I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:
If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.
Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably
cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.
The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.
This answer is good in that it brings some clarity to what actually took place. That is where the good news ends.
Let's break it down and really think about it though. Perhaps theymos is not thinking it through clearly.
1. There seems to be a false equivalence. That ognasty removing laudas red is equal to lauda removing ognastys red?
Not all red trust is equal. The nature of laudas scamming, lying, probable extorting, shady escrow and trust abuse compared to what Ognasty can be demonstrated to be guilty of is like comparing a criminal that has extorted, mugged, defrauded, committed armed robbery against someone who filled their car with fuel and drove away without paying once, likely by accident. It is like suggesting they both deserve the same punishment. Or that giving one of them another chance would be unfair without giving both another chance. This is simply not true and a strange mistake to make.
Theymos here missed a KEY OPPORTUNITY to test the system. He should have said
Either remove the red trust or present the strongest case you have for keeping the rest trust on. If you have left red trust on and your strongest case FAILS to convince me it meets the threshold for red you are blacklisted. This should all be transparent.
2. Lauda is gray not red you say?
what now can we take from this it requires to be worthy of a red tag, your behavior must be WORSE than..
a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming)
b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt
c/ shady looking non transparent escrow
d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past.
This raises the bar for red trust far too high. This leaves the board highly vulnerable
3/ Even if we could believe Lauda is gray ( we do not) then why should we have gray "possibly shady" people on DT? it makes no sense? this is a trust sytem? why put the board at risk like this?
4/ Theymos should you not be more concerned for the board members safety than how great the DT members appear to be getting along? I mean being pleased that a "gray" (possible scammer and certainly untrustworthy) is getting to flash with 300 GREEN trust? why does leaving the board in this vulnerable state seem a pleasing outcome? it makes no sense? we put the entire board at risk so that one "grey" quite possibly untrustworthy member remains on DT?
None of it adds up at all. put every member at an increased risk for this one individual?
So in summary, it seems theymos believes red trust can only be left for those that do MORE than
a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming)
b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt
c/ shady looking non transparent escrow
d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past.
Og just realized that was how it was here now.
We can see a LOT of people that previously were "scammers" now going gray. No more red.
Good outcome for DT friction. Poor outcome for the safety of the board.
Be nice if this post is not vaporized like any other post that raises valid points for discussion that do not essentially fit with some strange agenda being pushed in meta by less than 0.01% of the board. We thought the trust system was for the good of the entire board, we didn't know it was some club whos members needs are greater and more important than the safety of all the other members here.
We would love to hear theymos thoughts on these points.