Request to remove icopress from DT Default Trust list

[DaRude]

Never cared enough about Trust to delve too deep into this, so please do point me in the right direction if this is not the right place to post this.

I'm requesting to remove icopress from DT list! He's clearly abusing his/her DT status to leave me negative feedback for my political views in the "Politics & Society" subforum. I never traded, promised or did any transactions with that user, his/her actions seem strictly politically motivated.

[Charles-Tim]

It can either be on Meta or reputation board.

If you want admin to remove him from DT (which I think is not possible with how admin want the DT system to be), Meta is the right board.

But if you want people to remove from their trust lists, the discussion belongs to reputation board.

[Lucius]

Never cared enough about Trust to delve too deep into this, so please do point me in the right direction if this is not the right place to post this.

I'm requesting to remove icopress from DT list! He's clearly abusing his/her DT status to leave me negative feedback for my political views in the "Politics & Society" subforum. I never traded, promised or did any transactions with that user, his/her actions seem strictly politically motivated.

You can demand as much as you want (although you obviously have no idea how the forum works), but you and others like you who justify and at the same time promote aggression, occupation, systematic destruction and killing of civilians did not even deserve anything better than to be branded. I still chose neutral feedback since it's more appropriate for me, but I understand @icopress who is a direct victim of what you tirelessly defend.

[icopress]

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".

[Odohu]

You obviously do not know how the DT system works. If you want someone removed from DT, you need to convince the people who added him to their trust list to remove him. If you are making your request to Theymos, I doubt there is anything he will be willing to do to help you. Like Lucius said, I lean towards a neutral tag but that does not mean that Icopress does not have the right to use the trust system based on his convictions.

[ene1980]

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".

Providing a negative trust for difference of opinion and political view has already created a bad precedence, for the forum's health, it is better to avoid these retaliatory feedback.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

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.
 

@OP Have you tried resolving this through DM.

[Jessie2121]

Never cared enough about Trust to delve too deep into this, so please do point me in the right direction if this is not the right place to post this.

I'm requesting to remove icopress from DT list! He's clearly abusing his/her DT status to leave me negative feedback for my political views in the "Politics & Society" subforum. I never traded, promised or did any transactions with that user, his/her actions seem strictly politically motivated.

You're on the right place but if you ask me I would say this is not the way to go about this, if you say you never did any business or trade with @icopress then I have to say that you should have requested for him to remove the tag or campaign for members in the forum to speak against the tag and for him or her to come and explain further why you were tagged, but requesting for @icopress to be removed from the DT Default system is not the way to go about your complain.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

It's crazy for someone to demand the removal of another member from the Default trust list yet they themselves do not even have a trust list of their own
OP, do you even know how to create a custom list, for starters?

Secondly, I think a reference link would be necessary for the feedback left on OP's profile. It's my first time coming across the DaRude username, and I have no idea of his deeds. I don't think someone's fucked political views need negative feedback.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

It's crazy for someone to demand the removal of another member from the Default trust list yet they themselves do not even have a trust list of their own
OP, do you even know how to create a custom list, for starters?

Secondly, I think a reference link would be necessary for the feedback left on OP's profile. It's my first time coming across the DaRude username, and I have no idea of his deeds. I don't think someone's fucked political views need negative feedback.

I agree about the reference link. First thing I did was checking OP's profile to see what all the fuzz is about, but unfortunately I couldn't see why he got the feedback.
But about icopress, I think he is a necessary entity of the DT default trust list honestly. Sure, sometimes you don't have the same opinion but when he gives a negative feedback like this I believe there might be a solid reason for that.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

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.

[Cricktor]

...

It's maybe a bit of a stretch, though I don't quite think so. One can argue that someone who is egregiously in the wrong moral camp (promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians, ...) can't be a reliable and trust-worthy trade partner. No sufficiently well tuned moral compass --> no safe trades. That's at least what I would think of such a subject.

A purely political dissens or general difference of opinion should not be a reason for a negative trust, but in many cases you can't isolate it from the "big picture" behind it (can be subjective, of course). I can understand icopress's likely reasoning for the red trust. I definitely would NOT want to trade or trust someone who fiercely defends Putler's politics and all the harm that it causes to millions of people, own and foreign ones!

So, I don't agree with OP's argument of trust abuse without any trade history, transactions or promises.

[Rating Place]

I realize nothing can be done but icopress definitely abuses his privileges. He gave negative trust saying I wasn’t a DT so it’s pointless to put on distrust list.

Looking at his untrusted feedback, a lot of people think the same.

[DaRude]

It can either be on Meta or reputation board.

If you want admin to remove him from DT (which I think is not possible with how admin want the DT system to be), Meta is the right board.

But if you want people to remove from their trust lists, the discussion belongs to reputation board.

For admin to remove from DT list, or explain that DT is to be used for political reasons. But i see that for some reason someone already decided to move this to a Trading Discussion board :/

Never cared enough about Trust to delve too deep into this, so please do point me in the right direction if this is not the right place to post this.

I'm requesting to remove icopress from DT list! He's clearly abusing his/her DT status to leave me negative feedback for my political views in the "Politics & Society" subforum. I never traded, promised or did any transactions with that user, his/her actions seem strictly politically motivated.

You can demand as much as you want (although you obviously have no idea how the forum works), but you and others like you who justify and at the same time promote aggression, occupation, systematic destruction and killing of civilians did not even deserve anything better than to be branded. I still chose neutral feedback since it's more appropriate for me, but I understand @icopress who is a direct victim of what you tirelessly defend.

Seems like reading comprehension issues are at play here. Not sure how "requesting" can be interpreted as demand?? So you're saying that you want to repurpose DT on this forum to no longer mean the trustworthiness of a user but to be an instrument for a political branding? Shall this apply to all global conflict, meaning any member on the DT list that considers him/herself to be a victim shall use DT to brand everyone s/he doesn't agree with?

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".

If it's the consensus of this forum that the trust system is a joke and should be used by those on the list to suppress political views they don't agree with, then i guess that's fine as long as everyone is aware of it. But then it's a deception to call such rating as "Trust". It should be relabeled as a political points, or a version of such.

You obviously do not know how the DT system works. If you want someone removed from DT, you need to convince the people who added him to their trust list to remove him. If you are making your request to Theymos, I doubt there is anything he will be willing to do to help you. Like Lucius said, I lean towards a neutral tag but that does not mean that Icopress does not have the right to use the trust system based on his convictions.

Quiet funny to answer with "You obviously do not know how the DT system works" to "Never cared enough about Trust to delve too deep into this". But I thought the "D" in DT stood for Default does it not? That means this is a request to Theymos. That's fine if you're in a camp to repurpose the Trust system to not have anything in do with actual trust.

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".

Providing a negative trust for difference of opinion and political view has already created a bad precedence, for the forum's health, it is better to avoid these retaliatory feedback.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

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.
 

@OP Have you tried resolving this through DM.

Not really, but i believe icopress's stance is quiet clear here. This is more of a global view of the "Trust" system on this forum. Surely I'm not the only one to be mislead into thinking that the Trust system actually had anything to do with warning other users about trusting someone.

Never cared enough about Trust to delve too deep into this, so please do point me in the right direction if this is not the right place to post this.

I'm requesting to remove icopress from DT list! He's clearly abusing his/her DT status to leave me negative feedback for my political views in the "Politics & Society" subforum. I never traded, promised or did any transactions with that user, his/her actions seem strictly politically motivated.

You're on the right place but if you ask me I would say this is not the way to go about this, if you say you never did any business or trade with @icopress then I have to say that you should have requested for him to remove the tag or campaign for members in the forum to speak against the tag and for him or her to come and explain further why you were tagged, but requesting for @icopress to be removed from the DT Default system is not the way to go about your complain.

Is that a systematic approach to deal with users on the Default Trust list that use the system not to indicate the trustworthiness of a user as it was initially designed to, but to suppress political views they don't agree with?

It's crazy for someone to demand the removal of another member from the Default trust list yet they themselves do not even have a trust list of their own
OP, do you even know how to create a custom list, for starters?

Secondly, I think a reference link would be necessary for the feedback left on OP's profile. It's my first time coming across the DaRude username, and I have no idea of his deeds. I don't think someone's fucked political views need negative feedback.

Please work on your reading skills. I clearly said that i "Never cared enough about Trust..." so me not having a custom trust list is irrelevant to the root cause of this issue.
requesting != demand

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.

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 ...?  

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?


Requesting (not demanding for those with reading comprehension issues!) for this post to be moved back to its original board in Meta as this doesn't have anything to do with Trading Discussion

...

It's maybe a bit of a stretch, though I don't quite think so. One can argue that someone who is egregiously in the wrong moral camp (promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians, ...) can't be a reliable and trust-worthy trade partner. No sufficiently well tuned moral compass --> no safe trades. That's at least what I would think of such a subject.

A purely political dissens or general difference of opinion should not be a reason for a negative trust, but in many cases you can't isolate it from the "big picture" behind it (can be subjective, of course). I can understand icopress's likely reasoning for the red trust. I definitely would NOT want to trade or trust someone who fiercely defends Putler's politics and all the harm that it causes to millions of people, own and foreign ones!

So, I don't agree with OP's argument of trust abuse without any trade history, transactions or promises.

Does your line of thinking work in reverse? Should positive Trust feedback be given without any trade history, transactions or promises, just for someone who is inside your "right" moral camp?

Edit: side note i am not promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians. Lets not attempt to lie in order to sidetrack the issue at hand

[Lucius]

~snip~
Edit: side note i am not promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians. Lets not attempt to lie in order to sidetrack the issue at hand

Not only are you doing that, but you're also talking about some kind of war that is the most humane so far, even though your executioners are in most cases targeting civilian targets, as is evident in many videos. In an official statement, the President of Ukraine stated the number of 707 children killed and 2548 injured since the start of the full invasion in 2022. Where do you see anything humane here?

Civilian casualties are always terrible, and should always be minimized and ideally eliminated! But objectively speaking, when comparing to other conflicts in intensity (missiles, artillery, drones, bombs dropped), duration, and civilian to military losses, this objectively might be the most "humane", as in the war with the least civilian casualty rates ever. But no one seems to be concerned with facts here.

[Cricktor]

Does your line of thinking work in reverse? Should positive Trust feedback be given without any trade history, transactions or promises, just for someone who is inside your "right" moral camp?

I see where you want to twist it. Anyway, I could think of existing examples where in my opinion justified positive feedback was given by users to someone who has done a morally right thing. E.g. the low ranked user who returned coins to theymos swiftly that the latter sent to the, I think Newbie or Jr. Member, user in error. That low ranked user could've just disappeared with the coins, but he chose not to do that.

I see no contradiction or positive feedback abuse when the prior action the positive feedback is for implies what positive feedback is intended for:

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

I think we can agree that you don't give positive, negative or even neutral feedback litely, as if it weren't any meaningful. Whatever trust feedback is given, it should have significance and in best cases be a judgement evaluating a user in trade risk context. We all know this doesn't always happen by the book or as theymos intended it.

Edit: side note i am not promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians. Lets not attempt to lie in order to sidetrack the issue at hand

Did I address you directly? By my exact words, I don't think so. If you feel the words stick to yourself, well, that's on your own.

I didn't want to waste my time to read what you've posted in "Politics & Society" subforum because "discussions" there are none of my business or interest for the most part, exceptions may apply.

[DaRude]

~snip~
Edit: side note i am not promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians. Lets not attempt to lie in order to sidetrack the issue at hand

Not only are you doing that, but you're also talking about some kind of war that is the most humane so far, even though your executioners are in most cases targeting civilian targets, as is evident in many videos. In an official statement, the President of Ukraine stated the number of 707 children killed and 2548 injured since the start of the full invasion in 2022. Where do you see anything humane here?

Civilian casualties are always terrible, and should always be minimized and ideally eliminated! But objectively speaking, when comparing to other conflicts in intensity (missiles, artillery, drones, bombs dropped), duration, and civilian to military losses, this objectively might be the most "humane", as in the war with the least civilian casualty rates ever. But no one seems to be concerned with facts here.

First of all, words have meanings! I believe that anyone that has a basic understanding of English can see that even your cherry picked quote with (perhaps a poor use of) a word which i specifically put in quotations, taken without a context from thousands of my posts, does not even come close to a claim that i'm somehow promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians!

Furthermore, your provided quote was made on May 25, 2026 where icopress left the negative feedback on 2026-05-21. Unless icopress posses a time machine, that post is unrelated to the negative trust that was left!

Your silly attempt to muddy up the waters is quiet telling. Regardless, stop trying to derail this topic and go to Politics & Society if you wish to discuss politics. The topic at hand here, is whether users bestowed with default trust level should use it as an indicator of trade risks to help/warn newer member or just as their personal tool to promote or harass/retaliate against users that they agree/disagree with, completely irrelevant to trades, transactions or promises.

Does your line of thinking work in reverse? Should positive Trust feedback be given without any trade history, transactions or promises, just for someone who is inside your "right" moral camp?

I see where you want to twist it. Anyway, I could think of existing examples where in my opinion justified positive feedback was given by users to someone who has done a morally right thing. E.g. the low ranked user who returned coins to theymos swiftly that the latter sent to the, I think Newbie or Jr. Member, user in error. That low ranked user could've just disappeared with the coins, but he chose not to do that.

I see no contradiction or positive feedback abuse when the prior action the positive feedback is for implies what positive feedback is intended for:

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

I think we can agree that you don't give positive, negative or even neutral feedback litely, as if it weren't any meaningful. Whatever trust feedback is given, it should have significance and in best cases be a judgement evaluating a user in trade risk context. We all know this doesn't always happen by the book or as theymos intended it.

Edit: side note i am not promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians. Lets not attempt to lie in order to sidetrack the issue at hand

Did I address you directly? By my exact words, I don't think so. If you feel the words stick to yourself, well, that's on your own.

I didn't want to waste my time to read what you've posted in "Politics & Society" subforum because "discussions" there are none of my business or interest for the most part, exceptions may apply.

If you don't understand that returning coins sent in error constitutes a transaction with asset at risk, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.

[Satofan44]

If it's the consensus of this forum that the trust system is a joke and should be used by those on the list to suppress political views they don't agree with, then i guess that's fine as long as everyone is aware of it. But then it's a deception to call such rating as "Trust". It should be relabeled as a political points, or a version of such.

That is exactly how it works, you are not the first "victim" (if we were to believe you are a victim) nor the last to receive a trust rating that you think is invalid. Many people have ratings that can be considered invalid for a list of reasons, but since the evaluation is subjective it is hard to define where the line would be drawn. That part is speculative and you can waste a lot of time trying to fight it or asking theymos to do something, but the fact is this: He will not intervene. Therefore, your only option is to annoy other DT members to ask them to exclude icopress. However, given the situation of your case and the exceptional trustworthiness of icopress in combination with the status of the trust system your changes are very low.

Maybe if you were to repent, you could get him to retract it. So your choice is either to repent or persist. If you care about your trust rating for whatever weird reason (since you claim yourself the system is a joke, hence caring about it does not make sense) you can easily farm trust by looking at what others did to get some trust easily, such as in some cases taking out small loans.

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

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 ...?  

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?

That quote is from a long time ago, he will not intervene since the system has been made more "decentralized". I have asked explicitly what is done in cases of disagreements sometime last year in private and confirmed it.

~snip~
Edit: side note i am not promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians. Lets not attempt to lie in order to sidetrack the issue at hand

Not only are you doing that, but you're also talking about some kind of war that is the most humane so far, even though your executioners are in most cases targeting civilian targets, as is evident in many videos. In an official statement, the President of Ukraine stated the number of 707 children killed and 2548 injured since the start of the full invasion in 2022. Where do you see anything humane here?

Civilian casualties are always terrible, and should always be minimized and ideally eliminated! But objectively speaking, when comparing to other conflicts in intensity (missiles, artillery, drones, bombs dropped), duration, and civilian to military losses, this objectively might be the most "humane", as in the war with the least civilian casualty rates ever. But no one seems to be concerned with facts here.

I didn't read his other original posts, but this does not seem bad to me. If you take those numbers from Ukraine and compare it to what Israel did to Palestine, they seem quite humane in comparison? I mean you could say that any war is inhumane that does have civilian casualties or specifically children casualties, but for the purposes of making comparisons that statement is then useless. Whether it is objectively the most "humane" ever in actual numbers is an open question, someone would have to research that but he did us the words "might be" so the statement that he made is completely valid.

The topic at hand here, is whether users bestowed with default trust level should use it as an indicator of trade risks to help/warn newer member or just as their personal tool to promote or harass/retaliate against users that they agree/disagree with, completely irrelevant to trades, transactions or promises.

Then it does not match with the title and a lot of the contents.

• If you want icopress removed from DT, then it is for the Reputation board.
• If you are requesting changes to the DT system, then it is for the Meta board.

In the second case, refrain from bringing up individual disputes and focus on the issue that you are trying to highlight and the changes that you are requesting.

[holydarkness]

Requesting (not demanding for those with reading comprehension issues!) for this post to be moved back to its original board in Meta as this doesn't have anything to do with Trading Discussion

You request the DTs to questions one's judment capability in leaving negative trust, it should be on this board, Reputation, as this is where we're talking and discussing one's well, reputation. Meta is for forum as a whole and the technicalities in it. Bringing it to Meta means you asked mods to "tweak" icopress's TL, mods are not to be involved in scam accusations [and thus, reputation and trust list and feedbacks].

Plus, more DTs are overseeing this board rather than Meta. So, if you want to argue his removal, this is the place, this is the right board. And if none ~ him yet, well... then I think it's safe to say they are not not-trusting ico and his feedback.

[DireWolfM14]

I don't know the OP, and can't recall ever having interaction with him, but I feel his pain.

@icopress, I encourage you to remove that feedback.  I wouldn't even condone using a neutral tag for this kind of situation.  I understand your reasons and empathies with your emotional reaction to the subject that lead to this.  With the responsibility of being chosen by the community to represent the Trust System as a DT1 member, we must put our personal feelings aside at times and treat that responsibility with care and restraint.

I'm an American, I'm of Palestinian ethnicity, I'm Muslim, and I'm very much against Israel's existence.  I abhor the treatment of the Palestinian people by Israel, the opinion many of my countrymen harbor towards my ethnic brothers, the portrayal of Muslims in main-stream-media.  I see a handful of Zionist sympathizers and apologists on this site regularly justifying an obvious genocide.  Yet I have not left one tag of any color in response to those monstrous dismissals of humanity.

I know what it's like to have your people slaughtered by an overwhelmingly stronger military power, and I know what it's like to have Western media villainize your political opposition to Western actions.  We have the freedom to discuss our political views on this site, but it's not at all the reason for this site's existence.  I have been a member of many forums where political discussions are banned for this very reason.  Let's elevate ourselves.

[DaRude]

If it's the consensus of this forum that the trust system is a joke and should be used by those on the list to suppress political views they don't agree with, then i guess that's fine as long as everyone is aware of it. But then it's a deception to call such rating as "Trust". It should be relabeled as a political points, or a version of such.

That is exactly how it works, you are not the first "victim" (if we were to believe you are a victim) nor the last to receive a trust rating that you think is invalid. Many people have ratings that can be considered invalid for a list of reasons, but since the evaluation is subjective it is hard to define where the line would be drawn. That part is speculative and you can waste a lot of time trying to fight it or asking theymos to do something, but the fact is this: He will not intervene. Therefore, your only option is to annoy other DT members to ask them to exclude icopress. However, given the situation of your case and the exceptional trustworthiness of icopress in combination with the status of the trust system your changes are very low.

Maybe if you were to repent, you could get him to retract it. So your choice is either to repent or persist. If you care about your trust rating for whatever weird reason (since you claim yourself the system is a joke, hence caring about it does not make sense) you can easily farm trust by looking at what others did to get some trust easily, such as in some cases taking out small loans.

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

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 ...?  

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?

That quote is from a long time ago, he will not intervene since the system has been made more "decentralized". I have asked explicitly what is done in cases of disagreements sometime last year in private and confirmed it.

~snip~
Edit: side note i am not promoting/supporting war, invasion, killing/harming civilians. Lets not attempt to lie in order to sidetrack the issue at hand

Not only are you doing that, but you're also talking about some kind of war that is the most humane so far, even though your executioners are in most cases targeting civilian targets, as is evident in many videos. In an official statement, the President of Ukraine stated the number of 707 children killed and 2548 injured since the start of the full invasion in 2022. Where do you see anything humane here?

Civilian casualties are always terrible, and should always be minimized and ideally eliminated! But objectively speaking, when comparing to other conflicts in intensity (missiles, artillery, drones, bombs dropped), duration, and civilian to military losses, this objectively might be the most "humane", as in the war with the least civilian casualty rates ever. But no one seems to be concerned with facts here.

I didn't read his other original posts, but this does not seem bad to me. If you take those numbers from Ukraine and compare it to what Israel did to Palestine, they seem quite humane in comparison? I mean you could say that any war is inhumane that does have civilian casualties or specifically children casualties, but for the purposes of making comparisons that statement is then useless. Whether it is objectively the most "humane" ever in actual numbers is an open question, someone would have to research that but he did us the words "might be" so the statement that he made is completely valid.

The topic at hand here, is whether users bestowed with default trust level should use it as an indicator of trade risks to help/warn newer member or just as their personal tool to promote or harass/retaliate against users that they agree/disagree with, completely irrelevant to trades, transactions or promises.

Then it does not match with the title and a lot of the contents.

• If you want icopress removed from DT, then it is for the Reputation board.
• If you are requesting changes to the DT system, then it is for the Meta board.

In the second case, refrain from bringing up individual disputes and focus on the issue that you are trying to highlight and the changes that you are requesting.

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.

Requesting (not demanding for those with reading comprehension issues!) for this post to be moved back to its original board in Meta as this doesn't have anything to do with Trading Discussion

You request the DTs to questions one's judment capability in leaving negative trust, it should be on this board, Reputation, as this is where we're talking and discussing one's well, reputation. Meta is for forum as a whole and the technicalities in it. Bringing it to Meta means you asked mods to "tweak" icopress's TL, mods are not to be involved in scam accusations [and thus, reputation and trust list and feedbacks].

Plus, more DTs are overseeing this board rather than Meta. So, if you want to argue his removal, this is the place, this is the right board. And if none ~ him yet, well... then I think it's safe to say they are not not-trusting ico and his feedback.

Ultimately, I'd like to know whether the Trust system is about helping forum member to manage their risks/exposure or just a free for all tool for few selected users to further their agenda whatever it might be? If it's the latter then my other argument is moot. If its the former and the trust system should, in fact, be used to manage trust and risks, then clear blatant abuse of it can be considered in the next step.

I don't know the OP, and can't recall ever having interaction with him, but I feel his pain.

@icopress, I encourage you to remove that feedback.  I wouldn't even condone using a neutral tag for this kind of situation.  I understand your reasons and empathies with your emotional reaction to the subject that lead to this.  With the responsibility of being chosen by the community to represent the Trust System as a DT1 member, we must put our personal feelings aside at times and treat that responsibility with care and restraint.

I'm an American, I'm of Palestinian ethnicity, I'm Muslim, and I'm very much against Israel's existence.  I abhor the treatment of the Palestinian people by Israel, the opinion many of my countrymen harbor towards my ethnic brothers, the portrayal of Muslims in main-stream-media.  I see a handful of Zionist sympathizers and apologists on this site regularly justifying an obvious genocide.  Yet I have not left one tag of any color in response to those monstrous dismissals of humanity.

I know what it's like to have your people slaughtered by an overwhelmingly stronger military power, and I know what it's like to have Western media villainize your political opposition to Western actions.  We have the freedom to discuss our political views on this site, but it's not at all the reason for this site's existence.  I have been a member of many forums where political discussions are banned for this very reason.  Let's elevate ourselves.

I salute you for bringing some sanity into this thread, I always just assumed that this was obviously the case, but seems like select few individuals are trying to challenge this and seed doubt. I guess following their logic they want you to blast everyone on this forum not aligned with Palestine with negative feedback, and DTs that are pro Israel to leave negative feedback for you and everyone who's against Israel   that will surely improve this forum