Trust System Abuse By Nullius

[TECSHARE]

AKA, I disagree with you and you don't like it, and you are willing to use the trust system as a tool of retribution for daring to disagree.

Like you did with me, hypocrite.  

You know very well you were tagged for doxing and supposedly reporting OGNasty to the IRS no matter how much you want to pretend it was for another reason so you can pretend to be a victim and not a victimizer. You among all people on this forum have no business criticizng anyone for abuse of the trust system with your years long history of abuse of dozens if not hundreds of people.

[1715031783]

1715031783

[1715031783]

1715031783

[Vod]

You know very well you were tagged for doxing and supposedly reporting OGNasty to the IRS no matter how much you want to pretend it was for another reason

Me thinks you have abused trust for so long, you are starting to believe what you write.

Hint:  You can't read my mind.  I have to dumb down my English so you can understand it.

You have been using the trust system as a tool of retribution.  Hypocrite!

You among all people on this forum have no business criticizng anyone for abuse of the trust system with your years long history of abuse of dozens if not hundreds of people.

You mean my scam busting?

[nullius]

...

...doxing and supposedly reporting OGNasty to the IRS...

TECSHARE, I am not a bull before whom a red flag can be waved (as I noticed one of your supporters recently also tried on another thread—much more subtly).  Unlike some here, I will not take your bait.


Vod’s negative feedback on TECSHARE, dated 2019-09-09 and now (together with Lauda’s negative) supported by me via my counter-counter tag, states:

This profile has fundamentally abused the trust system, trading positive trust with as many others as possible to get on Default Trust. See reference and the BPIP DT Change Log for examples. Do not trust this profile's trust of others by adding ~TECSHARE to your personal trust list.

That is a serious accusation!  I immediately checked Vod’s reference link, which I will hereby quote in full because people seem to be ignoring its significance in the context of this thread (see post title):

What changed, is that TECHSHARE reached DT1 (strength 0 instead of negative) a few hours ago (https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx).

Yeah, for the last few weeks he has been putting aside his morals and belief structure to get back on DT.   He stopped distrusting everyone and started trusting many others, hoping for retaliatory trust.  It was a good example for Theymos to see just how easily idiots can get on DT right now.

This is correct. TECSHARE has been trying to get reciprocal inclusions for a few months now. Its finally paid off. The DT1s that he has nothing in common with except for reciprocal inclusions are:

WhiteManWhite (Russian local board poster)
Kalemder (Turkish local board poster)
bobita (Turkish local board poster)
Matthias9515 (Turkish local board poster) (left a positive trust for TS on 6/29, was added by TS a month later, during the first week that Matthias was on DT1)
mhanbostanci (Turkish local board poster)

He's never interacted with these users as they all post exclusively on their local boards (except when they make the exception to visit Meta or Reputation to address trust-related issues). I'm going to assume that he doesn't speak enough Russian or Turkish to understand the ratings left by these users and (for the most part) they don't speak enough English to understand his, and the only reason he included them was to gain enough votes to be back out of the negatives on DT. Without them, he would be back at -4.

He also included two other Turkish posters soon after they were added to DT1, PHI1618 and by rallier whom he subsequently dropped (I imagine it was for not getting the reciprocal trust he was hoping for)

He's still waiting for Vispilio to reciprocate, probably unaware that he just fell off DT1 for not having the minimum number of inclusions.

Outside of OP's issue with ABitNut, this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be discouraged in the DT system.

Now, trust-system abuser TECSHARE, who dishonestly reached DT1 through “vote”-trading, has opened against me a hit-thread laced with subtextual panic that I may honestly and properly soon reach DT1.  (Insofar as I can tell, I am indeed eligible.)  TECSHARE’s basis for accusing me of trust-system abuse:  My support of Vod’s tag correctly identifying him as a trust-system abuser (among other good tags).

Wherefore:

You have been using the trust system as a tool of retribution.  Hypocrite!

The word “hypocrite” is hereby inadequate.  The English language needs a word specific to covering for one’s own crimes by accusing one’s accusers.

You among all people on this forum have no business criticizng anyone for abuse of the trust system with your years long history of abuse of dozens if not hundreds of people.

You mean my scam busting?

I have indeed observed that TECSHARE indeed has an interesting definition of the word “abuse”:  Busting abusers.

N.b. the pattern of accusing others of arbitrarily redefining or misconstruing words as he arbitrarily redefines or misconstrues words to the opposite of their actual meanings, to his advantage.  See my above remark about a needed neologism.  Is there a philologist in the house?

The great truths of this world are oft concealed in the twisting of language.  A warrior-philologist is armed with the sword to slice through this Gordian knot...

He further observes that “good” in the Master-Morality is “evil” in the Slave-Morality, and “good” in the Slave-Morality is “bad” in the Master-Morality (e.g., liberals and Christians).  In my own words, the former is a morality of pride, and the latter is a morality of utility:  A morality of ability serving needs, thus that “the meek shall inherit the earth”.

TECSHARE tends to present himself as if he were a spokesman for the oppressed, with typical pinko agitprop that portrays wrongdoers as mass-victims:

Why would anyone pressure yahoo6278 to stop supporting Yobit when they can just use the pretext of stopping Yobit to lord over thousands of random users and use this activity to boost their own "scambusting" profile? I mean, yahoo62278 washes all the right balls, and acheiving their stated goals of stopping Yobit doesn't seem that great compared to all the random users they can lord over and have beg them for forgiveness instead of targeting the one person most able to stop Yobit on this forum. How are they going to exploit thousands of users with arbitrary enforcement if they go after one of their pals? Nah, they will just stick to harassing random unsuspecting users for some shit they excuse their buddies from.

For an extra-special touch of some thing beyond hypocrisy, this TECSHARE quote is from a thread that I myself opened for the exact purpose of “pressuring yahoo6278 to stop supporting Yobit”—in which my OP, my follow-up post, and even the topic title all seem to nearly shout that if I were to have started mass-tagging Yobit advertisers while yahoo was running their campaign and wearing their signature, I myself would have tagged yahoo first as a matter of principle.  Perhaps someone forgot to wash my balls?

And this same principle is why I have told suchmoon to either ~Vod with ~nullius, or back off.  Lauda’s example of achow101 is also consistent with this principle.

I am not hiding behind Vod.  I can stand on my own feet; and indeed, at this point, I would independently stand on principle even if, hypothetically, Vod were less principled than he obviously is.  However, wise judgment requires first pursuing the biggest, toughest targets, as well as getting to the root of an alleged problem.  Arguendo, if my support of Vod’s tag is wrong, then Vod’s tag is wrong:  Start at the root of the problem before rattling your sabre at me.  Whereas I will not be cowed by the threat of exclusion—especially not when the same threat is not also made against a 5-digit UID with one of the highest trust weights, whose tag it is that I so happen to be supporting because it is right.

(The same argument also separately applies to my support of Lauda’s tag.  I am only picking on Vod because suchmoon includes him.  Sorry, Vod.)

[suchmoon]

Thank you for clarifying.

What about somebody who has malicious, dishonest motives other than simply outright stealing money?  For a concrete example, I have oft observed (including earlier on this thread!) that high-intelligence scum usually prefer becoming politicians, lawyers, bankers, etc. to being low-grade scammers or street criminals.

Many such people will execute perfectly correct trades with you—even for millions or billions of dollars.  Is it wrong for me to label some large, perhaps large majority subset of that group as untrustworthy and likely to harm people?

That is only a conceptual example, for the purpose of illustrating my point—though I must observe that in DT politics, TECSHARE’s general behaviour is what would be expected of a moderately shrewd low-grade political jobber.

You can use neutral trust to label anyone any way you want. However if you use negative (red) trust you're clicking this:

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

So your trust rating should state and/or reference what makes trading with this person high-risk. Quite a few of your negative ratings posted this year (not going to 2018 - different trust system, different discussion) don't meet that criteria as far as I can see, including most recently TECSHARE's and Kalemder's ratings and I can't help but think the latter one is aimed at booting him out of the campaign. Not a good use of DT privileges.

[Lauda]

However if you use negative (red) trust you're clicking this:

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

So your trust rating should state and/or reference what makes trading with this person high-risk. Quite a few of your negative ratings posted this year (not going to 2018 - different trust system, different discussion) don't meet that criteria as far as I can see, including most recently TECSHARE's and Kalemder's ratings and I can't help but think the latter one is aimed at booting him out of the campaign. Not a good use of DT privileges.

I don't understand this. The introduction of the flag system and change of the trust system as a direct effect had a weakening on the criteria for negative ratings. How can something that was valid before not be valid now in this context

[suchmoon]

I don't understand this. The introduction of the flag system and change of the trust system as a direct effect had a weakening on the criteria for negative ratings. How can something that was valid before not be valid now in this context

I don't believe the rating against TECSHARE would have been valid in the old system. The criteria used to be something like "this person has scammed or you think will scam" which is not something that a reasonable person could say about TECSHARE or Kalemder based on those two ratings and references from today/yesterday. Worthy of exclusion perhaps, maybe even a neutral rating if you feel very strongly about it. Not worthy of a DT red trust IMO.

[Kalemder]

FYI, I left this feedback after Vod’s reference link led me to nutildah’s post on DT manipulation by TECSHARE and Kalemder, a Turkish local member whom I am investigating.  At the same time as I tagged TECSHARE, I tagged Kalemder based on nutildah’s post plus evidence that I will not yet disclose publicly. 

You didn't listen to me, you didn't ask me. But you're judging me. Yes, I am an active member in Turkish section. I do not follow the messages in the global section too much. I sometimes follow the meta section. Unfortunately, conspiracies are being made to me these days.

You are blame me for adding @TECSHARE to my trust list. I learned the Trust system 8 months ago. I did not have much idea about how the Trust system works. Because there was no Turkish info about the Trust system. That's when I started reading the meta discussions. I didn't know everybody much in the global section then. During that period, @TECHSHARE was supporting my ideas and I found some of his posts positive.

So I added him to my Trust list, I added other people I found positive to my trust list. It only took 9-10 days. Then, I removed @TECSHARE from my list.

Proof: http://loyce.club/trust/2019-09-21_Sat_06.17h/487377.html
Look week 34-36

We don't all have to learn everything right away. I learned better when @Foxpup told me the facts. I shouldn't be declared a bad person just because I do this. Actually, these ridiculous conspiracies are being set up because Chipmixer chose me.

I put a lot of effort into this forum. I worked hard at the art contest. I have never hurt anyone. I believe I am not a bad person. I tell Turkish community about the bitcoin and forum features. All this effort should not be ignored. Endless dramas are really exhausting me. I will delete my Trust list. I just want to keep writing good articles.

Dear @Nullius, You just gave me negative feedback for my thoughts, you and @lauda. It is not right to blame me on such a simple subject. Just talk and tell me. In fact, these movements do not give me confidence. I believe you misunderstood me. I request you and @lauda to delete this negative feedback, please.

I just wanted to defend myself in this matter. I have no other words to say.

Thank you and best wishes...

[Lauda]

I don't understand this. The introduction of the flag system and change of the trust system as a direct effect had a weakening on the criteria for negative ratings. How can something that was valid before not be valid now in this context

I don't believe the rating against TECSHARE would have been valid in the old system. The criteria used to be something like "this person has scammed or you think will scam" which is not something that a reasonable person could say about TECSHARE or Kalemder based on those two ratings and references from today/yesterday. Worthy of exclusion perhaps, maybe even a neutral rating if you feel very strongly about it. Not worthy of a DT red trust IMO.

John K - negative for slander:

macheng   2013-10-01   Reference   Slander on the regard of chip refunds - due to the fragmented nature of refunds ample time is required to verify the refund list. The refund was done within 1 week of me getting the list and the BTC from Avalon, and note that I had to go through about 4 group buy's worth of users in that period.

theymos - negative for censorship:

QuintoBTC   2014-07-21      Censors reasonable criticism in his self-moderated topics.

theymos - negative for "giving everyone bad feedback":

btcman   2013-06-23      Gives everyone bad feedback.

BadBear - negative for plagiarism and referral links:

BitshireHashaway   2014-01-20   Reference   Spams the forum with plagiarized guides, then adds donation requests/referral links

Albeit early ratings, but they haven't been much active as the 2nd half of the system was approaching (at least when it comes to giving out ratings, and BadBear has left completely). These were Gen1, and there are many more examples (probably TC, QS, and more) that can be cherry-picked if you look at sent ratings. Nothing to do with having to trade with somebody, as it has never been a requirement. Gen2 (Blazed, Lutpin, Mexxer, and more):


mexxer-2 - Negative for being shady:

codishmumu   2015-09-29   Reference   I believe this person is reall shady, check reference thread

mexxer-2 - Negative for promoting an "obvious scam".

DIGITAL GOODS   2015-10-27   Reference   Promoting a obvious scam , which he calls "renting hash power in scrypt" , scrypt? Really?

mexxer-2 - Negative for running a complicated ponzi (Yobit's x10 is just a complicated ponzi, no more no less):

Bitspread.in   2016-01-17   Reference   Running a complicated ponzi

mexxer-2 - Negative for promoting a ponzi:

stefin   2016-01-25   Reference   Promoting a ponzi scam
bitsmit   2016-01-25   Reference   

Lutpin - Negative for dishonest behavior (see trolling):

Fwdxlsh   2015-11-24   Reference    trolling, unfriendly, offensive.
Maybe you think this is funny, but after all, its just annoying.

Lutpin - Negative for a lie (albeit casino itself may have been shady - though out of scope of rating):

PassiveDice   2015-11-29      "Because it is a standalone bot It has no house edge like the dice sites automated bots."
Barehand lie, cant believe they got any bots at all.

Lutpin - Negative for knowingly promoting a ponzi scheme in their signature:

Rago   2015-12-21   Reference   Knowingly promotes a ponzi scheme as part of a signature campaign.

Lutpin - Negative for promoting something that is knowingly mallicious(!):

Velkro   2016-05-20   Reference   Promoting bitcoinvanitygen.com, a site that is insecurly creating vanity addresses (no split-creation) and suspected to steal coins stored in vanity addresses created by them.

There were many many of these ratings in Gen2 (especially pertaining to advertising a ponzi) as well as in Gen3 (which includes The Pharmacist, myself and others). For context, I consider Gen4 the reign of flags/new trust system rotation).
You could say things like "then we should exclude them", but that would completely avoid and shut down any discussion. These people were always included by a majority of the vital members, meaning that at least most of their ratings had to have been appropriate in the former, stricter system. If they were appropriate then, then they can't be inappropriate now (requirements wise).

Please note that I'm not arguing pro-tagging for any individual reason listed in the examples. They are just that, examples, which serve as evidence for the claim that the introduction of the flag system/change in the trust-system had to have had a weakening effect on the requirements and not the other way around. I have spent time looking for some examples rather than telling you "Hey look at all the years until now" in hope that you see how things really always were.

Hope this helps.
Appendix, quote from theymos:

I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
 1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
 2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
 3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
 
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:

Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

• Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
• Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
• General deceptive behavior.
• Many, many more..

According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.
I will try to add links to everything, it's really difficult with all the research required.

[suchmoon]

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

• Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
• Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
• General deceptive behavior.
• Many, many more..

According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.

I think there is a difference between a "valid" use, and use appropriate for DefaultTrust. I'm pretty sure you can red-trust someone for disliking lemons and stretch the interpretation of "high risk" to mean that dislike of a fruit makes trading said fruits with the person "high-risk". I would argue that this kind of rating is useless and possibly harmful for DefaultTrust, or at least for my own trust network, which is what really matters.

I think these overstretched interpretations of the effects of hypocrisy, trolling, etc on trading are not useful for my trust network and amount to using trust ratings against opinions. Others may think differently, the balance will determine how DT looks like, and I know better than trying to change your mind so this is a good opportunity to agree to disagree.

[Deathwing]

-snip-

-snip-
You are blame me for adding @TECSHARE to my trust list. I learned the Trust system 8 months ago. I did not have much idea about how the Trust system works. Because there was no Turkish info about the Trust system.

Trust sistemi nedir? Nasil Calisir?

Information about the trust system by EFS, written in 2014. Literally the 2nd pinned topic on the list.

[Kalemder]

Trust sistemi nedir? Nasil Calisir?

Information about the trust system by EFS, written in 2014. Literally the 2nd pinned topic on the list.

Thank you @Deathwing. But wrong information. The new Trust System was updated in 2019.
Topic you show is a very old topic. Trust System and Merit System are newly learned in the Turkish section.
Many people don't know what it is. Because it's very confusing.



****

but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

This is true.

[Deathwing]

Trust sistemi nedir? Nasil Calisir?

Information about the trust system by EFS, written in 2014. Literally the 2nd pinned topic on the list.

Thank you @Deathwing. But wrong information. The new Trust System was updated in 2019.
Topic you show is a very old topic. Trust System and Merit System are newly learned in the Turkish section.
Many people don't know what it is. Because it's very confusing.

The "new" trust system is exactly the same as the old one. The only thing that is different is the selection process of DefautlTrust members and the addition of flags. Which isn't really related to the topic at hand. I know that when EFS created the topic in 2014 the one thing we didn't have yet was the neutral feedback, though he updated the thread in 2015 and added it.

Vispilio's thread is a bit more inclusive, mentioning the flag system. This is why I have given them 50 merits as thanks, even though the thread is a translation of LoyceV's original thread. However, defamation of Local is unacceptable. The threads are there if people are willing to read them.

[nullius]

...so this is a good opportunity to agree to disagree.

Though that was addressed to Lauda, it is disingenuous whereas you are arguing with Lauda over what you said here:

...I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.

“Agree to disagree” is exactly what I would tell you (and have, in essence told you) when you express to me your opinion about the proper standard for negative feedback.  But you are not “agreeing to disagree”.

I think there is a difference between a "valid" use, and use appropriate for DefaultTrust.

And how?  ~ exists precisely for the purpose excluding people who make invalid use of the trust system, i.e. persons with poor judgment; and inclusions exist precisely for the purpose of categorically endorsing someone else’s trust decisions as “valid”.

I'm pretty sure you can red-trust someone for disliking lemons and stretch the interpretation of "high risk" to mean that dislike of a fruit makes trading said fruits with the person "high-risk".

You are shifting the goalposts (and it is not the first time that I have seen you do that in an argument).

The question here is not what people can do.  Reductio ad absurdum, I can issue negative feedback to Lauda with PROOF that she is a WITCH (Reference — She turned me into a newt.).  “Feedback is unmoderated.”  But the predictable result is that any sane person would ~nullius.

Don’t state the obvious fact that people can do anything with trust feedback, when we are discussing your express support for TECSHARE’s demand of ~nullius on grounds that I am supporting good tags by Lauda and Vod.


To avoid waste of time, I will not reach other fallacies in your argument.

suchmoon, with candour and not hostility, I must observe that at this point, the only reason why I don’t immediately ~suchmoon is that I will not join you in grandstanding over a pet issue in some way that backfires against big-picture, important objectives.  You are sharp in investigations, and you issue (usually) good tags within your own narrow standards; your downfall would be celebrated by exactly the types of characters who are cheering you in this thread.  Thus, although I think that you are showing poor judgment in this thread, I prefer, if practicable, to take the high road and avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by obsessing over one tree in the forest—even if I am admittedly enough peeved to be tossing out awful mixed metaphors.  (Sorry, folks.)  And I encourage others to think likewise.

[Lauda]

Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

• Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
• Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
• General deceptive behavior.
• Many, many more..

According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.

I think there is a difference between a "valid" use, and use appropriate for DefaultTrust.

I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.

I'm pretty sure you can red-trust someone for disliking lemons and stretch the interpretation of "high risk" to mean that dislike of a fruit makes trading said fruits with the person "high-risk". I would argue that this kind of rating is useless and possibly harmful for DefaultTrust, or at least for my own trust network, which is what really matters.

I'd agree with you, but labeling deceptive behavior which is inherently a risk-factor when considering trading  with someone and the dislike of lemons which is in no way related to trade (unless, you want to maybe sell lemons?) is really not a fair way to argue against this.

I think these overstretched interpretations of the effects of hypocrisy, trolling, etc on trading are not useful for my trust network and amount to using trust ratings against opinions. Others may think differently, the balance will determine how DT looks like,

1) I've given you examples proving that the correct use is as claimed in the previous DT system.
2) I've given you theymoses own quote which proves that the trust system requirements were weakened.
3) The logical conclusion following out of 1) and 2) is that any previous rating that was valid use, is now definitely valid use.

Still, you just shut it down. What options are left? I know of only of two, one of which you mentioned above. See below for elaboration.

You know very well as I do that nobody's complaining, no matter how right/just/objectively correct their view is (and I'm not claiming any of one of these in my claim in this post), will be a waste of time when it's up against groups of DT1 members or friends in DT1 members (strongly arguing the opposite view, even if incorrect), etc. Also, we both know that any exclusions and inclusions are now heavily politicized (this was was not the case before). This is why I don't want to go around PM-ing DT1 members, hoping that they'll do the right thing as I'll be labeled as some shady/evil wrongdoer going behind the backs of others (not by you - this is just the current state of affairs here). There, I'm stating this ugly truth publicly.
The only remaining option is to ask an administrative authority, i.e. theymos to provide an elaborative opinion on his own guidelines. The same method as used above can be used to reject his opinion if it doesn't agree with your view. The former option is entirely useless, and shouldn't even be considered as it will backfire on the entity that tries it (yes, I've said it - this was always the case with most people sadly, back in my DT2 (old), DT1 (new) and new DT2 (new)).

I will be choosing the latter option which is not my preference due to its centralizing nature (but the system has spiraled from decentralization into a weird form of nepotism-based democracy with selective judicial enforcement). He may answer, he may not. He may agree with me, he may not. It's evident that no evidence I bring forth or logically construed argument I use will change your mind on this. Therefore, I rest my case. Sorry for wasting everyone's time reading this whole exchange.

and I know better than trying to change your mind so this is a good opportunity to agree to disagree.

I've changed or am considering changing my mind on several things, including Quickseller, eddie, and so forth so I don't think this opinion of me is really fair.

[suchmoon]

your downfall

My what now?

I don't really give a shit if someone excludes me over this "pet issue" as you call it.

Actually no, let me rephrase that. Anyone who thinks that it is appropriate to red-trust TECSHARE or Kalemder the way you did should exclude me. I don't retaliate with exclusions or red trust so no worries there.

I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.

Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges.

[eddie13]

Tagging TS because you don't like he way he sets his trust list? Why?
I can see it as a desperate rating from Vod but why back it up? It's just a weapon against TS because you don't like him..

Kalemder with the same reference? Just why?
Because he included TS?
Why?

Their is no solid reference to either of them gaming the trust system..
It is only speculation and very weak speculation at that..
Tons of users have many mutual inclusions..

[hacker1001101001]

I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.

Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges.

I think I have to agree with someone who ditrusts my judgement and uses proper ways to show it using the trust list exclusion. It is fully logical that trust ratings should only be used if a person is high risk to trade, but not just if you think his opinion doesn't matches yours hence he would scam in future even if he would have not done it explicitly until.

Makeing the use of trust ratings more dynamic than it just being an indication of being high risk to trade with makes it open to "selective enforcement" as everyone thinks any enemy in thoughts is a bad person overall and risky to trade with even if he is not in doing transactions in reality.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would also bring this quote by theymos to the discussion (bold mine):

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.

The post that theymos is linking to was regarding an account, plus a number of its alts, advocating people to all vote for each other and "overthrow" DT1, whilst simultaneously deleting the majority of dissenting opinions. These accounts also spammed/derailed a number of other threads with this nonsense. This attempt to manipulate DT was far worse than anything TECSHARE or Kalemder have done, and their trolling was also far worse than anything TECSHARE has done. Despite that, theymos clearly stated that he did not agree with the negatives being left for those reasons.

I tend to agree with this, and it is the reason I haven't left red trust for cryptohunter, TOAA, Thule, or any of the other mega-trolls we have or have had in the past. Being a troll or having a trust list I disagree with, in theymos' words above, "doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person". Grounds for a trust list exclusion? Sure. Grounds for a neutral rating? If you really feel you must. Grounds for a negative rating? No.

There's no love lost between TECSHARE and me (or TECSHARE and pretty much anybody, by the looks of things), but I don't think these ratings have any bearing on how risky trading with him is.

[nullius]

your downfall

My what now?

If you are too blind to see that you have made a fool of yourself in this thread by defending arrant nonsense with mulish stubbornness, and potentially alienated people who are not me with a public display of rash ~threats, peremptory demands that others recognize your personal feedback standard as an official forum standard ~or ~else, deafening silence when I point to (and even fully quote) the substantive grounds for one of the tags that I am supporting (a trust-abuse tag on OP!), shifting of goalposts with bizarre illogic about trust lemons, and a score of other displays of poor judgment, then it is ill-advised, but suddenly unsurprising for you to top that off with such a too-indignant “My what now?” as I would expect from someone throwing a chldish tantrum about being caught out as wrong.

And if your reply to my patent olive branch, which I pointedly concluded with a hint to others, is:

I don't really give a shit

...then I cannot but say, “I am sorry you feel that way”, and express my sincere regret that I wasted hours of my time attempting in good faith to talk this out with you, in public and in private (upon your contact to me and not vice versa).  TECSHARE could not have gotten that from me.  I would probably have flatly ignored this thread but for you, but for the considerable respect that I had for you, and but for my belief that you would do your “deescalation” for your own part of a dispute that you yourself not only ~escalated, but substantially ~created in the very second post on this thread.  —Or that at least, you would “agree to disagree”, as I have been willing to do all along.  You well know that I disagree with your personal standard for tags, and that I discuss it civilly or just “agree to disagree” if you are not waving ~ in my face.

if someone excludes me over this "pet issue" as you call it.

That which you peremptorily declare an official, quasi-binding forum standard, contrary to all evidence (such as examples shown by Lauda above), is indeed your pet issue—your peculiarly petty pet issue, at this point—and nothing more.

Actually no, let me rephrase that. Anyone who thinks that it is appropriate to red-trust TECSHARE or Kalemder the way you did should exclude me. I don't retaliate with exclusions or red trust so no worries there.

ok

This attempt to manipulate DT was far worse than anything TECSHARE or Kalemder have done, and their trolling was also far worse than anything TECSHARE has done. Despite that, theymos clearly stated that he did not agree with the negatives being left for those reasons.

I tend to agree with this, and it is the reason I haven't left red trust for cryptohunter, TOAA, Thule, or any of the other mega-trolls we have or have had in the past. Being a troll or having a trust list I disagree with, in theymos' words above, "doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person". Grounds for a trust list exclusion? Sure. Grounds for a neutral rating? If you really feel you must. Grounds for a negative rating? No.

If that is your opinion, it is certainly a respectable opinion—and I never thought otherwise, as to suchmoon’s seemingly quite similar opinion.  But the question is, do you think that reasonable disagreement with that opinion is grounds for ~exclusion?

I observe that your theymos quote starts with, “...in my view...”  Certainly, that is important to consider; but it is not exactly as if he were laying down the law, especially when so many past feedbacks by himself and others do not comply with the standard he thereby states.

I further observe that nobody on my inclusions list seems to have exactly the same standards as I do—no, not even Lauda; and there are many well-known users, including (hereto) suchmoon, who have been neither included nor excluded by me, because I “agree to disagree” with reasonable differences of opinion on such matters.  (And there are others whom I deliberately neither include nor exclude for other reasons, but that is irrelevant here.)

[suchmoon]

If you are too blind to see that you have made a fool of yourself in this thread by defending arrant nonsense with mulish stubbornness, and potentially alienated people who are not me with a public display of rash ~threats, peremptory demands that others recognize your personal feedback standard as an official forum standard ~or ~else, deafening silence when I point to (and even fully quote) the substantive grounds for one of the tags that I am supporting (a trust-abuse tag on OP!), shifting of goalposts with bizarre illogic about trust lemons, and a score of other displays of poor judgment, then it is ill-advised, but suddenly unsurprising for you to top that off with such a too-indignant “My what now?” as I would expect from someone throwing a chldish tantrum about being caught out as wrong.

Exclude me then. A blind fool with poor judgement throwing a tantrum - sounds like no one should want such a person in their trust list.

Now if you're done making this personal maybe you can show us what high risks exist in trading with TECSHARE.