Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 89. (Read 85467 times)

Just wanted to thank you for giving some guidance as far as feedback-giving goes.  What I get from your input is that trust feedback really should be about trust, but we've all got different standards on that.  TECSHARE wants trust to be solely about documented trades and such, whereas I tend to not trust account sellers/buyers.  The message I'm taking from this is that you don't approve of leaving negs for differences of opinion or politics, but I'm wondering whether you specifically disapprove of account dealers being tagged--not necessarily your opinion on the matter, but whether you'd consider that an inappropriate use of the trust system.

It's not a moderator issue since there's no rule for it, and it harms the forum overall so I'd argue that DT ought to be able to tag them.

Is stingers still a merit source? Sending merits to pad H8's gang to 10 merits so that they would have votes. Not sure if that counts as "strategic".

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49590110

If the "gaming" takes the form of strategically sending a lot of merit, creating sockuppets, and stuff like that, then no. That sort of gaming might get me to blacklist people, in fact. But if it looks more like politics, then that's OK, and that's what H8bussesNbicycles's thread looks like to me.

HostFat
TECSHARE
zazarb
TheFuzzStone

Are currently excluded. OgNasty is back in. A dozen or so new faces.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt

Thank you for your input.

Couldn't agree more on the forgiving point as I had the chance to benefit from it myself.

I don't know the specifics of H8busses, but he called me a sock puppet of Lauda if I recall, and I didn't understand the reason. Not a reason to tag him.
However if he tried to actually "game" the system to his advantage (not saying he did) should THAT be tagged?

With gaming the system I mean influencing DT list for his own sake or agenda and not for legitimate reasons. See Thule et al.

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.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

---

Now for this month's DT construction:

Old:
New:

You should work on your reading comprehension.

VIP account JusticeForYou has been blocked today.

Interesting this post got pulled off the top of this page. I am sure it is just yet another coincidence it was moved to the last page by a report of another post. So here I am presenting my ideas to the forum again. Anyone care to actually have a discussion about it?

Nothing else constructive? oh really?? you arguing for unfair and unjust actions to be allowed within a system of trust is constructive?? lol

Isolate the part or parts of my post you have issue with or that you claim make me look insane and I will debate them with you.

Calling persons insane for presenting the truth or highlighting wrongdoing is a common defense in meta. Sorry but that does not work.

I challenge you now to go back to my post and bring here the parts of it that you consider indicate some trolling or signs of insanity because all I see is a person calling you out for supporting the red trusting of persons whom dare to present facts illustrating wrong doing by DT members .

I await your response.

No more bullshit from people like you. Point now to the exact parts of my post that are incorrect. Let's see.

edit--- time passes...

nutildah?... nutildah?? where are you nutildah???  must be with Moglie somewhere.

edit 2 more time passes...

Is nutildah okay?  anyone seen nutildah? ... I am concerned about him now for real.

You mean like everyone else around here is being so rational? What about here and here? No one seems to be able to address any of these points, just constant topic sliding tactics like you are doing right now with that post.

I can't tell if you're insane or just trying to troll me; maybe a combination of both.

If you really want the system changed, try being more rational when presenting your arguments. Coming across in the manner you do isn't very compelling. Neither is it for TECHSHARE.

I don't have anything else constructive to add to this conversation.

It is not just what I want, it is what lots of people around here have wanted for a long time, but unfortunately any time they make an objection people like you dismiss them as a scammer or an alt, therefore it falls to others around here with a reputation to speak up about it. You act like I am going to get some prize out of this. I will not (other than a more functional forum). What I will get however is a gang of stalkers looking for anything they can to use against me. Don't worry I am sure your mob of inquisitors will dig something up to accuse me of sooner or later. If not I am sure they will just invent something.

I made several logical arguments which no one seems to be able to address here and here. It just seems to be a continual cycle of people who disagree with these points making personal attacks and dumb comments, then acting like there is nothing but dumb comments when I respond. Maybe post something other than dumb comments? I did. You try.



Here come the sock puppet supports now. I guess everyone who criticizes the trust police is a sock, an alt, or a scammer, but if you are using the socks it is perfectly acceptable right? It is almost like you are running out of logical arguments and need to start bringing in "new people" in order to try to maintain your preferred narrative without looking like the dog piling mob that you are actually a part of.



Yeah, please do ignore me. It will make it much easier for me to tell everyone else who is trying to have a logical debate why this system is a problem without knee jerk interference from the peanut gallery. I am not sure what purpose advocating excluding me from trust lists accomplishes other than you demonstrating yet again you use the trust system as punitive punishment for anyone who dares criticize your behavior, and the behavior of your clique.

Of course I must be delusional or have some hidden agenda right? Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically guilty and deserving of retribution are they? Thanks for once again demonstrating you should never be in a position to judge others.

Please see try to comprehend the stupidity of what you are saying in relation to a score based trust system, and what a corrupt and devious disgusting snake you look like by suggesting it is okay to red trust someone for telling the truth and presenting fact regarding wrongdoing.

DT scores mean absolutely nothing at all if people are getting red trust for highlighting proven wrong doing. Imagine if everyone did this then red trust would be a positive thing in some cases. The entire scoring would be a total waste of time. LOL

WARNING TRADE WITH EXTREME CAUTION THIS PERSON TRIED TO INFORM ON A PROVEN LIAR/SCAMMERS.

haha the wonderful world of meta...

There is no point having a score if some people red for untrustworthy deeds and some red for trust worthy deeds.

Just have a link called feedback and people can decide for themselves is the person who is proven to have lied for financial gain is more trustworthy than someone who high lighted that FACT.

No get back to supporting liars and scammers with some other new variation of ass kissing.

You can not use the red trust to silence people telling the truth and about liars and scammers. Please don't suggest such ludicrous things in public it makes you look completely corrupt.

I would say if anything we should look at the distinct possibility your account is hacked. No chance any person supporting bruno previously would start supporting scammers and liars that ~ bruno. I think people should analyse your account for being hacked or sold snake boy.

There's a simple solution to this: ~TECSHARE and place him on ignore like I did. If you re-read my previous interaction with him here, then you can clearly see that he is either full-delusional or has some strong hidden agenda (and no, KingFool this isn't a fallacy). The thread is moving in the wrong direction because of stuff like this.

>Posts snark in lieu of a logical argument
>Complains about snark in lieu of a logical argument

Dude. I'm pointing out that the system was initially designed to be open to interpretation. You're saying it needs to be changed. OK, so changed to _what_ exactly, and on _who's_ authority? You've probably stated your case a hundred times, and nobody cares. Its because you want it changed to what _you_ want. You're like a child who throws a temper tantrum when they can't have their way.

Is everyone else seeing this pattern of substituting pith and snark in lieu of any logical arguments completely?

Good, glad to see that we can agree on something, and that the system was initially intended to be highly flexible and open to interpretation -- not nailed down to what a few members believed it should be used for.

TL;DR   

What you are advocating for can never be done because, see the rules, the rules are how it is done, the rules say it therefore the rules must stay that way and can never be changed. End of discussion, everyone please move along nothing to see here.