I don't see which part of your post(s) answers my question so I'm gonna have to guess. The signed agreement idea? It seems to ensure that a scammy trade gets max one neg so a crafty scammer can probably scam quite a few newbies before getting significant negative feedback. Or the scammer can coerce their victim to opt out. So who's going to enforce all that and how?

I'm talking about other famines.  When have you mentioned a famine that you didn't think was connected to Marxism?  I'll apologize if you show me I was wrong in that accusation.  You never referenced other famines such as the Bengal famine caused by the British because that wouldn't allow you to pretend economic ideology creates famine.  Again, my point was that every other empire has done awful things.  ALL empires are evil but not all of the accomplishments that come out of them are.  That is what I mean by asking you to process nuance.  In a nutshell, awful people can do great things and great people can do awful things.

We know people died in the famine but you seem to not understand the definition of genocide.  Genocide requires intent to kill a specific group of people.  There is no evidence of intent in this case so its unknown whether or not genocide took place.  Its a very strong term.  You can't just say a bunch of people dying is genocide.  

There is not gymnastics.  People dying in a famine is awful and clearly not among the list of positive accomplishments I'm referring to.  I made it clear I don't think they were saints.  No every nation did not achieve the same.  No other nation came close because Soviet competitors were already hyperdeveloped by the 20s.  I'm talking about tangible accomplishments too.   For example, No other nation put the first man in space.  This was evidence of their complete superiority in science and technology.   Imagine if Yemen became the leading global superpower by 2060.  That would be impressive regardless of how they got there.  Thats the type of development we are talking about.

No other nation had nearly the amount of technological or medical advances in the same time period and the nations that had similar progress, did so through huge government projects and not through privately owned capitalist ventures.
And thats where we connect back to OP.  The Soviets had so many great innovations that influenced the US and other nations  to improve worker conditions and expand government programs in order to keep up.  The US actually "won" in many ways because Russia putting a man in space inspired everyone to want to collectively invest in technology.  The NASA budget was increased by 500% that year in order to catch up with the Soviets.  It would have taken capitalism several more decades to find investors to finance such massive endeavors privately.  Many of the technological advancements we enjoy today are only here because of subsequent, publicly funded NASA research.

No it doesn't but it changes yours and you shouldn't be surprised at how much of human behavior is reactionary.

Don't wish do

I don't think that amount-risked should have any weight towards the Trust-Value. For exactly the reasons you mention. I understand the intention behind it, but I very rarely see it being used for it's intended purpose and see it being abused much more often. In addition to that, the amounts required to have any weight are unlikely be thresholds that are hit, so that increases the likelihood that it will be abused more than used. Am I missing something or is that more of a liability than an asset?

Not sure I 100% understand your answer so if I've misinterpreted you're welcome to correct my understanding.

Don't mistake my desire to treat each individual respectfully with an inability or unwillingness to defend myself or those I care for skillfully with force.
Only in the growing politicized environments are those 2 things mutually exclusive.

Who's going to enforce those principles and how?

If you want to fix the trust system we need 2 tiers of trust. One for trade EXCLUSIVELY where a loss is incurred and can be documented in some way. The other for peoples opinions and feelings about everything else. Trade trust would be calculated into the average, and the other trust would not, simply amounting to a public notice.

The primary issue with the trust system is it is used as a political weapon to not only punish people for speaking out about bad behavior, it allows those same people punishing people for speaking out to destroy anyone lower than them for doing so. This is difficult to do if the trust is restricted to trade. People can retaliate this way all day with meaningless gripe trust and not affect their overall rating calculation. Anyone they trade with who is overzealous with a rating automatically has the same opportunity to leave their own negative rating that is calculated.

You could even potentially automate this to an extent by having an internal forum version of signing an agreement, enabling both to leave a rating at their will. IE I agree to enter into a trade with Bob, Bob and I both click a button confirming we are engaging in a transaction, opening the possibility of a weighted rating to be left. In this way the only weighted ratings left are from those with direct engagement, and not as a political tool by 3rd parties.

I know of that claim but do not know the truth.  Thats why I said may OR may not.  Only you could claim to know the intent of someone who lived nearly a century ago. 

but even if I concede that point, my other point is that I won't just ignore so many achievements in human history because they could somehow be indirectly connected to a brutal regime.  My main argument is one on behalf of nuance and perspective.  The soviets did bad things but nothing out of the ordinary for every empire.  On the contrary, the soviets had many great accomplishments in the same time.  Great work or accomplishments doesn't mean someone is a great person nor does it excuse subsequent evil acts. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I love the idea that the world is connected and advanced even though I hate a lot of the things that also happened while it was becoming that way. 

I agree. I think we're needlessly complicating an already complicated system even more and I don't see how much different this system is. I think it will probably actually involve more collusion and backroom deals to exclude people to get them off DT. Older users with friends here will benefit more from it whilst newer users will still be flummoxed by it.

You should learn about all of the major atrocities in history instead of just microfocusing on famine or gulag.  Far more was done than Stalin's policies which may or may not have been genocidal (its literally debated amongst historians).   Its telling that you never talk about anything but communist famines which may or may not have been targeted.  Its believable that you never learned about anything else besides that and the holocaust but its also believable that you have a subconscious excuse that dismisses most mass murder as part of the "good fight". 

Not my words- Via wikipedia
Wow its almost as if there are multiple perspectives to consider and a complex historical analysis is necessary.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
Imagine if these events were mentioned everytime anyone said anything about the US or UK.


I can acknowledge great accomplishments of empires even though I clearly despise them.  I love the fact that so much of the world speaks English and can acknowledge that without condoning the Bengal famine.  I can talk about great things the US has accomplished without brining up all of its atrocities.  I acknowledge that despite not having the best quality of life or ethics, no nation has accomplished more than the US in the latter part of the 20th century.  That doesn't automatically make me culpable for the very things I spend so much time ridiculing.

Everything is so simple to you.  You have only projected that you deal in absolutes and have no ability to perceive nuance.  You claim to know so much history but learning history without multiple perspectives and contexts is pointless.  Can you give a list of good things about the Soviet Union to prove you aren't a complete bot?  Its a captcha. 

For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority...

Not casual at all.
This is self preservation. You're dangerous for the mental health of anyone with a brain so I don't argue with you. But that doesn't mean I can't pinpoint when you say really ridiculous things.

I'm not throwing it out, I'm just not talking about that.  I'm against colonialism, imperialism, and authoritarianism but that doesn't create a bias in my mind that blinds me from the great accomplishments of a system that involved all three.  Was it ideal? no. Was it a utopia? no.  Were the accomplishments relatively greater than every other empire of the 20th century?  Of course!

TECSHARE, I don't understand your problem with the word patriarchy.

World is a patriarchy, that's a fact. Most politicians, influencing people, religious/military leaders, big businessmen... Are men.

Men have currently much more power than women no?
Did I misunderstood the word patriarchy?

Yeah, even though I said they weren't saints (what superpower was?), just throw everything else out of the window in favor of the simplistic "Stalin man bad!" analysis.  Every imperial power has done bad things because being imperial is already evil in the first place.  Level headed humans can appreciate the fact that humanity has been to and made use of space without simultaneously condoning mass murder. 

Between coughing fits and respiratory distress that are only an excuse I will reply to TECHSHARE, because I am sick of having my posts deleted because of him while he gets to keep the original an further insulting post. After that I am DONE if I can help myself.

Social conditioning starts after birth. You can't prove what happens in the workplace after being given more choice, if the choice is given to ADULTS.

A) I stand by my opinion.
B) Yes, I stand by my opinion it is "patriarchy" that shaped the prejudice as to what a "real man" is. Men have been running the society throughout human history so how could it be the fault of women?
C) If all women had financial freedom, noone would have to support them. Why don't they?
D) I also stand by my opinion on education. I don't care if you think I have no argument for it. I don't care about you at all actually. I see it every day.
E) Again, men have been running the society throughout history. Pushed women into kitchens and nurseries. How can discrimination against men then be fault of women?
F) Unlike you I say "patriarchy" also discriminates men not just women and you are hating on me for it? Do you even know what you want? You don't have ONE good thing to say about women or give them any credit or admit they have any real struggle equality wise. Why do you hate them so much?
G, H, I) Surprise, I again stand by what I said. You don't want to even try to see any of my point, that is just fine. I won't post links and researches etc because I don't have time to do gender studies or whatever. You will just have to accept different people have different opinions. I gave my arguments, you don't like it, I can't help it.

I have decency and morals to acknowledge the wrongs of this society. Since this topic was meant as an attack on women, I focused on defending them because it seems only decent. If it was the opposite, I would be defending men, but frankly I don't often see women attacking men. I see my priviledge and don't feel threatened by people who fight for equality. I am for equality and don't just want to keep precious priviledge. This is all I have to say to you.

No one is saying they were saints but their advancements to human civilization as well as the general state of society in Russia from 1921-1961 were undeniably great.