In particular, in my view:
- Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
- Giving negative trust for merit trading and
deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
- It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to
this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an
untrustworthy person. DT selection is
meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
Thank you for your input.
Couldn't agree more on the forgiving point as I had the chance to benefit from it myself.
I don't know the specifics of H8busses, but he called me a sock puppet of Lauda if I recall, and I didn't understand the reason. Not a reason to tag him.
However if he tried to actually "game" the system to his advantage (not saying he did) should THAT be tagged?
With gaming the system I mean influencing DT list for his own sake or agenda and not for legitimate reasons. See Thule et al.
Show Posts
