Quickseller, this has nothing to do with TECSHARE so get it straight (and stop commenting on things you are very misguided about).
This is more about this precedent:
IMO your ratings of gweedo are inappropriate. His thread title is inaccurate and overly harsh, but this doesn't imply that he's untrustworthy. I feel that allowing your ratings to exist in the default trust network would be counter to the forum's mission of free speech, so I've removed you from the default trust network.
which was not applied to an instance that has already been conclusively settled as also violating this criteria, however the user was not removed from DefaultTrust.
I disagree. I was honestly not here for the gweedo incident, so I cannot say how much time elapsed between the time when you left the negative trust and the time you were removed. You have since removed the negative trust, however it looks like you opened a scam accusation that was immediately locked at July 13, 2013 that commented on him spreading FUD about your lending sites.
Looking at the TECHSHARE example, it looks like he left Armis negative trust on November 5, 2014, which is the same day he opened a thread asking for him to be removed from default trust list. It was not until over 3 days later that he was removed from default trust list. During this three day period, the community had the chance to discuss the rating in question and TECHSHARE has the opportunity to remove the rating.
If you were to look at recent examples of Vod's recent controversy, he removed his negative ratings on all users in question within less then 48 hours, and after the community was able to voice their opinion on his ratings. I want to say it was closer to 24 hours, but the timeline is not crystal clear on this (additionally the people he gave negative trust to were acting like 2 year olds while Armis was acting professionally the entire time).
This is the obvious catalyst, as also hinted by:
- There won't be people who are clearly "at the top" of the trust system. Furthermore, I will no longer need to carefully ensure that the default trust network is OK for everyone.
theymos would still be at the top of the trust system. As you can see from my response above his proposed system would be subject to a number of instances where he would need to "moderate" the system. The trust system would remain centralized.
The current system allows for people to have much more information in order to make a judgment as to whose ratings can be relied upon and whose should no be. Anytime you use any level of randomness to determine which users' trust reports to rely on you are asking for trouble.
In response to your comments, during that 3 day period I gave Armis the opportunity to remove his slanderous, harassing, and insulting posts from my marketplace OPs, which began as 1 then turned into 5 more once I left him a trust rating, so no, he did not act professionally the whole time. He had an opportunity to get his negative removed. The staff didn't like that I used my trust as leverage against him to keep my op free of his harassment and claimed I was trying to intimidate him into silence on the entire forum. This is a lie. He could have posted in scam accusations or meta if he really believed me selling a gift card for face value was such a crime.
He was there to grief, that is it, and the staff whom I had been previously critical of took it as an opportunity to exact retribution upon me for the unforgivable slight of being critical of their policies. In short the staff blew this incident out of proportion in order to use it to punish me for my criticisms as well as my refusal to bow to this attempt at using the default trust removal as leverage to force me to remove the rating. Only they didn't just remove me from the default trust, they also invented then gave me trust exclusions from two very high ranking users (I am guessing probably Theymos and Hilariousandco but I don't know, it is not transparent) which basically then nuked the feedback I had actually earned, not just something I was granted like default trust. This was additional punitive punishment that would not be levied out to most users simply for leaving a trust rating they don't agree with. Also they always claim trust is not moderated, but this sure looks like trust moderation to me, especially punishing me after the fact that I was already removed from the default trust.
In VODs case, he repeatedly and willfully violates the trust. In my instance I didn't even KNOW default trust was moderated, no one ever told me, and it is not written anywhere. VOD clearly should know the rules by now, yet he finds himself constantly violating them causing all kinds of strife for users all over the forum. I made an a single honest mistake followed by a principled refusal to comply. He makes repeated willful violations of the trust system rules in order to attempt to silence people who criticize him from speaking out. I was honest about why I left my rating from start to finish. VOD constantly lies to everyone's faces and people just pretend along with him. The two cases are not at all the same.
.