theymos could you sticky your intent on the reputation board

[Steamtyme]

It seems there is a growing disagreement/misunderstanding on the appropriate use of feedback, I know shocking. Hell I might even be the one who misunderstands how feedback should be left, though I feel it's fairly self explanatory. Some out there feel it is wildly open to interpretation, without some sort of statement made by you. All I'm asking for is a sticky at the top of the reputation board that can serve to replace people needing to piece together snipits you've posted in various locations. Lay out your intent behind the 3 levels of feedback, and maybe an example or 2 of what falls outside acceptable use in your opinion.

This would also be a nice update so people aren't relying on posts from several years ago when the trust system landscape was vastly different. Given that the system has been in place for some time now, you can see how it has been used or misused, and if you like the direction it's going. Paint with broad strokes if you like, but anything would help clarify things for newer members who are grappling between opposing views on what is an acceptable use. Think of it as adding to the net benefit the system brings the forum as a whole.

Below is the best quote I can think of by you for the intended use. The problem is it's in a topic floating in meta, and the title doesn't reference the feedback portion making it difficult for users to find. Title "Trust Flags"

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.

Edit: Reply from theymos below
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221908.msg53741011#msg53741011

[1713932450]

1713932450

[1713932450]

1713932450

[1713932450]

1713932450

[alani123]

The quote of Theymos in the OP is pretty clear cut, but in reality any stated intention isn't going to stop people from using the trust system outside of what might be the intended scope.

The trust system is not policed by moderators and Theymos. In my opinion, rightly so. We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.

What would really help is a change in sentiment. High ranking members of this community find ways to accuse each other, and when so many man hours end up being spent trying to find faults in each other, it ends up just being disappointing. Most saddening part to me, is that members of this forum tend to take sides when a dispute arises, even if it's about the most minuscule things and it's obvious that the accuser tries really hard to build an accusation even though there might have been no harmed parties forming an accusation.

How about, next time there's a spat between two forum members, they get no attention unless evidence is presented? In my very humble opinion, biased reports formed out of spite should result to shunning, with the accuser getting out of trust lists. What's currently happening in my view, is that other members form bandwagons by picking a side, with huge arguments going on and bloated threads over minuscule points related to relatively subjective matters such as ethics, laws etc.

On the above note, I think that scrapping the 'red tag' and establishing flags was a step to the right direction. It's no longer possible for a single member that is included in default trust to ruin somebody's reputation in a snap. Flags require popular support and are focused on evidence rather than opinions. In my opinion, this solves the issue of 'game of throwns' styles spats. A single negative rating, no matter how influential a user might be, doesn't do much on its own. Now, for the troubles to stop, we need a change in mind.
Theymos stating the intention even more coherently wouldn't actively change anything.

[suchmoon]

I think we have enough guidance from the top, and it's common sense, like no tags or flags for opinions or trolling. The problem is that any word from theymos gets interpreted and misinterpreted in ways that completely skew the intent. If he says "this behavior may be a reason for negative trust but..." you can bet that some people will ignore the "but" part (and treat "may" as "must") and some will focus entirely on the "but" ignoring the first part.

Just use common sense and good hygiene in your trust lists. I've found that it's far more valuable to build my trust list not based on whom I agree with but based on honesty and ability to reason with. Your mileage may vary.

[hilariousetc]

It seems there is a growing disagreement/misunderstanding on the appropriate use of feedback, I know shocking. Hell I might even be the one who misunderstands how feedback should be left, though I feel it's fairly self explanatory.

I think theymos has already stated how people should use it, and users really need to stop leaving feedback for 'trolling', especially after it's someone they've got beef with or just disagree with. There are some idiots on this board and ones I often strongly disagree with but that doesn't mean they're trolling or should have negative left. I might make exception if there are people who come here and have no business other than to try troll and harass people but I think people are stretching the definition of what theymos means here:

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.

People seem to be leaving feedback based on well this guy is a troll so he obviously can't be trusted and I don't think that's right. You might not trust them because of their behaviour but neutral probably seems more appropriate here unless there's very strong evidence that they can't be trusted to trade with.

[TMAN]

People seem to be leaving feedback based on well this guy is a troll so he obviously can't be trusted

Techshare is a prized cuntsmouth of a troll but I wouldn't tag him for that as he has had many successful trades and can be trusted to do as he says he will, I wouldn't believe a word he posts but I would buy something from him and be secure in the trade. Then you have the likes of TOAA, imagine a shipment going missing from him? fuck that, the total fucknugget would make the whole process so painful, so newer members need to be warned about his general behavior on the forum

[dothebeats]

Techshare is a prized cuntsmouth of a troll but I wouldn't tag him for that as he has had many successful trades and can be trusted to do as he says he will, I wouldn't believe a word he posts but I would buy something from him and be secure in the trade. Then you have the likes of TOAA, imagine a shipment going missing from him? fuck that, the total fucknugget would make the whole process so painful, so newer members need to be warned about his general behavior on the forum

Quite an example here, but yeah this is what it really looks like when people try to leave their trust rating into someone. Though on the surface a user might seem to be a troll and just spouting nonsense and making others feel a little uncomfortable at times, IMO that per se isn't sufficient to red-tag that particular person especially if the same person has completed tons of confirmed trades, all of which went smooth and went well. Then again, you'll never know when would a good guy turn into a bad guy, so a neutral rating IMO is okay.

As for theymos having to weigh in his own thoughts into the trust system, it's best to leave it as it is. Even if the guidelines for trust-rating is stickied, I feel that some will ignore it and continue to paint someone's rating red anyway especially if they have some personal issues with the said uaer.

[hilariousetc]

People seem to be leaving feedback based on well this guy is a troll so he obviously can't be trusted

Techshare is a prized cuntsmouth of a troll but I wouldn't tag him for that as he has had many successful trades and can be trusted to do as he says he will, I wouldn't believe a word he posts but I would buy something from him and be secure in the trade. Then you have the likes of TOAA, imagine a shipment going missing from him? fuck that, the total fucknugget would make the whole process so painful, so newer members need to be warned about his general behavior on the forum

Well these are two perfect examples. I disagree with a lot of stuff tecshare says but I don't think he's a troll and I don't think he deserves the negative feedback he's received. I agree that he seems to be a trusted trader so his opinions and whether you disagree with them or not shouldn't effect his ability to trade here but people seem to be leaving him feedback because they've been rubbed the wrong way by him. TOAA is obviously an alt account made as a throwaway to antagonise people without fear of retribution and to spare his main account and obviously has no interest in trading here, but that also leads back to my first point: Did he create that account because he didn't want to dirty his other one any further with inevitable negative feedback? Would he have even created that account in the first place if his main one hadn't been left negative or he was worried about getting more?

[TMAN]

Did he create that account because he didn't want to dirty his other one any further with inevitable negative feedback? Would he have even created that account in the first place if his main one hadn't been left negative or he was worried about getting more?

Would you trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? I know I wouldn't, even with escrow and a reshipper I still wouldn't spend $1 with that punk, so no matter what account it should still be tagged, main or alt. Anyone dealing with a user who is that mentally retarded needs to be warned.

Techshare is just a wanker as I said and I don't actually agree with people tagging him. When we start talking about the likes of Thule and those loonatics then warnings are fair game IMO

[hilariousetc]

Did he create that account because he didn't want to dirty his other one any further with inevitable negative feedback? Would he have even created that account in the first place if his main one hadn't been left negative or he was worried about getting more?

Would you trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? I know I wouldn't, even with escrow and a reshipper I still wouldn't spend $1 with that punk, so no matter what account it should still be tagged, main or alt. Anyone dealing with a user who is that mentally retarded needs to be warned.

Techshare is just a wanker as I said and I don't actually agree with people tagging him. When we start talking about the likes of Thule and those loonatics then warnings are fair game IMO

Bit of a loaded question though. Would I personally trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? No, but there's lot's of reasons for that. I wouldn't trust him to not try get one over me in some capacity, but that doesn't mean he's a scammer or would attempt to scam me and I haven't seen anything to suggest he would do such a thing. I probably wouldn't envision any problems with him and another neutral third party though, but if others were concerned of that without any evidence of anything shady a neutral should suffice as a warning of his problematic behaviour. I probably wouldn't trade with timelord either and certainly don't trust his judgement, but I don't think that means he's deserving of negative and a neutral if anything would be appropriate in that case if I was to leave anything.

[suchmoon]

Would you trade with TOAA/Cryptocunter? I know I wouldn't, even with escrow and a reshipper I still wouldn't spend $1 with that punk, so no matter what account it should still be tagged, main or alt. Anyone dealing with a user who is that mentally retarded needs to be warned.

Techshare is just a wanker as I said and I don't actually agree with people tagging him. When we start talking about the likes of Thule and those loonatics then warnings are fair game IMO

Since CH isn't even attempting to trade and the ratings are based entirely on stupid shit he says - neutral might be more appropriate. A neutral can say whatever you want without specifically claiming that trading with CH is high-risk. Who knows, maybe it's medium-rare risk. In hindsight the red ratings did more to inflame him than to provide any kind of useful warning.

Thule is a bit different, the moron actually threatened to sue me LOL but since he never did I'm considering a revision from negative to neutral. Being an idiot is different from an actual real threat and the threat doesn't seem to have been real, just keyboard warrior type of thing.

[LoyceV]

I'm endorsing this topic, even though theymos shouldn't have to "police" the forum for feedback, it really seems like it needs more guidance.
Just recently I've considered posting a topic in Reputation with the title: "Use neutral feedback whenever possible", but I haven't done it yet.

The Trust system can handle people with only wrong ratings: they quickly get excluded. People with only good ratings aren't a problem either. But there seem to be more and more veteran users with overall very good trust ratings, who recently created some bad ratings based on opinions or retaliation.  If only those ratings would be neutral, there'd be much less drama on Bitcointalk!

I'd appreciate seeing theymos' opinion on LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system, and if he largely agrees: I've seen suggestions to sticky that topic on the Beginners board.

[TMAN]

Trading with TOAA is high risk, a very high risk of losing your sanity. Also newbies won’t look at neutral feedback, they probably don’t even read positive trust half the time

[The Sceptical Chymist]

We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.

Right on, bro.  I'm not entirely sure the self-policing always works, but it's better than the alternative IMO, which is to have Theymos crack the whip or offer very specific guidance about how the trust system ought to be used--and he probably wouldn't enforce it anyway unless things got way out of hand.

Trading with TOAA is high risk, a very high risk of losing your sanity.

I had to check to make sure TOAA didn't post in this thread, and he didn't.  I'm really wondering if he's going to keep to his word that he's done with this forum.  It's been a nice respite so far, but who knows.

[DireWolfM14]

And on the 1277^th day Theymos said Let There Be Trust.  And it was so.
And behold there was trust.  And there was much rejoicing.  But soon the days of rejoicing faded into much kvetching and much moaning and much whining and much pissing on about the abuse and misuse of The Trust.  And woe be he who was so brave to speak out against those pillars of the system of DT, lest he be smitten with taggs of ruby colored leprosy.

And on the 3336^th day Theymos said Let There Be Changes to The Trust.  And it was so.
And there was much rejoicing.  And many merits were bestowed upon the harbinger of change, and Theymos the Just was exalted for decentralizing the system of trust, and behold the glory of the new system.  But yet again, the days of rejoicing again faded into much kvetching and much moaning and much whining and much pissing on about the abuse and misuse of The Trust.  And woe be he who was so brave to speak out against The Kingdom of Lauda, lest he be smitten with taggs of ruby colored leprosy.

And on the 3489^th day Theymos said Let There Be Trust Flags.  And it was so.
And many merits were bestowed upon the harbinger of change, and Theymos the Just was exalted for providing a system that warned the newbie among us, and behold the glory of the new system.  But in time the complexity and abuse of the flags came to be like a plague across land.  And the righteous and the just were flagged without concern for honor or truth.  

So now we plead to you Oh Mighty Theymos the Just, that you may leave us the Ten Three Commandments Use-Cases of thy trust system that we may rely on your words, and not attempt to interpret the proper use ourselves.  For we are unworthy of that honor.  Oh Mighty Theymos the Just, please return from your perch upon the High Mountain of Honor that we may revel in your words and your words alone.  Oh Mighty Theymos the Just!

Wait a minute, what's this now?

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.

Okay, never mind.

[Lafu]

Trading with TOAA is high risk, a very high risk of losing your sanity. Also newbies won’t look at neutral feedback, they probably don’t even read positive trust half the time

I wouldn't trade either with him anything.
And newbies just maybe look at the Feedback when the boards show the trust score.
Most times they read the Feedback after they have done something with Users i guess.
For sure not all but still a few doing that.

Happend to me when i was starting here on Bitcointalk.

[theymos]

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

[AbelBaricStevenson]

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

This guide make it open to wide abusive action. Any more warning to another member of risky, member must be able to show a behavior of try to scam or did scam must show example financial misconduct . Think in your own opinion more risky than average is not sensible.
If not provide example then red is abuse.
I investigate each of TOAA post and even the last challenge proof he supply correct evidence. Not even one person can beat his challenge last one. I enjoy his post and find the real history intresting
 
So much red trust is a abusive and spoils system. His dirty turds I research I find nothing wrong for 5he ones I follow his link, these same one gives him red and they did it more high risk. only member claim TOAA scammer is on dirty turd with evidence he find on them.
Now he gone who can fight for fair embers treatment. His swearing and anger his most trouble only. Should be calm. Each member relax and focus real scammer not your personal enemies. Enemies break sensible opinion emotional anger can influence. I think he can return soon. I try to support if he tell the truth.

[suchmoon]

I had to check to make sure TOAA didn't post in this thread, and he didn't.  I'm really wondering if he's going to keep to his word that he's done with this forum.  It's been a nice respite so far, but who knows.

Damn you... just had to jinx it, didn't you...

~

[tmfp]

Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.

This initially seems to be only applicable to P2P trading, but the Alice codicil and the later "sane" use proviso extend that to wider acceptable scenarios.
I'm interested because I don't P2P trade here, but I have -till now- left negative trust for members who promote or enable schemes which I actively consider to be scams (defined as such according to my own reasoning), because I believe that is a constructive way to help trust readers make an informed decision about whether to trade with/invest in the subject.

I had to check to make sure TOAA didn't post in this thread, and he didn't.  I'm really wondering if he's going to keep to his word that he's done with this forum.  It's been a nice respite so far, but who knows.

Damn you... just had to jinx it, didn't you...

~

That's a crap text spinner he's using.

[Steamtyme]

Glad this generated some discussion and a response. I try not posting a topic like this when I will be afk for the next few hours but figured it would get the ball rolling with or without me here discussing it. I think some missed the point of what I wanted out of this, and what I got from theymos was more than I had expected. I was not looking for policing or punishments or hard and fast rules, just clarification and opinion after seeing how the system has progressed and been used/misused.

There are many veteran members whom I've long given up on trying to discuss the system with, it was going no where. Some have been more receptive and even come around prior to this, with some seemingly regretting it soon after. My biggest concern was that as veteran or more noticeable members of the forum we set an example whether we want to or not to new/junior members on how this community should function. Similar to real life the loudest and most opinionated are the most visible and heard, which isn't always the best and many get sick of it or wore down in trying to defend the intent of an idea. I think this was a healthy addition to what was previously written in the [ANN] of the new system, and will be useful going forward.

People will abuse or deliberately try to use a system as they see fit. That isn't going to change and I would be foolish to believe that now everyone will just fall in line. I do feel strongly however that this will help shape the use of the majority towards appropriate feedback and flag usage in the future.

I am going to post this quote on the reputation board in a self moderated topic so that anyone can bump it at will, as I'm not always going to be able to keep it on page 1. I'm doing this as I want it to be visible continuously, which the quote in my OP was not. I'm open to opinions on if people think that is the place to discuss it or not, but am more inclined to let this thread be the discussion, and keep that one clean.

Wait a minute, what's this now?

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.

Okay, never mind.

You missed my point a little here. I knew where to look for the quote and several others. The problem is they were scattered, hidden and buried. What benefit does that do for members who might try to educate themselves on the system. Like I said that quote in itself was the most recent I believe, and was buried as a paragraph that most members wouldn't find, without being led there by someone else. More people learn from what they see, and can be biased towards whether they like someone in deciding what they feel is right.
While my plan was similar to what LoyceV said about creating a topic myself, I wanted to publicly see if theymos felt like giving an update or would create the topic himself. It just means more as the architect behind the system, and as someone who people may be more inclined to listen to.

Edit: Reputation thread created Trust system - Feedback - Flags - intent - idealogy by theymos