Why would you possibly care about Vod's red rating anyhow? Red ratings don't mean what it used to mean. I don't think you'll get booted out of sig camps because of that rating if that's what you were worried about.
Because I still care about the correct/accurate use of negative trust? Maybe I'm living in the past, I'll bare that in mind. I know the tag is meaningless, just like with Lauda or any other member that hands them out like candy when they are frustrated or have their feelings hurt.
PS - Thanks for waiting until the end of Stage 2 before commenting. Very respectful, very mindful
As far as I can tell, he's the only DT member who's been vocal enough to provide an honest critique regarding Vod's behaviour of late. If other members had said anything relevant, I would of added it as part of the update.
You haven't really been paying attention, if that's the case. You missed the part where I opposed Vod's flag on BitcoinGirlClub and explained why. You also missed other DT members basically raising the same points as me; if not recently then over the last few years. Most DT would rather ignore the entire issue, which is understandable. But there have been plenty of critics now and in the past.
Fair point, had forgotten about that and
well aware you also opposed the flag (it was my main basis for opposition arguably). I have otherwise no doubt missed the opinion on other DT members, their time will come in later stages of this process. For now the Request for Feedback is designed so that DT members such as yourself are effectively last in line for solicited feedback, because obviously you'd be the most likely to agree it's not an appropriate use of negative trust as a distrusting member (elaborated below).
Based on your feedback however, I'll also consider the possibility of a process regarding Vod's use of trust feedback more generally if others feel that is appropriate and that's where this RfF leads, but will need to do a lot more research on order to aggregate the issues. Anyone else is obviously welcome to in the meantime. However it'd be better off as a separate process so as to avoid any confusion. For now I am using this process as a litmus test effectively for whether further processes should be initiated or not.
Process updateAs for
today I'm currently temporarily suspending the Request for Feedback process, I need to setup Stage 3 but I've been lumbered with medical nonsense recently so need to focus on more important things temporarily. I need to cross-reference the participants to avoid repeat pinging and haven't got the time for that right now simply put. Maybe tomorrow though time permitting. The summary for Stage 1&2 can otherwise be found in OP, effectively it can be aggregated as: not interested, can't verify, and no it's not. Clearly it's inconclusive and lacks any affirmative support whatsoever: this is coming from the entirety of feedback from members who support Vod's feedback which makes it all the more concerning.
Overall my intention was to make this as fair and relevant for Vod as possible, so focusing initially on those who trust his judgement, and the judgement of those he trusts. But if the assumption is I'm wasting my time then it's possible more of a free-for-all DT-based feedback for future stages may be more appropriate in order to cut to the chase as it were. Last I checked I don't think I owe this guy anything, so I don't believe I owe such a courtesy anymore either (based on his irrelevant comment made in this process at least). Maybe I'll even consider Stage 3 as retrosepectively more of an ad-lib stage for feedback over the process itself, since it's new and DT members aren't familiar with how it works, nor necessarily how it's going to evolve.
