Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 114. (Read 86349 times)

There are a lot[\b] of people that have no business being on DT2. A decent amount of people are on DT1 that should be there either.

I predict we Will see much more curruption and those with power will continue to get away with stealing from others, extorting others, and similar.

First of all, I don't know the reason why these people have excluded you. However, if I had to guess, it probably has something to with this.

Given the fact that Toy4lov3rs used the address a year before you did, it's pretty damning.

Toy4lov3rs also happens to be SMAS blacklisted.

Assuming you didn't purchase this account (which is unlikely), you are using an alt to avoid a campaign blacklist, which most people would view as untrustworthy.

Assuming you did purchase this account, you might not be evading a ban, but you are an account trader, which is also viewed as untrustworthy.

If I was you, I really wouldn't push the issue as to why someone wouldn't want you on DT, unless you have an extremely good reason for the facts outlined above.

Agree with that. So many new face on DT network. I think it would be better if make it on new thread. So many argument on going here. Perhaps we will loss it. Or give me permission to use your quote and post on reputation or meta if you are busy. I think you can do it shortly. Especially it's important for community to know who have added new on DT network. 

I haven't taken anything personally. I haven't excluded those that have excluded me, because I am hoping, not expecting, that they will be willing to explain themselves. If I agree with their reasoning, then I can better myself or be accountable for where they see shortcomings. If I disagree with their reasoning or lack thereof, then I can place them as an exclusion and we both go on our way.


I am not concerned about my personal situation; I am discussing principles and concepts. My situation was just an example of exclusions and to discuss "retaliatory" or frivolous exclusions.


This is why the original premise was that I felt wronged by a friend. I would have never known either of these users had excluded me, if I hadn't added them already to my own list. Only to feel confused when I clearly misunderstood our relationship. I'm not hunting for exclusions, but speaking from the context of someone turning on a dime without explanation and seemingly ignoring the situation.



I understand and mentioned exactly that. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they have a good reason for excluding me. I cannot carry this assumption forever without justification, however.


I'm not looking for drama. I sent them a discrete PM asking for an explanation, never got an explanation and still don't expect one. Again though, without an explanation I see that exclusion as something I vehemently disagree with and see no reason for. It makes me trust their inclusions, exclusions and even ratings less; as this gives me the impression they are willing to be flippant with them.


I'll pose the same question to you as I did to Lauda, then. Will another's opinion of yourself have any influence on your opinion of that individual?

I'm not exactly sure what about that is cringe or unnecessary. I cannot just assume that an unexplained exclusion is justified, especially when I am involved and it is against me. That would be self-defeating and foolish, that circular logic would be the definition of submission. If you explain why you dislike or distrust me, then I am able to assess that information to either implement or contend that information. Without that I am taking guesses and seems foolish to bow my head while I get kicked.

Regardless, I haven't added any "retaliatory" exclusions; simply removed them from my inclusions for now.

You're taking this way too personally. Someone might think that you just need more time or something. Just imagine this from the logistics perspective - are you going to troll the whole list every day to check if someone excluded you without explanation so that you could counter-exclude them?


Absence of explanation is not absence of reason. Perhaps they didn't want to contact you to avoid this exact drama. I've never been contacted by anyone who excluded me nor would I typically contact my exclusions and I don't have any expectations in that regard. I don't think there is a general expectation in the community either.

You're free to do what you want with your list but what you're describing sounds like some cringy and unnecessary quid pro quo.

---

Sorry for reposting, somehow I managed to delete my post.

Doesn't matter, needed to put that out there before trolls bring a bandwagon.

That's quite an extreme example, isn't it?

I think you are taking an trust list exclusion too personal and wrong. Just because they exclude you, that doesn't mean that they distrust you. Maybe they distrust your list, maybe they distrust your judgement (note: you can be in a relatively good relationship with someone without trusting their judgement). Besides, you shouldn't exclude all of their included users and sent ratings just because you think 1 isn't proper. Even if you strongly believe that is not right, it would be within a margin of acceptable error anyways.

This is not a logical conslusion but an emotional response.

No. Excluding someone back just for the sake of it isn't a rational response (again, it's an emotional one). Psychology is fun.

If there is basis (e.g. not outright lies, etc.) for their opinion (and in a perfect world..), no. You should try to keep it as objective as possible.

In almost all cases, the only reason for excluding someone just after you've figured out that they've excluded you is in fact retaliation. This does open a problem where user 1 might have been contemplating to exclude user 2 for some time now. However, user 1 has gotten excluded by user 2. User 1 might be afraid to react (as you've mentioned above).

Not this again. Stop including people that probably don't even know that the trust system exists. Thanks.

New DT2 members

The usual disclaimers apply - these lists change quickly, might not be accurate by the time you look at it, etc. Also the list might include DT1 members. Use at your own risk. Bolded users are new since ~ last week (the first iteration of this DT experiment), others are new since the "old" DT of about a month ago. 200+ users have been added.

Meni Rosenfeld
Raoul Duke
Adriano
dbshck
shorena
franckuestein
OmegaStarScream
rickbig41
Barcode_
Anon11073
Halab
Xal0lex
chimk
Gavin Andresen
midnightmagic
Pieter Wuille
Vladimir
Matt Corallo
forrestv
SgtSpike
CydeWeys
SolarSilver
gwillen
JoelKatz
Anduck
ssateneth
risho
rdponticelli
mrkent
ninjarobot
Entropy-uc
Carlton Banks
Minor Miner
fluffypony
waldohoover
Lauda
pmorici
frankenmint
yakuza699
alp
IdiotCoder
Ente
zefir
kneim
fhh
Kushedout
vanycon
Carra23
ndnh
crunck
chronicsky
MrLehmann
AltcoinSteps
greenplastic
owlcatz
JohnUser
Lafu
xtraelv
krogothmanhattan
coinlocket$
asche
Coolcryptovator
1miau
ICOEthics
squall1066
TMAN
shdvb
Isildur (official)
Jet Cash
condoras
iasenko
PsychoticBoy
Otoh
iron77
TheNewAnon135246
romanornr
Zepher
Eodguy149
Luke-Jr
tysat
tmfp
vizique
yogg
wheelz1200
achow101
dazedfool
ezeminer
Gunthar
nullius
rusbitcoinuser
Alex_Sr
dArkjON
anonymousminer
tyrion70
djjacket
Lesbian Cow
BitcoinPenny
Novun
buckrogers
polymerbit
Hox
Xprim777
ChiBitCTy
Kryptowerk
F2b
TomCrypto
Astro
Pistachio
BG4
miffman
Hiroaki
Ticked
bittawm
Poloherb
hybridsole
AT101ET
Kialara
digicoinuser
tothemoonsands
m4nki
zekoroger
Fattcatt
RealHummer
dolphriends
bavicrypto
Spazzer
minifrij
ranochigo
sandy-is-fine
comit
jimmothy
whywefight
SFR10
bones261
eddie13
HCP
o_e_l_e_o
morvillz7z
mikeywith
kingscrown
TommyBitcoin
guigui371
LeGaulois
Saint-loup
Aerys2
Tramirostronix
Shitcointalk
Lincoln6Echo
dozerz
klaaas
teeGUMES
micromen
Vaporware
phishead
Corrosive
BTCcollector19
Elwar
gentlemand
Avirunes
freemind1
JayJuanGee
nutildah
Patatas
bL4nkcode
Slow death
DebitMe
hephaist0s
saveawedge
TheBanksLife
start the art
montreal
gocoins
elianite
DaveF
Fortify
WOLTAN78
aacoins
TheAnalogKid
BitcoinNewsMagazine
Chris!
cryptoheadd
Branduardi
A-10
welshcollectibles
ZipReg
examplens
raymond541
xhomerx10
AdolfinWolf
Foxpup
jackg
Helana
ocminer
btct22
unick
audiotopix
Bigjohnson124
HCLivess
Buchi-88
VonSpass
TripleHeXXX
mxhwr
pazor_true
jstefanop
seoincorporation
Spidersbox
o_solo_miner
cyberbully
zoose
Hardstyles
sigma2543
DJ1554
Nivir
paramind22
desertboy10
MySeriousFaceIsOn
Silent26
saga-crypto
zeki555
mole0815
CDMcoin
Rumhurius
waya
gost111
theyoungmillionaire
taikuri13
baba0000000000
Hellmouth42
babo
Micio
arulbero
Piggy
redsn0w
duesoldi
Maggiordomo
gerdab
Theb
lovesmayfamilis

This is quite a sociological phenomenon currently playing out: our internal political climate has changed overnight, from analogous with early Middles Ages Britain to 15th century Italian Renaissance, with a dash of Prisoner's Dilemma chucked in for good measure.
When BTC is $500,000 a pop, I'll be in the back of my chauffeured stretch Lambo, doing podcasts about it on the History Channel, entitled

That straw-man is not my argument.



Correct, but without one I am only able to conclude that they have done so without reason. This would lead me to distrust their ratings; how many other exclusions, inclusions or even ratings are without reason?

Then when I come to this conclusion and exclude them, the assumption would be revenge and retaliation when I am doing the only rational thing.


So you honestly believe that someone's opinion of you should hold no bearing on your opinion of them? Please correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds wild. We can argue semantics, and you very well may be right, but I am more interested in the principles.


People are going to be afraid to exclude when they are being accused of retaliation for legitimately distrusting the trust-network of another user.

That's it, I'm gonna put eleven tildes in front of your name

Worse now because it is infested with proven liars, double standards hypocrites and possible extortionists, and those others that ignore the facts that are presented to demonstrate this.

Oh well better to make it a total mockery and get some huge extortion scheme going via DT members to blow the entire thing up. Boom.

Fuck you and your legitimate questions.. guess we will have to see how bad the situation gets

Some users agreeing to exclude certain users (privately or publicly) isn't any kind of gang nor retaliation.

I wouldn't know. However, why would you exclude someone just because they exclude you especially given that you agree with most of their feedback? That's not how you are supposed to use this system. And no, they don't owe you an explanation just as you wouldn't owe anyone one.

Disagreeing with someone's exclusion of self, and then excluding them because of it is not self-defense. It is retaliation (look up definitions and examples if unsure).

Although very unlikely, good question.

Kind-of. It will be very hard to keep track of everyone as is.

Yes.,  Retaliatory exclusions are going to be the new fad. Tie those with people being afraid to exclude and we have as much as a shit show as the last system

I'm just saying that "~" shouldn't be seen as a weapon to kick someone out. I don't trust someone's judgement and/or their trust list - I exclude them. But they have been "elected" just like me so I can't really claim that they shouldn't have a right to "vote" inside DT1.

Besides I suspect there could be some mutual annihilation / chicken-and-egg problems if exclusions are made to work the way you're suggesting. Let's say you get excluded by a bunch of people offended by you calling them "princess" and TheFuzzyStone's exclusion of you tips your balance to negative and you both have the same exact score otherwise. Which one of you should be excluded?

I thought you said there were no gangs?  so now there are gangs? just you are not in a gang even though looking and bpip fans and receivers lists and dt list support and posting history makes it look like you are?

Or one gang says no other gangs allowed?

Perhaps game theory says gangs must be combated with other gangs? makes sense to me

I mean tman, suchmoon, lauda,  gang... complaining about other gangs and their exclusion?

Are gang inclusions allowed ? just not exclusions? I don't get how it works?

What about the legitimate reasons he may have been excluding for?

1. supporting liars.
2. being liars
3. implicated in extortion rackets
4. trust system abuse
5. something about escrowing that people were complaining about


I mean just adding possible insights into things I could not say for sure. However I would certainly exclude you those kinds of people from a trust based system

The ultimate in decentralization 

I feel like this is already going on and these changes actively work against it. For example, TMAN and owlcatz have excluded me without explanation even though I have reached out for one via PM. I'm conflicted whether or not to exclude them, because aside from their surprising and sudden exclusion of myself we have had nothing but positive interactions and even transactions (with owlcatz). Most of their feedback, in fact almost all of it I can agree with wholeheartedly. I am failing to find a legitimate reason for them to have done so, and so I am only able to conclude that their trust-list seems to be frivolous and unprincipled to some extent until further explanation is provided. I am giving these users the benefit of the doubt at the moment, and hoping they provide me with an explanation at some point, because I have never had a problem with them.


I think there is justification behind excluding somebody that excludes you. Unless you are distrusting of yourself and approve of their exclusion, how can you do anything other than disagree with their exclusion? Once you realize that you disagree vehemently with their trust-network, it makes perfect sense to exclude that person from your own trust-network. All of this is assuming you disagree with their reasoning to exclude you in the first place, but in rare circumstances there is agreement and accountability from the excluded that wouldn't be appropriate in most cases. Self-Defense is different from retaliation, is it not?

yes because if there are 2 unknowns added every month, we ~ and they retaliate with ~.. how long till the whole of DT-1 is full of excluded people?

Does it matter though? I excluded him because I just don't want his ratings or the ratings of his "unique subordinates" (members of TheFuzzStone's trust list who aren't included by other DT1 members) to pollute the trust scores I'm seeing. Same reason I excluded some others. The fact that it kicks them out of DT1 is a result of multiple users doing the same and that retaliatory exclusion is meaningless because it can't achieve the same result. On the other hand, if those who include TheFuzzStone see this tantrum and change their minds - that's great. In general though I think exclusions should be more common and less drama-prone, particularly once we get close to 100 members.