Most if not all of Lauda's negatives are in breach of @theymos' directives concerning retaliatory trust feedback and at the moment he is
once again removed from DT2 so
his their negatives are (quite rightly) meaningless.
To reiterate what the OP said, this review would also be for the benefit of DT and all users here, as well as Lauda, to have scammers tagged that are now "free from the neg chains". To me this appears to be a sincere and relevant proposal - whether you agree with Lauda's feedback is actually the focal point of the proposal ironically, but is intended as a
review, not as a passing comment;
I get it that it's a huge job but this is also truth that if Lauda is out from DT then the real scammers get the tickets because the feedback will not reflect in their trust page.
Also meaningless for now, but for how long? I would be surprised
not to see Lauda back as DT2 in the coming weeks personally, given that their
rate of behavior changes dramatically based on dt strength. For Lauda's benefit alone, it looks like another time to
review something (not necessarily everything) to get another
boost of DT strength, as has been seen previously. Maybe this is why you disapprove or think it's pointless?
Lauda's exclusion from DT will also likely need "testing"
statistically speaking. If they don't end up back on board with another DT update that is, even if it was
predicted that they would be excluded by Spring/Summer time in a sustainable manner based on last year's trust data samples. If you think the days of Lauda being DT are over, I think you're being naive and you're wrong, it's only been 24 hours, and could be determined sensibly by the suggested review.
Where's that old topic when Lauda got removed from DT and numerous users did their due diligence and reviewed the feedback?
Ah...Thanks for referencing, it's good to see users did this in October 2018 as confirmation that it'd be a good time to do another review. Do we know how many negs how been left since the previous review? Reviewing prior to this seems pointless, if it's already been addressed and discussed, not that the OP was suggesting this I don't think (the suggested 25 feedbacks are all recent if I'm not mistaken).
Let's be fair. I will invite few DT members or somehow reputed members to review the above 25 feedback and
a) If your discovery are same as me, meaning more feedback are controversial than proper use of the system then do ~Lauda
b) If you find majority of her feedback are good then do entrust her.
Bare in mind though side chain, people will have different standards for distrusting a user as well as trusting. Personally I'd need to see a lot more than 50% accurate feedback in order to trust another user's judgment. Similarly, I don't need a majority of inaccurate feedback to distrust a user either, in the past I've distrusted user's judgments based on "single judgement's", though I've changed my tune on this recently, but a small minority of poor judgement is enough for me to distrust a user.
Different people = different standards is the point, as people's trust lists can be created in the way they please - for example some users can chose to include certain users in order for someone's trust feedback to be seen, because they find it relevant for example, as opposed to actually trusting their judgement. I don't believe this is the correct use of trust lists, but ultimately
users are free to include/exclude as they please. I otherwise agree with the sentiment of the thread, and believe it to be very sincere and clearly beneficial to everyone here, as well as those anthropological students that can't get enough of this topic.
.
