy to lose”. ...
  
  There are certain empirical facts about trust known by experience to anyone over the age of thirty.

  Quote from: nullius on January 28, 2020, 08:13:24 PM

  I am liberal with negatives, and conservative with positives; for I distrust easily, but I am careful in choosing whom I trust.
  
  I do not want to see your tags up top; and I do not want your positive ratings figuring into the trust scores that are displayed to me.  The ~ button exists for that purpose.  Understood?
• Your complaint about my exclusion of you, and the insulting manner of that complaint, confirm tenfold my distrust of your judgment.
  
  
  Quote from: 1miau on November 29, 2020, 01:09:58 AM
  Feels nice to join this group of morons?  :D
  
  
  You are injudicious and unwise, and you personalize things that are not intended to so be.  Forum usage protip:  When somebody trust-excludes you no personal attack, and no evidence of spitefulness or impropriety, then the proper response is this:
  
  
  Quote from: The Pharmacist on October 23, 2020, 05:49:28 PM
  Quote from: nullius on October 23, 2020, 05:47:09 PM

  That's how I see it anyway.  I can agree to disagree on an issue like this one.
  Quote from: nullius on October 24, 2020, 07:11:08 PM
  Quote from: The Pharmacist on October 24, 2020, 03:55:52 PM

  I excluded nullius from my trust list because [...]

  No hard feelings.

---

Usage instructions:  Each of those Loyce.club trust pages contains a convenient link which says, “BBCode for Bitcointalk”.  You should copy and paste the BBcode as text, in pertinent part, instead of posting a screenshot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5291349.msg55675546#msg55675546).  For example, see my reply when some trolls and idiots claimed that Lauda (“лayдa”) and I (“нyллиyc”) were in league with suchmoon (“cyшмyн”) (!):

---

Oh, do you speak of my switch from inclusion to exclusion of hilarious?  I sincerely do not trust his judgment, either.

I saw warning signs before, in his handling of the PrimeNumber7 case.  I kept him included, because I thought he had valuable tags that I wanted to see; and moreover, his own inclusion list is not so horribly big as to pull all sorts of garbage into my second-level.

(I avoid including many people whose judgment I otherwise trust, for this exact reason!  For example, this is why I have not considered including qwk (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-11-28_Sat_18.56h/24140.html), although qwk has many good tags (at least in 2017 and later), and is on the Cult of Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098579.0) inclusion list.  I prefer to include people who have short inclusions lists, and long exclusions lists.)

However, as I have already said publicly (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293277.msg55706257#msg55706257), hilarious’ recent choices have proved to me that his judgment is not trustworthy.  Now I know from first-hand knowledge that he says untrue things about people; why would I trust his tags against others!?  It is, again, why theymos made the ~ function.

Anyway, hilarious is off-topic here.

---

Local rules. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293022.0)  Will be enforced.

Before you make your assumptions, you should read my post and understand it. I've nowhere "complained" that you have distrusted me, I've just pointed it out that the list of people distrusting me is very special and if you want be there, feel free to do it. I could not care less if you distrusted me or not.  :P

And as expected, you deleted my post in your self-moderated censorship post.

---

That is wrong, the moderator approved my report and deleted your post. Then, you complained about it using your habitual spam-wall rants.  :D

---

My point of view for trust feedbacks is: people should start reading feedbacks instead of trusting red, green or black numbers. That's why I'm always linking a reference, writing a text how much BTC was involved and then, people should make their own conclusion, if the person is trustworthy enough for the sort of deal they are about to do.
Instead of spoon-feeding people we should focus on making trust more visible on different sections that new users know about trust, can view each feedback and draw their own conclusions. A positive feedback is not "I'm endorsing this user blindly", it's an "I've done action xy and would do it again / it went well".

Maybe you should care more about your feedbacks where several negative feedbacks and also positive feedbacks could be criticised as well.

"Wer im Glasshaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen"
~"Don't throw bricks, when you live in a glass house"

---

Ok:

Feels nice to join this group of morons?  :D

https://i.imgur.com/39jUywz.jpg
https://loyce.club/trust/2020-11-28_Sat_18.56h/2143453.html

It's ok if / if not.
No hard feelings.  8)

---

Pictures are better.  :)

I haven't posted in reputation for so long so this must be a very old post of mine that you intend to reply to, and I have received at least 3-4 notifications of you mentioning my name and saying you are going to reply to my post. Since this doesn't seem to be working - allow me to propose a better solution, point me to that post and I'll just delete it. :D