Request to remove icopress from DT Default Trust list

[Satofan44]

If theymos flipped 180 since he posted that in 2020 and now feels that the trust system is NOT for handling trade risk, but instead should be used by the chosen individuals to flag people for posts they don't agree with then it'd be nice for him to state this.

You are confusing things that have nothing to do with each other. Theymos does intend the trust system to be used in a certain way, but he has made it decentralized precisely because he does not want to deal with individual situations. What happens after the system was let to be, and DT started rotating is up for the system to correct itself. Have there even been any interventions by theymos in the last few years? I don't remember a single one since I joined here. Therefore, do not confuse his view/intent of what it should be and what it is today.

He will not intervene here, that is my point and he has proven it countless times. There are many trust ratings that you can consider invalid on many members.

[dragonvslinux]

Personally, I don’t like seeing red tags based on political views, but when it’s not just about politics but about conflicts/invasions/wars in which many people have died, I can understand it.

Let me quote the best I've seen in such cases.  

Have most of you guys forgot the lessening of the guidelines post the introduction of the flag system? Yes, you can now leave negatives for many more things (and no, it isn't abuse/misuse like it was before - to a lesser extent now). It is the flag system that's for scams nowadays, and the trust system for more "opinionated-things".

I think this one is better:

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

These are my thoughts, with the additional tut tut for not providing a reference. Feedback without references should be rare, or at least, based on some private interaction. If it's not private, then light up the reason for everyone else please.

What is your threshold for a conflict in order for a DT system to be used against those you don't agree with? Israel, Palestine/Gaza, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, Myanmar, DRC, Afghanistan ...?  

I mean it depends, is someone advocating a genocide? Is someone saying more innocent lives should be obliterated for a political or religious cause? I suspect this isn't just about having an opinion, but without a reference, hard to tell.

Think the second part hits the nail on the head. Is the Trust system an indicator of risk or a tool for the chosen ones to harass/suppress political views they don't agree with?

Per above, it depends on the severity of the opinions shared. For example, if someone wanted all Mulsims exterminated, then yeh, it'd probably be a trade risk for users of that faith wouldn't it? I think it would.

I otherwise don't see it as harassing or suppressing political views. You are entitled to your views, but not immune from the repercussions for expressing them, and you are free to continue expressing such views. You have not been banned which would be suppression.

[DireWolfM14]

What is your threshold for a conflict in order for a DT system to be used against those you don't agree with? Israel, Palestine/Gaza, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, Myanmar, DRC, Afghanistan ...?  

I mean it depends, is someone advocating a genocide? Is someone saying more innocent lives should be obliterated for a political or religious cause? I suspect this isn't just about having an opinion, but without a reference, hard to tell.

This reminds me of a situation that happened nearly 20 years ago; on a gun-related forum I still subscribe to and visit on occasion: A guy who went by the user name "Hebrew Hammer" was selling some stuff that I wanted, and listed some things that I owned that he was willing to trade for.  At the time I had the tag-line "Palestinian Gunman" under my username.  We had a great trade, both parties were satisfied and left each other positive trade ratings.  The trade was for thousands of dollars worth of items, and this was back when a thousand dollars meant more that two bags of groceries.  When the trade was over we went back to butting heads in the political board, calling each other names, and instigating one another the way Americans often do.

I never took anything he said personally, and he extended the same sentiment.  This is the way I was raised and grew up.  We Americans often differ in opinions whether it be political, religious, or Ford vs. Chevy.  We can and do disagree and remain cordial, even friendly.  I guess this is what I'd like to see here.

He will not intervene here, that is my point and he has proven it countless times. There are many trust ratings that you can consider invalid on many members.

Nor should he.  If admin wants the trust system to remain as decentralized as possible they need to maintain an hands-off approach.  Otherwise he should pick and choose who's DT1 and who's not.

I don't often make a plea to other DT members to revise their feedback.  The only time I feel compelled to do so is when it's a highly trusted and respected member of DT1, such as this case with icopress.  The stronger the member's stance on DT the more important it is to refrain from inappropriate use of the trust system.

[dragonvslinux]

What is your threshold for a conflict in order for a DT system to be used against those you don't agree with? Israel, Palestine/Gaza, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, Myanmar, DRC, Afghanistan ...?  

I mean it depends, is someone advocating a genocide? Is someone saying more innocent lives should be obliterated for a political or religious cause? I suspect this isn't just about having an opinion, but without a reference, hard to tell.

This reminds me of a situation that happened nearly 20 years ago; on a gun-related forum I still subscribe to and visit on occasion: A guy who went by the user name "Hebrew Hammer" was selling some stuff that I wanted, and listed some things that I owned that he was willing to trade for.  At the time I had the tag-line "Palestinian Gunman" under my username.  We had a great trade, both parties were satisfied and left each other positive trade ratings.  The trade was for thousands of dollars worth of items, and this was back when a thousand dollars meant more that two bags of groceries.  When the trade was over we went back to butting heads in the political board, calling each other names, and instigating one another the way Americans often do.

I never took anything he said personally, and he extended the same sentiment.  This is the way I was raised and grew up.  We Americans often differ in opinions whether it be political, religious, or Ford vs. Chevy.  We can and do disagree and remain cordial, even friendly.  I guess this is what I'd like to see here.

I get where you're coming from, I have also made trades in other arenas where there has been a clear disagreement in political values, and it's not an inherent problem. But the bottom line is, I'd still consider it high risk when such opinions diverge towards the extreme that can effect the individual in question, and most importantly, that perception of extreme is down to the individual and how they interpret it. I'll also clarify that I don't know whether this remains part of the original topic or feedback, only that a philosophical discussion was raised (by the OP) and I'm engaging with it. No doubt my opinion is based on my background, I'm a Brit. That means there's a history of there being no room for fascism, nor invasions, with the Battle of Cable Street firmly cementing that into history in the 1930s. A little understanding of history would help understand how Britain had a history of confronting fascism, à la no partisan, unlike the American state that was largely complacement (but ready to participate in victory when it was readily available). I digress, but the point is that backgrounds do matter, as does perception, it's part of one's upbringing, and how an American might feel about it is likely to be different to a Ukrainian, or even a British person.

The other point being, had I had seen the trade you were making, I'd have been the first person to warn you that it was high risk as part of the bleeding obvious, regardless of the reputation of the user. Ergo, opinions do sometimes matter.

[nutildah]

Let me quote the best I've seen in such cases. 

Have most of you guys forgot the lessening of the guidelines post the introduction of the flag system? Yes, you can now leave negatives for many more things (and no, it isn't abuse/misuse like it was before - to a lesser extent now). It is the flag system that's for scams nowadays, and the trust system for more "opinionated-things".

Sorry but this is terrible advice given by one of the pettiest trust abusers on the forum.

You shouldn't leave any kind of trust due to political disagreements.

Equating this situation with trade risk doesn't make sense. I suggest replacing the negative with a neutral if you must leave a note about this person's behavior.

[yahoo62278]

I have less than 10 posts in the Politics boards on this forum because I'd just rather not get mad at someone for having a different opinion than mine. Useless arguments with people that do me more harm than good so there's really no point in engaging.

I do not feel like we should be tagging people for their opinion and we shouldn't get emotionally involved in said opinions. We are not always going to agree with each other and some of you I may never agree with.

[theymos]

I don't make manual edits to DT1 unless someone is clearly abusing the DT1 selection process itself.

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the person who made the rating.
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.
 - Try to convince people to ~distrust the person who made the rating.
 - You can affect how DT1 is constructed by adding names to your trust list. Your trust list is empty, so you are failing to vote here at all.

There are 94 DT1-candidates who trust icopress, and only 2 DT1-candidates who distrust him. So on the matter of of whether icopress should be in DT1, you are in the vast minority, and you'd have to do a lot of convincing.

[Lucius]

All of you who live in peace and have no idea what war is except that you watched it on television, talk nonsense and defend someone who supports an insane terrorist regime that has been destroying everything in front of it for more than 4 years. Whether or not someone should get a red tag for that is a matter of individual choice (regardless of the fact that the system is not intended for that purpose), so the OP should read what the admin wrote and activate his like-minded supporters to remove @ico from the position he is in.

Honestly, it's really strange to me that the admin appeared in this thread at all, because I don't remember the last time he wrote a post in this board - but considering the great sympathy he has for the Russian community on this forum, maybe it's not so strange.

[AB de Royse777]

I don't make manual edits to DT1 unless someone is clearly abusing the DT1 selection process itself.

Can you elaborate what are the categories to consider a selection process is abusive, have you given any clear direction yet? I can not remember seeing you to comment in such topics related to removing a member from DT, negative feedback and things. Somewhere I feel you made this post out of frustration of you own, I hope I am wrong though.

[DaRude]

I don't make manual edits to DT1 unless someone is clearly abusing the DT1 selection process itself.

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the person who made the rating.
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.
 - Try to convince people to ~distrust the person who made the rating.
 - You can affect how DT1 is constructed by adding names to your trust list. Your trust list is empty, so you are failing to vote here at all.

There are 94 DT1-candidates who trust icopress, and only 2 DT1-candidates who distrust him. So on the matter of of whether icopress should be in DT1, you are in the vast minority, and you'd have to do a lot of convincing.

Admittedly it seems that I have misunderstood the Trust system. I was under impression that you still just manually picked whoever you wanted on the DT lists.

Nevertheless, it appears that there's a fundamental misunderstanding among DT members on the core purpose of the Trust system! It's impossible for a user to make a case for an abuse of the DT system if there's not even a guideline on whether the Trust system, at it's essence, should be used for user's risk management or just a tool for those on the list to punish/support others that are/not politically or ideologically aligned with them! And frankly i don't believe it should be left up to a user to explain to DTs how you intended for the Trust system to function. That is, my case is totally moot if you indeed want the Trust system to just be a system for more "opinionated-things". Clearly DTs themselves cannot come to a consensus on this.

[mv1986]

~

Under the guise of "analysis," he deliberately spreads a toxic, destructive narrative that disorients users and justifies crimes. Avoid him like the plague if you care about intellectual and moral hygiene.

What part is it that you don't understand about this? He rightfully described why it is dangerous to engage in any interaction with you. What is your point? If my neighbor A goes to neighbour B and shoots him for no reason, would I recommend neighbour C to interact with neighbour A? Of course not, I would warn everyone because neighbour A seems to have tendencies that could end in a shooting. If neighbour D comes and tries to convince neighbour C that neighbour A is a good guy, neighbour D is really messed up. You are messed up, dude. Earned the red trust for sure.

[DaRude]

~

Under the guise of "analysis," he deliberately spreads a toxic, destructive narrative that disorients users and justifies crimes. Avoid him like the plague if you care about intellectual and moral hygiene.

What part is it that you don't understand about this? He rightfully described why it is dangerous to engage in any interaction with you. What is your point? If my neighbor A goes to neighbour B and shoots him for no reason, would I recommend neighbour C to interact with neighbour A? Of course not, I would warn everyone because neighbour A seems to have tendencies that could end in a shooting. If neighbour D comes and tries to convince neighbour C that neighbour A is a good guy, neighbour D is really messed up. You are messed up, dude. Earned the red trust for sure.

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.
...

I'm sorry, but your post and comical examples are just too dumb to justify a full response. Reread what theymos wrote about Trust system back in 2019 (i'm still waiting to hear if that has changed since then as some users claim) and ask someone else to explain to you whether care for someones "intellectual and moral hygiene" relying exclusively on my supposed narrative on the Politics & Society board and nothing else, have anything to do with my trade history and trustworthiness or is closer related to "attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders."

[theymos]

Can you elaborate what are the categories to consider a selection process is abusive

Generally, they have to be abusing alts in some way, such as by having their alts trust them so that they get onto DT1.

just a tool for those on the list to punish/support others that are/not politically or ideologically aligned with them

What you describe is not an appropriate use of the trust system. But it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be because you're advocating for political positions which both I and the average forum member consider to be very unethical, and it can be argued that this translates into you being an unethical person in general who would therefore be risky to trade with.

Now, I tend to disagree with icopress's rating here because I don't think that unethical political positions necessarily translate into unethical behavior elsewhere, and I'd also like to avoid the slippery slope of giving negative trust over things that are as far-removed from forum trading as this is. But I wouldn't say that the rating is definitely inappropriate. And on Trust, the community polices itself.

[Stalker22]

Just to add a little to theymos' view, which I mostly agree with in this case.

First, do I think it is appropriate to leave a negative trust rating solely based on expressing a certain political stance or a different opinion?  Absolutely not.  As the name suggests, a trust rating should be about whether you're reliable in business deals and how you interact on the forum, not about what you believe politically.

But where it gets messy, and things are rarely black and white.  For a lot of people, really extreme or unethical views suggest a basic problem with someones character.  The community starts to wonder: If you are okay bending basic ethics in your general outlook, how can I trust you wont do the same when money is involved?  Look at your situation, for instance.  From what I can see, for the past few years, you have mostly been on this forum just to push certain political agendas and narratives.  Almost all your posts are in the Politics & Society section, mostly about Russian aggression in Ukraine and a couple of other topics.  I have not counted exactly, but it is a very clear pattern.  So, you are using the forun like your own personal loudspeaker to spread your propaganda.  If your whole online presence is about shouting controversial opinions, people are naturally going to doubt your character and decide you are too risky to deal with.

It is definitely a slippery slope to weaponize trust over politics, but in a self-policing community, your reputation is what you make it.  You cannot spend years trolling the boards and then act like a victim when the community uses the only tool they have to flag you.

[Rating Place]

Just to add a little to theymos' view, which I mostly agree with in this case.

First, do I think it is appropriate to leave a negative trust rating solely based on expressing a certain political stance or a different opinion?  Absolutely not.  As the name suggests, a trust rating should be about whether you're reliable in business deals and how you interact on the forum, not about what you believe politically.

But where it gets messy, and things are rarely black and white.  For a lot of people, really extreme or unethical views suggest a basic problem with someones character.  The community starts to wonder: If you are okay bending basic ethics in your general outlook, how can I trust you wont do the same when money is involved?  Look at your situation, for instance.  From what I can see, for the past few years, you have mostly been on this forum just to push certain political agendas and narratives.  Almost all your posts are in the Politics & Society section, mostly about Russian aggression in Ukraine and a couple of other topics.  I have not counted exactly, but it is a very clear pattern.  So, you are using the forun like your own personal loudspeaker to spread your propaganda.  If your whole online presence is about shouting controversial opinions, people are naturally going to doubt your character and decide you are too risky to deal with.

It is definitely a slippery slope to weaponize trust over politics, but in a self-policing community, your reputation is what you make it.  You cannot spend years trolling the boards and then act like a victim when the community uses the only tool they have to flag you.

The DT and trust system is brilliant. The problem is that your type of thinking and misuse of the trust system along with icopress’ misuse is a problem. When you see so many people disagree with the negative trust, people should take personal  responsibility and change it to neutral.

[DireWolfM14]

for no reason

What if Neighbor NATO had been threatening Neighbor A for over a decade?  No reason, indeed.

Your opinion conflicts with mine, should I leave you a red-tag?

[Stalker22]

The DT and trust system is brilliant. The problem is that your type of thinking and misuse of the trust system along with icopress’ misuse is a problem.

That is your opinion and I accept it, but just out of curiosity, in what specific case do you think I am misusing the trust system?  If you are talking about your own case, then I think I have clearly explained my reasons for the distrust. 

And I said I would revise my position in a month - thats exactly how long it took you to admit your "mistake" and apologize to nutildah.  Have you forgotten?

Nutildah - I apologize for my false allegation of calling you a liar.

By the way, leaving petty, retaliatory negative feedback is exactly the kind of Trust system abuse you are referring to.  Therefore, I have excluded you from my Trust List, and you are free to do the same if you disagree.  That, in my opinion, is proper use of the Trust system.

When you see so many people disagree with the negative trust, people should take personal  responsibility and change it to neutral.

I agree.  But to paraphrase a bit, whenever I see many people, whom I trust or care about, disagree with my negative trust, I'll take personal responsibility and revise it to neutral.  A self-policing system only works if you listen to the users who actually have a track record of integrity, not just whoever screams the loudest.  If the people whose judgment I respect tell me I got it wrong, I have no problem swallowing my pride and changing it.  But until then, the rating stays exactly where it is.

[SuperBitMan]

I understand that icopress is upset at the OP, and I believe anyone in his shoes will be upset on how someone will be justifying some actions that are inhumane.
If someone should support and justify the actions of the terrorists in my country right now that are killing thousands and kidnapping thousands of students and teachers from their schools everyday I will really be mad at that person.
However because of this:

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

icopress I will plead that you reconsider your action, as a DT, reputable and respected member of the forum you need to treat things like this with care, remember a lot of people are looking up to you in this forum.
I will advise you just put him in your ignore list.

[mv1986]

for no reason

What if Neighbor NATO had been threatening Neighbor A for over a decade?  No reason, indeed.

Your opinion conflicts with mine, should I leave you a red-tag?

You mean 2014? Whether you leave me a red tag or not is up to your interpretation/judgment.

What icopress is doing behind the scenes leaves me with no opinion other than to trust him. He likes Russians, he likes Ukrainians, but he doesn't like warlords.

NATO has threatened nobody. Have you ever been to Finland and Sweden? I have. I worked in places with the highest security level possible. The absolute highest security level.  I talked to those people. They have a reason to join NATO. Ask them. Finland and Sweden are among the most peaceful countries on the planet. That is survey, that is fact. And if you go there, you understand why. Yet, they don't want to be soviet, they want to be North Europe, Europe. Ukraine wants to be Europe. They don't want to be Korea.

[DaRude]

Can you elaborate what are the categories to consider a selection process is abusive

Generally, they have to be abusing alts in some way, such as by having their alts trust them so that they get onto DT1.

just a tool for those on the list to punish/support others that are/not politically or ideologically aligned with them

What you describe is not an appropriate use of the trust system. But it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be because you're advocating for political positions which both I and the average forum member consider to be very unethical, and it can be argued that this translates into you being an unethical person in general who would therefore be risky to trade with.

Now, I tend to disagree with icopress's rating here because I don't think that unethical political positions necessarily translate into unethical behavior elsewhere, and I'd also like to avoid the slippery slope of giving negative trust over things that are as far-removed from forum trading as this is. But I wouldn't say that the rating is definitely inappropriate. And on Trust, the community polices itself.

Ok, so we have some clarity that the Trust system should not in fact be used for political retributions or harassment! Awesome, and would be great if it ended there, but then you decide to open the Pandora's box and extend the Trust system's role into "ethical politics"? I never promoted the war, killing, hatred or violence of any kind against anyone. I always state that civilian casualties are terrible, I do view this war as a tragedy and would love for it to end as soon as possible. So does the fact that I just don't support Zelenskyy in this what makes my political position so unethical? Or that I compared civilian casualties rates in Ukraine/Russia conflict to Israel/Gaza? Does each DT individually gets to decide which political stance s/he finds unethical enough to justify leveraging the Trust system solely for that reason, will this not render Trust system even more useless and just a free for all? e.g. would you and the average forum member consider supporting Netanyahu to be very unethical thus justifying the use of the Trust system against that? Also, would the reverse work too? If a user advocates for a political positions which you consider to be very ethical can it be argued that this translates into user being an ethical person in general who would therefore not be risky to trade with, and you wouldn't say that positive feedback in such case to be definitely inappropriate too

Besides being the only user on DT to leave me a negative feedback, icopress (Date Registered: September 04, 2017) was the only DT to also target tvbcof (Date Registered: June 25, 2011) and also left him his first negative feedback in his 15 years on this forum with "A supporter of the ideology of a totalitarian dictatorship who spreads his pseudo-expert and completely out-of-touch ideas based on hatred. Be careful with any statements he makes, as this guy does not hesitate to resort to malicious slander and interpret facts. Based on my own moral and ethical code, I strongly recommend that everyone avoid any dialogue with this guy."

The way i read it, it seem that even icopress himself doesn't attempt to stretch things as far as to imply that either I or tvbcof might honestly be risky to trade with. He's just openly saying that he's using his status against us for our "ideology".

So either after 13 years on this board in my case, and 15 years in tvbcof's it took a conflict which started years after we both registered here and a keen eye of icopress and no other DT (even though every single DT has the same visibility into this just as icopress) to see that suddenly we both became unethical enough to constitute a trade risk, or we can stop playing games and call a spade a spade. I cannot imagine a clearer case on this, if both of our examples don't clear the burden of Trust abuse for political retributions, then I'm afraid nothing else on this forum will ever come even close to clearing that impossible to reach benchmark.