IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ?

[hacker1001101001]

Today I got a navigate trust rating for sending merits to a post I found informative...yes read again sending merits, and it was by someone who has lots of inclusions from well-known members here.

Lauda   2019-12-29   Reference   Maliciously merits what he/she knows to be a lie in order to propagate it and cause harm to me. Wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, now should anyone trust a word they say.

Mine is not the only example, many users are just buried under this type of trust abuse.


I would like to get the community opinions on "if such type of usage of red trust should be acceptable and is it being that non-explanatory for the sender useful for the community overall".

[1713249928]

1713249928

[1713249928]

1713249928

[1713249928]

1713249928

[1713249928]

1713249928

[1713249928]

1713249928

[1713249928]

1713249928

[yogg]

There is a lot of controversy around trust.

Trust feedbacks are not moderated and are at the appreciation of every user.
Some use them to express their opinions / views about some user, and some will not.

Different high-ranked users came up with guides such as "In which case it is appropriate to leave a negative feedback" for other users.

I don't have an opinion about if it is a good or a bad way to handle this.
It is how it is and I can live with that as I carefully think about every move I pull. (and it's consequences)

However for the case of breach of contract, the flag system exists.

Lauda is the only one that is able to do something about the negative feedback you have received.

I guess you could joint the "union" ?

My advice to you would be, keep doing what you do and if at some point the pros outweight the cons, then ask Lauda to maybe revise their feedback ?

[ScumBuster]

Imma just leave this here.

Neg.-rating someone just because they sent out 1 merit is completely backwards and proper trust abuse in my view. It's similar to political de-platforming.

Objectively it took effort to create regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that's how merit should be used.

No, unless you want to censor what opinions, statements or other people's actions are allowed to get merit.

[Steamtyme]

This is definitely well outside what trust is intended to do. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to be changed, so your only other recourse is to PM anyone who has them on their trusted list that you think will objectively look at whether or not they still do more harm than good, when DT.

Different high-ranked users came up with guides such as "In which case it is appropriate to leave a negative feedback" for other users.

That may be but there are still guidelines in place whether people like it or not. Ignoring when someone blatantly disregards them degrades the entire system especially if it's only because they have a high profile/ high ranked account.                 

[Lauda]

Imma just leave this here.

Neg.-rating someone just because they sent out 1 merit is completely backwards and proper trust abuse in my view. It's similar to political de-platforming.

Objectively it took effort to create regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that's how merit should be used.

No, unless you want to censor what opinions, statements or other people's actions are allowed to get merit.

Changed my mind later after the flag-system was introduced. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Too bad that you're not my alt.

That may be but there are still guidelines in place whether people like it or not. Ignoring when someone blatantly disregards them degrades the entire system especially if it's only because they have a high profile/ high ranked account.                  

Guidelines =/= rules. You can break guidelines, rules you shouldn't. I don't support malicious liars, nor those that support them. It's just a matter of time before I'm right about this one again (like countless many examples of "you shouldn't tag for X and yet in the end they end up to be one of the vilest creatures we've encountered around here").
Anyhow, why is everyone in here a whining cunt? Just ~Lauda and fuck off if you don't agree with it. There's literally no reason to discuss anything and it's a waste of everyone's time. The only way OP gets his rating removed (other than apologising and stopping his continual unwarranted attacks) is if theymos removes the rating itself from the database. I will not even change it for OP (given his past, and current actions) even if ordered by mr. thermos. Not a fan of central authorities of power.

I wouldn't hold my breath for this to be changed                

You're right. When I'm right, I can add only more ratings and not remove them under trust, political or any kind of other pressure. I can't say the same for most of you though.

[El duderino_]

I have to say, leaving negative feedback for sending a single merit for something a person likes is a bit much not? Lauda?
Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...

[Lauda]

I have to say, leaving negative feedback for sending a single merit for something a person likes is a bit much not? Lauda?
Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...

I would go up to flag ban them, but since liberals make the flag-rules here this is the compromise solution for liars.

[johhnyUA]

I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...

My next words will not have anything with Tecshare/Lauda case (and other english board drama) or this case. I see often that under term of "difference opinion"/"this is my view"/"unpopular opinion" mostly covers trolls and liars.

And other people, telling something like "Oh man, you can't tag him for his different opinion, c-mon!"

[Lauda]

I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...

My next words will not have anything with Tecshare/Lauda case (and other english board drama) or this case. I see often that under term of "difference opinion"/"this is my view"/"unpopular opinion" mostly covers trolls and liars.

And other people, telling something like "Oh man, you can't tag him for his different opinion, c-mon!"

Objective lies are not "just differences in opinion", they are lies. But fuck explaining that to liberalist degenerates. They do agree with it, however, when it works in their favour (just covertly).

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Objective lies are not "just differences in opinion", they are lies.

That's true, but giving someone merits for a post here is next to meaningless compared to any lies that might be told.  I don't agree with this feedback, and I'm going to counter it.  Aside from anything else in TECSHARE's post that OP merited, I thought it was amusing because of the pajeet comment and it was well-written, both of which might cause someone to merit it even if they didn't agree with anything else.  Hell, I've merited a handful of posts by members I either don't agree with or can't stand. 

There's no need to neg OP for just giving TECSHARE some merits for a post IMO.

[Lauda]

I don't agree with this feedback, and I'm going to counter it.  

Sure, and you will regret it soon in the future once you find out who OP is. As I've told Steamtyme a couple days ago, users who counter are responsible for any direct and collateral damage that the supposed user that they're counter for ends up doing.

Hell, I've merited a handful of posts by members I either don't agree with or can't stand.  

So have I.

There's no need to neg OP for just giving TECSHARE some merits for a post IMO.

You're still learning to recognize, identify and stop evil in its tracks. The pajeet will reveal their true identity soon enough, or will be forced to by powers greater than us. Give this case a bit more time. These are the cases where the backward decision to make counters worthless can be appreciated even though I strongly disagree with it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'll make sure to write a much nicer trust rating and inform you privately to counter it moments after if/when I do 

[hacker1001101001]

This topic is not about if my red trust is justified or not, it is surely a stupid rating in any sense to any decent minded user here, but it is more about if such usage of trust should be banned by administration not only in DT1 but even in DT2. I don't know if it is programming difficulty or something for theymos to ban from both DT1 and DT2, but it is pretty important now as the damaged caused due to this is largely influential to major community using default trust lists.

Hence, I put this topic in meta, instade of reputation as it's more about an overall forum issue and not targeted to the Lauda's trust rating on me, I don't find anything more this forum is powered by than the community here and your opinions matters.

[Lauda]

This topic is not about if my red trust is justified or not, it is surely a stupid rating in any sense to any decent minded user here, but it is more about if such usage of trust should be banned by administration not only in DT1 but even in DT2. I don't know if it is programming difficulty or something for theymos to ban from both DT1 and DT2, but it is pretty important now as the damaged caused due to this is largely influential to major community using default trust lists.

It's trivial for theymos to ban you on all levels assuming he wants to play the role of a central authority. This behaviour isn't banned on any level of DT.

[hacker1001101001]

It's trivial for theymos to ban you on all levels assuming he wants to play the role of a central authority. This behaviour isn't banned on any level of DT.

Your behaviour is already banned on DT1 level, but still that doesn't change the feedback to be appearing under default trust and that half banning action doesn't serves it's purpose.

[Lauda]

It's trivial for theymos to ban you on all levels assuming he wants to play the role of a central authority. This behaviour isn't banned on any level of DT.

Your behaviour is already banned on DT1 level, but still that doesn't change the feedback to be appearing under default trust and the banning doesn't serves it purpose.

It's not banned on DT1. I asked theymos to blacklist me several months back[1]. What I am doing today, I could have been doing a couple months back. There are guidelines that I'm stumbling against, not rules. The guidelines are shit and cause harm, so fuck them. How many times do I have to clarify on your lies and ask you to not perpetuate them? P.S. Your second identity is already compromised, but keep writing so we can keep feeding the machine more data. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[1] He actually didn't even understand my request, so I had to ask twice. But that's a fun story for another day.  

[Steamtyme]

You're still learning to recognize, identify and stop evil in its tracks. The pajeet will reveal their true identity soon enough, or will be forced to by powers greater than us. Give this case a bit more time. These are the cases where the backward decision to make counters worthless can be appreciated even though I strongly disagree with it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah Christmas came up and that seemed as good a time as any to just drop it, but here we are again. I'm not huge on counters personally I see it as a choice. The persons feedback is worth it or not. Some do have a hard time just letting you go, not me. ~ and you come and go on my list often. It will stay like that until you decide to consistently create valid feedback. This is a great example of you claiming to have some greater knowledge than the rest of us that will be revealed in the future to validate the feedback. Just lead with your best foot forward, this isn't some learning experience on setting up a wallet or signing a message. Put forth the evidence you expect us to take at face value exists, or accept that your ratings only further hurt your credibility in these matters.

It's not you who's the problem but everyone else who doesn't take your ratings as fact and confirmation of something far more nefarious behind every character. It will be convenient if even 1 of these users turns out to be the monster under the bed you claim as you "obviously and clearly" warn us with what you consider valid feedback; the whole while not actually painting the whole picture which might reveal a true scammer. So I hope you will accept you didn't do everything to warn people of their true nature when someone gets scammed; as you clearly aren't willing to place truthful and well referenced feedback for these cases.

but it is more about if such usage of trust should be banned by administration not only in DT1 but even in DT2. I don't know if it is programming difficulty or something for theymos to ban from both DT1 and DT2, but it is pretty important now as the damaged caused due to this is largely influential to major community using default trust lists.

No I disagree. It is up to the user base not the Admins to make this system work. If nothing else Lauda does push that part of the system effectively and demonstrates how many well respected and trusted users drop the ball in the area of policing our own DT community. Sure there are cases where the wagons rally when it's an obscure member or someone who can easily act as a lightning rod for members to get behind exclusions. It just falls short in cases like this.

[Lauda]

This is a great example of you claiming to have some greater knowledge than the rest of us that will be revealed in the future to validate the feedback.

No, I don't expect you to take my word for it. I expect you to analyze the data of previous cases of this very familiar situation. Do tell me the percentage ratio difference between the times I was wrong and the times I was right. Indulge yourself with that discovery and you might change your mind. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It will be convenient if even 1 of these users turns out to be the monster under the bed you claim as you "obviously and clearly" warn us with what you consider valid feedback

Almost all of them were monsters to some degree so far, but yes it will be very convenient because I would be very right (quite a very familiar situation, yet again).

So I hope you will accept you didn't do everything to warn people of their true nature when someone gets scammed; as you clearly aren't willing to place truthful and well referenced feedback for these cases.

I wrote as accurately as I could and did everything that I was allowed to do. You, on the other hand, can remedy the situation quite nicely by doing research. But no, DT member's will look the other way because say "OH NO the reference link is wrong! Counter, counter, counter". All mighty God would throw us in hell if we protected users from somebody with wrong reference links. Biggest sin of them all. This is very fun, keep indulging me.

~ and you come and go on my list often. It will stay like that until you decide to consistently create valid feedback.

Excellent. This is what people should be doing, and not crying like their mommy just forbade them from playing outside. These libtard cunts need to fucking grow up already.
You probably have realized, based off of your posts that I've read, that I couldn't give a shit about neither community nor theymos guidelines as long as you fight evil and as long as your methods don't involve stupid shit like Lauda (yes, Lauda, I, or moronbozo's alt or viceversa) did in the past (some lines you should not cross ).

[hacker1001101001]

P.S. Your second identity is already compromised, but keep writing so we can keep feeding the machine more data. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Come on, this thread is about if community thinks this type of ratings should be that non-explanatory or not. Keep your personal attacks out, yours is just an example from many as I said in the OP.

[Lauda]

P.S. Your second identity is already compromised, but keep writing so we can keep feeding the machine more data. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Come on, this thread is about if community thinks this type of ratings should be that non-explanatory or not. Keep you personal attacks out, yours is just an example from many as I said in the OP.

That's not an attack, it's a factual statement. You are an alt, who even plagiarised a couple months back. I found wisdom in this post, and apparently this is on-topic.

how exactly am I supposed to address his accusations without referring to him personally? This is all very much on topic.

I do wonder if some alt like say "scam-buster" or someone else is going to make the grand reveal. Consider it a present for 2020 whenever it happens.

[TECSHARE]

Imma just leave this here.

Neg.-rating someone just because they sent out 1 merit is completely backwards and proper trust abuse in my view. It's similar to political de-platforming.

Objectively it took effort to create regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that's how merit should be used.

No, unless you want to censor what opinions, statements or other people's actions are allowed to get merit.

By your own standard here you are objectively a liar and we should all red trust you over it. Of course in many cases you leave ratings for people "lying" there is no objective evidence, just lots of disagreement in opinion and dislike that certain individuals are getting support that you would like to stop.