- 2018-03-25: An off-topic insult by Btrash shill #981616 “vsyc” has been archived, deleted, and moved to my hate mail thread.
Topic: Nullian Trust Feedback Policy [Working Draft] (Read 200 times)
Evidentiary archive links as for deleted posts, if/where warranted:
Reserved for addenda and version archives.
Evidentiary archive links as for deleted posts, if/where warranted:
- 2018-03-25: An off-topic insult by Btrash shill #981616 “vsyc” has been archived, deleted, and moved to my hate mail thread.
This policy is conceptual and explanatory—not a binding promise, and not to be applied by me mechanistically.
Credit: The concept (but not substance) hereof is loosely inspired in part by DannyHamilton’s merit sending policy.
The current version hereof is a working draft. I expect that this post will be edited over time. If/when I make significant modifications, I will archive old versions in some reasonable manner.
Positive trust feedback may be left by me in cases whereby:
0. I have observed a person’s character to the degree that I am willing to vouch that this person is trustworthy. My judgments as such are extremely conservative.
1. I have engaged in a business partership with a person, or a business relation of similar magnitude, and found this person to be trustworthy. If a definite amount of “risked BTC” can be objectively calculated, it will be stated in the amount field; otherwise, not.
2. I have risked a large amount of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness, and found it thus sound. The amount will be stated in the amount field.
3a. I have repeatedly risked moderate amounts of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness over a long period of time, and found the person thus trustworthy. This would add to and amplify earlier neutral feedback.
3b. I have risked a moderate amount of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness, and have seen other substantially impressive evidence of this person’s trustworthiness. “Risked BTC” may be stated.
4.I know the person “in real life”, and find this person to be trustworthy. Outside myself, I have no linkage between “IRL” and “nullius”; thus, this is inapplicable. I put this here as a conceptual note.
General note: I am extremely conservative in matters of trust. I do not trust easily; and most of all, I do not vouch lightly. If you have been trustworthy to me and you do not receive positive feedback, please do not take that as a slight. It simply means that I do not yet know you well enough to vouch for you to entire world. Positive trust feedback from me is meaningful, because my standards are high.
N.b. that as of the moment I write this, I have never yet left anybody positive trust feedback. I may issue some positive feedback soon.
Neutral trust feedback may be left by me for:
0. Transactions in which I have risked a small or moderate amount of BTC on a person’s trustworthiness, and thus found it to be sound. The amount will be stated in the pertinent field. (Many such transactions over a long period of time may result in me also adding positive feedback, as stated above.)
1. Opinions or other statements about a person, which do not pertain to that person’s trustworthiness.
2. Statements about the technical competency of an individual. E.g., “This person is a Bitcoin expert, whose posts in Dev & Tech may be relied upon for correctness.”
3. Evaluations of a person which may in some way pertain to trust, but of which I am not sufficiently certain to issue positive or negative feedback. E.g., “This person seems trustworthy to me; but we are only now just getting to know each other.”
4. Something wrongful which previously resulted in negative feedback, which the person has so fully corrected that I deem not only material, but also moral debts to have been repaid. Expect for this to be rare or nonexistent. I am not a forgiving person.
Negative distrust feedback will be left by me in cases of dishonest or otherwise criminal behaviour:
The easiest way to understand my negative feedback policy is to observe that each and all of the foregoing are sound reasons to declare, “I distrust this person!”
This topic is self-moderated.
Do not request removal of negative trust feedback here. Such posts will be archived and deleted. Discussions of specific instances of feedback belong in the Reputation forum, if there be any discussion to be had.
Anything else may be deleted at my sole discretion.
Credit: The concept (but not substance) hereof is loosely inspired in part by DannyHamilton’s merit sending policy.
The current version hereof is a working draft. I expect that this post will be edited over time. If/when I make significant modifications, I will archive old versions in some reasonable manner.
Positive trust feedback may be left by me in cases whereby:
0. I have observed a person’s character to the degree that I am willing to vouch that this person is trustworthy. My judgments as such are extremely conservative.
1. I have engaged in a business partership with a person, or a business relation of similar magnitude, and found this person to be trustworthy. If a definite amount of “risked BTC” can be objectively calculated, it will be stated in the amount field; otherwise, not.
2. I have risked a large amount of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness, and found it thus sound. The amount will be stated in the amount field.
3a. I have repeatedly risked moderate amounts of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness over a long period of time, and found the person thus trustworthy. This would add to and amplify earlier neutral feedback.
3b. I have risked a moderate amount of Bitcoin on a person’s trustworthiness, and have seen other substantially impressive evidence of this person’s trustworthiness. “Risked BTC” may be stated.
4.
General note: I am extremely conservative in matters of trust. I do not trust easily; and most of all, I do not vouch lightly. If you have been trustworthy to me and you do not receive positive feedback, please do not take that as a slight. It simply means that I do not yet know you well enough to vouch for you to entire world. Positive trust feedback from me is meaningful, because my standards are high.
N.b. that as of the moment I write this, I have never yet left anybody positive trust feedback. I may issue some positive feedback soon.
Neutral trust feedback may be left by me for:
0. Transactions in which I have risked a small or moderate amount of BTC on a person’s trustworthiness, and thus found it to be sound. The amount will be stated in the pertinent field. (Many such transactions over a long period of time may result in me also adding positive feedback, as stated above.)
1. Opinions or other statements about a person, which do not pertain to that person’s trustworthiness.
2. Statements about the technical competency of an individual. E.g., “This person is a Bitcoin expert, whose posts in Dev & Tech may be relied upon for correctness.”
3. Evaluations of a person which may in some way pertain to trust, but of which I am not sufficiently certain to issue positive or negative feedback. E.g., “This person seems trustworthy to me; but we are only now just getting to know each other.”
4. Something wrongful which previously resulted in negative feedback, which the person has so fully corrected that I deem not only material, but also moral debts to have been repaid. Expect for this to be rare or nonexistent. I am not a forgiving person.
Negative distrust feedback will be left by me in cases of dishonest or otherwise criminal behaviour:
- Scamming
- Spamming
- Abuse of the forum’s trust and/or merit systems: Begging, “farming”, buying/selling, etc.
- Account selling; materially deceptive use of alts (in practice, most uses of alts).
- Theft
- Fraud
- Gossip, rumour-mongering, character assassination, misinformation, and disinformation (including mendacious promotion of scamforks).
- Crime, whether or not listed here, as defined by my own moral philosophy and not by local legislation. (Committing crime; or condoning crime in some egregious manner which goes beyond expression of reasonable opinions. Some examples which come to mind in this context: Drug dealing, kidporn.)
- Threats of violence or other significant harm to innocent people.
- Doxing of an innocent person; improperly seeking identifying information about an innocent person; or otherwise violations of privacy.
- Improper or retaliatory negative trust feedback.
- Any other behaviour which shows manifest dishonesty, a reprehensible character, or otherwise untrustworthiness.
The easiest way to understand my negative feedback policy is to observe that each and all of the foregoing are sound reasons to declare, “I distrust this person!”
This topic is self-moderated.
Do not request removal of negative trust feedback here. Such posts will be archived and deleted. Discussions of specific instances of feedback belong in the Reputation forum, if there be any discussion to be had.
Anything else may be deleted at my sole discretion.
Jump to: