i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. either way, you're bizarrely blowing that out of proportion and repeatedly personally attack me for it, which is incredibly petty. get over it.
Yes, it was unreasonable because
you blew it out of proportion, repeatedly (millions of members),
after nutildah had already stated what he meant.
the post you linked to
was a direct reply to TECSHARE, not to me, so i didn't actually see it, since i was directly responding to nutildah. you are assuming malice where there was none.
TECSHARE obviously interpreted nutildah's words the exact same way i did. you can continue making mountains out of molehills, but this point still stands:
nutildah claimed i was in the "vast minority"
here. i understood that to suggest by extension that he was speaking for the "vast majority" of board members, and said so
here. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.
I take it that's another one of those standards where you get to talk shit but melt down when someone dares to call you out on it.
nice, another blatantly fallacious attempt at false equivalence!
as a reminder, the issue is whether
claims related to negative trust feedback are substantiated. the issue is not whether "every opinion figmentofmyass expresses" is substantiated.
should i pick apart every sentence
you utter, asking you to "substantiate" everything you say? this is the height of
false equivalence! i'm asking for people to substantiate their claims regarding negative trust, not meet
ridiculous standards for every opinion they express when writing a post on bitcointalk.
it wasn't a conspiracy theory. it was a comment about the current makeup of DT and how the trust system is intended to work.
You said scam busters or whoever it was voted each other into DT, with no proof of any kind, when a more plausible explanation is available.
this is what i said, and the subsequent post is what i meant:
we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.
which wild claim was that---that there are scam busters on DT with mutual self inclusions?
if what i did there was obviously
so fucking horrible and untrustworthy and dishonest you should let readers decide for themselves. no need to follow me around making a dozen posts that (unconvincingly) beat the same dead horse! let it go dude.
i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references.
For such a vocal trust abuse fighter you're incredibly dense when it comes to the actual use (and abuse) of the trust system. So you didn't review the people you added to your trust list?
of course i did, but there's like 40 inclusions on my trust list added over a long period of time. i can't recall every single feedback or the circumstances surrounding them. it would make things a lot simpler if you would simply state your claim ("user X is on your trust list and is engaging in trust abuse"). that's what an honest person would do.
if you want to point out a case of trust abuse, i'm happy to review it, and perhaps adjust my trust list accordingly if it's warranted. instead, you're just asserting falsities about my actions and piling on ad hominems.
both feedbacks appear to have been left after alleged trust abuse, which raises another important question:
part of the issue i'm struggling with regarding my trust list inclusions is the existing status quo---DT trust abuse is rampant, but the wrongfully accused or those who stand against DT trust abuse are generally silenced (within the trust system) by DT1 exclusions. in other words, abusive DT tags stand but the other side is effectively silenced.
in the face of trust abuse, i would obviously prefer the community work together to ostracize the abusers, but this is a long term process at best, and no doubt an uphill battle. in the interim, what seems acceptable re inclusions? let's take the example of a user whose feedback and trust inclusions we generally agree with, but who may have responded in-kind to perceived trust abuse with a negative tag. should we attempt to silence such people? that seems to put current victims of trust abuse at a great disadvantage.
Nice pretzel trying to justify more trust abuse. Eye for an eye, what could possibly go wrong. Quit looking for excuses or wipe your trust list if it's becoming too hard for you to grasp your own standards.
i didn't suggest that. i'm trying to flesh out a complex issue and i'm asking for guidance about it from people in this thread, given the stated goals in the OP and the current power dynamics in the trust system. you are clearly putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. you're also ignoring these points in the OP, which i agree with, and which leave room for
some level of grey area---not nearly as much grey area as the current system, but some nonetheless:
A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.
This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)
@suchmoon, please respect that i'm just attempting to participate in a discussion about the topic. i should be able to discuss trust system standards without constantly defending myself from your off-topic personal attacks virtually every time i post. i am sure you are capable of responding to my position or questions without engaging in ad hominem attacks. i'd really appreciate that, thanks.
Could've fooled me.
what is that supposed to mean?
you have launched non-stop ad hominems against me in this thread. i have not done so to you. i have merely been forced to defend myself. pointing out fallacies as such---especially in self-defense---does not constitute a reciprocal attack on you. if you would stop hyper focusing on me as a person and constantly trying to attack my credibility, we could maybe even have a fruitful discussion about the actual topic.
why are you directing this at me?
You said trust abuse is "cherrypicked example", I don't see how is that attacking you
that's sort of incomprehensible. this is what i
actually said:
nobody needs to fully accept the standards in the OP, nor include/exclude any of the people listed. i think that's one of the primary misconceptions naysayers are trying to promote here with cherry picked examples and personal attacks.
it seems you are trying to attack users and when they respond you act like you are a victim.
i have only pointed out when others (primarily suchmoon) have engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against me rather than respond to my arguments.
personal attacks aren't necessary and aren't conducive to an honest discussion. neither are the sort of intentional fallacies i have been forced to point out over and over.
pointing out intellectual dishonesty in self-defense =/= playing the victim, and it certainly doesn't mean i am attacking others. i have had to defend myself nonstop in this thread against attacks on my character. if you perceive that as
me attacking other people then i'm sorry, but you are mistaken.
i have made painstaking efforts
not to attack other people. i have only argued against other peoples' arguments/positions or fallacies. there is a big difference.
