I don't think their ratings are affecting their ability to operate around the forum as they normally would. I would agree that rating someone based on their personal beliefs isn't appropriate, but everything has it's limitations and someone's belief very easily could begin to infringe upon the experiences of others in a way that would be communally agreed upon as malicious. Not saying this is the case, though it could be reasonable for Vod to see it this way, just giving some criteria for where that reasoning has its limitations.
If it were the case that DTs rating stopped this user from sharing their opinion, or using the forum in a meaningful/productive way then this would be troublesome to sanction a particular viewpoint or set of ideas that are irrelevant to Bitcoin (according to most). They're still freely doing as they do, without any consequence from what I can tell. What exactly is broken about this?
If you feel you cannot trust somebody because of what you perceive to be cognitive dissonance, refusal of logic or contemptible thinking then you should be able to express that in their trust ratings without recourse. It would be imperative for anybody making any decisions based upon BADecker's trust to investigate the context and claims being made, rather than the plain number that is being presented. If I'm incorrect about any of this I'm open to change my mind and negotiation, this is just how I'm seeing things at first glance.
If trust is based on dislike of strong opinions by people WITHIN the default trust list, then the system should be removed altogether.
Trust is based on subjective opinions, everyone is going to have their criteria and it is bound to contradict another members principals or criteria at some point. This does not make it useless or merit its removal, it simply means it is not an objective system and should be applied as such.
