W.r.t. getting scammed and quick feedback, I have to admit, I've only heard the self-congratulatory claims that QS saves lives by this quick feedback, but I've never actually seen that story, please send me links.
How can I link you to scams that never happened because of his feedback?
If there's no evidence at all, then why suggest that such a thing happened? I admit the connundrum is difficult---to provide evidence of something that would have happened but didn't. But you were the one making the claim that something would have happened. I'm merely asking for some sort of basis for the claim.
On the other hand, I was the victim of a personal smear attack he perpetrated on me, and he ran ndnhc through the mud unneccesarily for almost a week. Ie, I've seen him wrong again and again and I can't really think of a time when he backed down and apologized. I'm just saying Vod is inactive. QS is (thankfully, for the moment) removed from default trust, but he's still out there doing his power-hungry thingy.
QS and vod are not defaulttrust. It's bigger than them two and the one that you feel you were wronged by is not on it any more and the other is away as you said. What other issues have arisen lately from it? 99.9% of the time it works well going unnoticed and managing itself and nobody complains but when they do if abuse has happened then it usually gets worked out in one way or another.
From my observations, the "default trust" scheme currently going on really causes more harm than good. It creates and unnecessary and unreliable sense of security for newbies who need to take the time to investigate before trading.
It doesn't; it's the opposite, it does far more good than bad. I know there would be much more chaos if there was no feedback system at all or one where everybodies were equal. Everyone would be in the red.
Getting rid of the default trust list doesn't imply that there is no feedback system at all. To my mind, the fix here is to replace default trust with an empty list. Ie, new accounts have empty trust lists and when an account has an empty trust list, people see the "Trust: " link with a message which says "you have no one on your trust list". Clicking on that leads to a post which tells you about the trust system and how to use it. From there, you could even have some suggested trust list for starters. By simply adding this one extra step to reify default trusters, people are going to be more aware of how trust works and how it doesn't and they'll become more educated about how to do business instead of relying on green and red colors as meaning "give this guy your money" or "stay awaaaayyy!", respectively.
It creates a privileged class of people who can lord their feedback over others---whether or not they've traded with them.
Sure, being on it is a privilege but having traded with someone isn't a reason not to leave feedback but feedbacks need to be justified. People who use it vindictively likely wont stay on there long.
So far that seems to be what I experienced, yet I still don't see the positives associated with having this privileged class.
It goes against the bitcoin ethos of being your own bank, making decisions for yourself, etc.
If we're going against the ethos of bitcoin then the forum should be decentralised, but it's not. If you want one that's decentralised I think you would find it'd be far more chaotic than this forum ever was or will be. People can still make decisions by themselves but the feedback is there as a guide to help you make that decision. You could ignore vod's or Qs's or anybody else's ratings if you so wish.
I'm not arguing that every single thing has to meet with some "ethos", just that in this particular case, I don't see the merits of enshrining a ruling class of default trusters, especially in conjunction with the account trading that goes on here. The two add up to too much power and potential for manipulation and conflicts of interest. This is just my opinion.
The only arguments for keeping it in place (which I've heard) come from those who are on default trust or are clearly working hard to get there and they say "but default trust helps newbies". But these claims are not supported by evidence (that I've seen).
And the only ones I hear for getting rid of it come from those who aren't on it or wish they were or felt wronged by it in some way or another (whether justified or not). Again, I don't know what facts or stats you'd like or where they could be gotten from on how default trust doesn't or does cut down on scams but from mere observation it works in many cases I've seen but it is also logical that most people would not send money to scammers had they been marked red. You can disagree if you wish but it's my belief that it cuts down on scams a lot (though of course it can also be abused in ways but the vast majority of the time it's used as appropriate).
Fair enough, opinions may differ. I don't trade so I can't really say that I have a good idea how many scams it may or may not have cut down on. On the other hand, I do enjoy the technical discussion and gambling boards on this forum and it's amazing to me, when I peep into meta, how much drama and recrimination and shouting seems to go on over who's been marked red by this or that person. FWIW, I do ignore the ratings of Vod and Quickseller (albeit for different reasons) and I appreciate that at least the trust system allows us to edit our lists. I just think that this could be made stronger by not offering a default list, but instead, a suggestion for people to build one of their own and a link on how to do it.
Thanks, hilliarious, for the replies, I respect your opinion.
