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.)
And while we are at it, I've just checked my trust list if someone new trusts / distrusts me:
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 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 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.
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.
I am ultraconservative in matters of trust;
... “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.
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.
Feels nice to join this group of morons?
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:
That's how I see it anyway. I can agree to disagree on an issue like this one.
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. For example, see my reply when some trolls and idiots claimed that Lauda (“лayдa”) and I (“нyллиyc”) were in league with suchmoon (“cyшмyн”) (!):
Oчeнь тoпopнaя cиcтeмa. Tepмoc - peбeнoк пo cyти, кoтopым мaнипyлиpyют пpидвopныe (лayдa cyшмyн фapмaцeвт).
[...]
Чтoбы пpипoднятcя в cиcтeмe - нaдo yмeть лизaть эти пятки пpидвopныx (лayдa фapмaцeвт cyшмyн нyллиyc итд).
...и кoмaнды "фac" oт cyкмyнa нe пocтyпaлo.
ЛOЛ.
You don't have any trust in moderator's judgement so you need to start self-moderated threads all the time?
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, although qwk has many good tags (at least in 2017 and later), and is on the Cult of Lauda inclusion list. I prefer to include people who have short inclusions lists, and long exclusions lists.)However,
as I have already said publicly, 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. Will be enforced.
