This topic is not about if my red trust is justified or not, it is surely a stupid rating in any sense to any decent minded user here, but it is more about if such usage of trust should be banned by administration not only in DT1 but even in DT2. I don't know if it is programming difficulty or something for theymos to ban from both DT1 and DT2, but it is pretty important now as the damaged caused due to this is largely influential to major community using default trust lists.
Hence, I put this topic in meta, instade of reputation as it's more about an overall forum issue and not targeted to the Lauda's trust rating on me, I don't find anything more this forum is powered by than the community here and your opinions matters.
Topic: IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ? - page 6. (Read 2901 times)
I don't agree with this feedback, and I'm going to counter it.
Sure, and you will regret it soon in the future once you find out who OP is. As I've told Steamtyme a couple days ago, users who counter are responsible for any direct and collateral damage that the supposed user that they're counter for ends up doing.Hell, I've merited a handful of posts by members I either don't agree with or can't stand.
So have I.There's no need to neg OP for just giving TECSHARE some merits for a post IMO.
You're still learning to recognize, identify and stop evil in its tracks. The pajeet will reveal their true identity soon enough, or will be forced to by powers greater than us. Give this case a bit more time. These are the cases where the backward decision to make counters worthless can be appreciated even though I strongly disagree with it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll make sure to write a much nicer trust rating and inform you privately to counter it moments after if/when I do
Objective lies are not "just differences in opinion", they are lies.
That's true, but giving someone merits for a post here is next to meaningless compared to any lies that might be told. I don't agree with this feedback, and I'm going to counter it. Aside from anything else in TECSHARE's post that OP merited, I thought it was amusing because of the pajeet comment and it was well-written, both of which might cause someone to merit it even if they didn't agree with anything else. Hell, I've merited a handful of posts by members I either don't agree with or can't stand. There's no need to neg OP for just giving TECSHARE some merits for a post IMO.
I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...
My next words will not have anything with Tecshare/Lauda case (and other english board drama) or this case. I see often that under term of "difference opinion"/"this is my view"/"unpopular opinion" mostly covers trolls and liars.
And other people, telling something like "Oh man, you can't tag him for his different opinion, c-mon!"
I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...
My next words will not have anything with Tecshare/Lauda case (and other english board drama) or this case. I see often that under term of "difference opinion"/"this is my view"/"unpopular opinion" mostly covers trolls and liars.
And other people, telling something like "Oh man, you can't tag him for his different opinion, c-mon!"
I have to say, leaving negative feedback for sending a single merit for something a person likes is a bit much not? Lauda?
Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...
I would go up to Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...
I have to say, leaving negative feedback for sending a single merit for something a person likes is a bit much not? Lauda?
Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...
Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...
Imma just leave this here.
Changed my mind later after the flag-system was introduced. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Too bad that you're not my alt.Neg.-rating someone just because they sent out 1 merit is completely backwards and proper trust abuse in my view. It's similar to political de-platforming.
Objectively it took effort to create regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that's how merit should be used.
No, unless you want to censor what opinions, statements or other people's actions are allowed to get merit.
That may be but there are still guidelines in place whether people like it or not. Ignoring when someone blatantly disregards them degrades the entire system especially if it's only because they have a high profile/ high ranked account.
Guidelines =/= rules. You can break guidelines, rules you shouldn't. I don't support malicious liars, nor those that support them. It's just a matter of time before I'm right about this one again (like countless many examples of "you shouldn't tag for X and yet in the end they end up to be one of the vilest creatures we've encountered around here").Anyhow, why is everyone in here a whining cunt? Just ~Lauda and fuck off if you don't agree with it. There's literally no reason to discuss anything and it's a waste of everyone's time. The only way OP gets his rating removed (other than apologising and stopping his continual unwarranted attacks) is if theymos removes the rating itself from the database. I will not even change it for OP (given his past, and current actions) even if ordered by mr. thermos. Not a fan of central authorities of power.
I wouldn't hold my breath for this to be changed
You're right. When I'm right, I can add only more ratings and not remove them under trust, political or any kind of other pressure. I can't say the same for most of you though.
This is definitely well outside what trust is intended to do. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to be changed, so your only other recourse is to PM anyone who has them on their trusted list that you think will objectively look at whether or not they still do more harm than good, when DT.
Different high-ranked users came up with guides such as "In which case it is appropriate to leave a negative feedback" for other users.
That may be but there are still guidelines in place whether people like it or not. Ignoring when someone blatantly disregards them degrades the entire system especially if it's only because they have a high profile/ high ranked account.
Imma just leave this here.
Neg.-rating someone just because they sent out 1 merit is completely backwards and proper trust abuse in my view. It's similar to political de-platforming.
Objectively it took effort to create regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that's how merit should be used.
No, unless you want to censor what opinions, statements or other people's actions are allowed to get merit.
There is a lot of controversy around trust.
Trust feedbacks are not moderated and are at the appreciation of every user.
Some use them to express their opinions / views about some user, and some will not.
Different high-ranked users came up with guides such as "In which case it is appropriate to leave a negative feedback" for other users.
I don't have an opinion about if it is a good or a bad way to handle this.
It is how it is and I can live with that as I carefully think about every move I pull. (and it's consequences)
However for the case of breach of contract, the flag system exists.
Lauda is the only one that is able to do something about the negative feedback you have received.
I guess you could joint the "union" ?
My advice to you would be, keep doing what you do and if at some point the pros outweight the cons, then ask Lauda to maybe revise their feedback ?
Trust feedbacks are not moderated and are at the appreciation of every user.
Some use them to express their opinions / views about some user, and some will not.
Different high-ranked users came up with guides such as "In which case it is appropriate to leave a negative feedback" for other users.
I don't have an opinion about if it is a good or a bad way to handle this.
It is how it is and I can live with that as I carefully think about every move I pull. (and it's consequences)
However for the case of breach of contract, the flag system exists.
Lauda is the only one that is able to do something about the negative feedback you have received.
I guess you could joint the "union" ?
My advice to you would be, keep doing what you do and if at some point the pros outweight the cons, then ask Lauda to maybe revise their feedback ?
Today I got a navigate trust rating for sending merits to a post I found informative...yes read again sending merits, and it was by someone who has lots of inclusions from well-known members here.
Mine is not the only example, many users are just buried under this type of trust abuse.
I would like to get the community opinions on "if such type of usage of red trust should be acceptable and is it being that non-explanatory for the sender useful for the community overall".
Quote
Lauda 2019-12-29 Reference Maliciously merits what he/she knows to be a lie in order to propagate it and cause harm to me. Wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, now should anyone trust a word they say.
Mine is not the only example, many users are just buried under this type of trust abuse.
I would like to get the community opinions on "if such type of usage of red trust should be acceptable and is it being that non-explanatory for the sender useful for the community overall".
Jump to: