That's the way it does work. Theymos trusts Vezunchik through a middleman, but Veunchik is abusing the system. This is a problem, especially when it's theymos, because he has the default trust list. It's up to him to fix it, and it highlights the problem with the default trust not being empty.
This rating isn't visible by default. Things are a little different from how they originally were: By default, you trust "DefaultTrust", not me directly. So it's not a problem for the default trust network when someone in my trust list has a bad trust list unless they're also trusted by DefaultTrust (which DeaDTerra is not).
Wait you want theymos to change how he trust people, that is a little messed up. That isn't how it should work.
No, that's reasonable. This system isn't perfect: it's more of a "choose your own moderator" system than a true web of trust. Anyone in your trust list should be someone who carefully maintains their trust network and watches for bad ratings. (I will create tools to make it easier to watch for good/bad ratings in and out of your trust network.) It's OK to alert these people when there's something wrong IMO.
Problems like this one with Garr255 will become less of an issue as time goes on, though. It'll be very difficult for someone to get a negative trust score unless they're fairly new. I don't believe that any trust scoring system can accurately rate people when they've been around for a long time and gained a lot of trust. Either negative trust scores will become so prevalent as to be meaningless, or everyone who's been around for a long time will be able to easily scam for at least several weeks before getting negative trust scores. To solve this, I think I'll create a separate arbitration system using scammer tags; with this, even if you have a trust score of one million, you'll get a scammer tag if you lose in arbitration.
Theymos.... do you ever consider admitting to yourself that someone in a position of authority (such as yourself) is more appropriate to judge the trustworthiness of other individuals involved in the transaction precisely because you don't give half a shit about them? It's easy to "care about justice" as a juror... but it's much more difficult when you have a gun to the head of your wife's murderer. When it's a puzzle, it's easy and objective. The worst thing you could do would be to allow those involved in transactions to rate others -- to give them the gun.
The trust system is meant to defend against scammers and alts of scammers who don't have significant previous trade history. (Currently, Garr255 doesn't have much trade history according to the trust system.) It's a scammer early warning system and a database of trade info that people can use as
part of a trust judgement.
Justice needs to be done with something else.
