Topic: Trust System Abuse By Nullius - page 10. (Read 5523 times)

Nowhere did I say, nor mean to imply the above.. I used this as an example within a set of actions by individuals, with whom others may not want to trade because of said actions.

This is also another factor that is completely being ignored and hasn't been addressed in the public as it is yet another ugly truth of the system. "Agree to disagree" card gets played, but since you're outranked and outnumbered we will kick you out because why not? Complete lapses in judgement (see Yahoo & Yobit situation, being the most recent) are not sufficient for an exclusion, but a singular rating which you disagree with is? Please.

This thread contains a metric-shit-tonne of proof that a well read, highly educated, technically sophisticated, articulate writer can still be a complete buffoon.  There's a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom.  

@nullius, you're nowhere near as smart as you (and apparently many merit sources) think you are.  Obviously you're not stupid, you must have the capacity to learn.  But don't let your arrogance get in the way of continuing to learn.

Using extremely weakly founded negative trust ratings to attack users you disagree with is how you make a fool of yourself..
Obvious motives behind negative ratings are obvious..

You can't beat him in a debate so you have to personally attack him or what?
That's what it looks like..

You want to stomp his ass? Do it with logic, not ad-hominems.. 

Exclude me then. A blind fool with poor judgement throwing a tantrum - sounds like no one should want such a person in their trust list.

Now if you're done making this personal maybe you can show us what high risks exist in trading with TECSHARE.

If you are too blind to see that you have made a fool of yourself in this thread by defending arrant nonsense with mulish stubbornness, and potentially alienated people who are not me with a public display of rash ~threats, peremptory demands that others recognize your personal feedback standard as an official forum standard ~or ~else, deafening silence when I point to (and even fully quote) the substantive grounds for one of the tags that I am supporting (a trust-abuse tag on OP!), shifting of goalposts with bizarre illogic about trust lemons, and a score of other displays of poor judgment, then it is ill-advised, but suddenly unsurprising for you to top that off with such a too-indignant “My what now?” as I would expect from someone throwing a chldish tantrum about being caught out as wrong.

And if your reply to my patent olive branch, which I pointedly concluded with a hint to others, is:


...then I cannot but say, “I am sorry you feel that way”, and express my sincere regret that I wasted hours of my time attempting in good faith to talk this out with you, in public and in private (upon your contact to me and not vice versa).  TECSHARE could not have gotten that from me.  I would probably have flatly ignored this thread but for you, but for the considerable respect that I had for you, and but for my belief that you would do your “deescalation” for your own part of a dispute that you yourself not only ~escalated, but substantially ~created in the very second post on this thread.  —Or that at least, you would “agree to disagree”, as I have been willing to do all along.  You well know that I disagree with your personal standard for tags, and that I discuss it civilly or just “agree to disagree” if you are not waving ~ in my face.


That which you peremptorily declare an official, quasi-binding forum standard, contrary to all evidence (such as examples shown by Lauda above), is indeed your pet issue—your peculiarly petty pet issue, at this point—and nothing more.


ok

---

If that is your opinion, it is certainly a respectable opinion—and I never thought otherwise, as to suchmoon’s seemingly quite similar opinion.  But the question is, do you think that reasonable disagreement with that opinion is grounds for ~exclusion?

I observe that your theymos quote starts with, “...in my view...”  Certainly, that is important to consider; but it is not exactly as if he were laying down the law, especially when so many past feedbacks by himself and others do not comply with the standard he thereby states.

I further observe that nobody on my inclusions list seems to have exactly the same standards as I do—no, not even Lauda; and there are many well-known users, including (hereto) suchmoon, who have been neither included nor excluded by me, because I “agree to disagree” with reasonable differences of opinion on such matters.  (And there are others whom I deliberately neither include nor exclude for other reasons, but that is irrelevant here.)

I would also bring this quote by theymos to the discussion (bold mine):


The post that theymos is linking to was regarding an account, plus a number of its alts, advocating people to all vote for each other and "overthrow" DT1, whilst simultaneously deleting the majority of dissenting opinions. These accounts also spammed/derailed a number of other threads with this nonsense. This attempt to manipulate DT was far worse than anything TECSHARE or Kalemder have done, and their trolling was also far worse than anything TECSHARE has done. Despite that, theymos clearly stated that he did not agree with the negatives being left for those reasons.

I tend to agree with this, and it is the reason I haven't left red trust for cryptohunter, TOAA, Thule, or any of the other mega-trolls we have or have had in the past. Being a troll or having a trust list I disagree with, in theymos' words above, "doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person". Grounds for a trust list exclusion? Sure. Grounds for a neutral rating? If you really feel you must. Grounds for a negative rating? No.

There's no love lost between TECSHARE and me (or TECSHARE and pretty much anybody, by the looks of things), but I don't think these ratings have any bearing on how risky trading with him is.

I think I have to agree with someone who ditrusts my judgement and uses proper ways to show it using the trust list exclusion. It is fully logical that trust ratings should only be used if a person is high risk to trade, but not just if you think his opinion doesn't matches yours hence he would scam in future even if he would have not done it explicitly until.

Makeing the use of trust ratings more dynamic than it just being an indication of being high risk to trade with makes it open to "selective enforcement" as everyone thinks any enemy in thoughts is a bad person overall and risky to trade with even if he is not in doing transactions in reality.

Tagging TS because you don't like he way he sets his trust list? Why?
I can see it as a desperate rating from Vod but why back it up? It's just a weapon against TS because you don't like him..

Kalemder with the same reference? Just why?
Because he included TS?
Why?

Their is no solid reference to either of them gaming the trust system..
It is only speculation and very weak speculation at that..
Tons of users have many mutual inclusions..

My what now?

I don't really give a shit if someone excludes me over this "pet issue" as you call it.

Actually no, let me rephrase that. Anyone who thinks that it is appropriate to red-trust TECSHARE or Kalemder the way you did should exclude me. I don't retaliate with exclusions or red trust so no worries there.


Ok, then we disagree what is valid for DefaultTrust or not. I don't think red trust for trolling etc is a good use of DefaultTrust privileges.

I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.

I'd agree with you, but labeling deceptive behavior which is inherently a risk-factor when considering trading  with someone and the dislike of lemons which is in no way related to trade (unless, you want to maybe sell lemons?) is really not a fair way to argue against this.

1) I've given you examples proving that the correct use is as claimed in the previous DT system.
2) I've given you theymoses own quote which proves that the trust system requirements were weakened.
3) The logical conclusion following out of 1) and 2) is that any previous rating that was valid use, is now definitely valid use.

Still, you just shut it down. What options are left? I know of only of two, one of which you mentioned above. See below for elaboration.

---

You know very well as I do that nobody's complaining, no matter how right/just/objectively correct their view is (and I'm not claiming any of one of these in my claim in this post), will be a waste of time when it's up against groups of DT1 members or friends in DT1 members (strongly arguing the opposite view, even if incorrect), etc. Also, we both know that any exclusions and inclusions are now heavily politicized (this was was not the case before). This is why I don't want to go around PM-ing DT1 members, hoping that they'll do the right thing as I'll be labeled as some shady/evil wrongdoer going behind the backs of others (not by you - this is just the current state of affairs here). There, I'm stating this ugly truth publicly.
The only remaining option is to ask an administrative authority, i.e. theymos to provide an elaborative opinion on his own guidelines. The same method as used above can be used to reject his opinion if it doesn't agree with your view. The former option is entirely useless, and shouldn't even be considered as it will backfire on the entity that tries it (yes, I've said it - this was always the case with most people sadly, back in my DT2 (old), DT1 (new) and new DT2 (new)).

---

I will be choosing the latter option which is not my preference due to its centralizing nature (but the system has spiraled from decentralization into a weird form of nepotism-based democracy with selective judicial enforcement). He may answer, he may not. He may agree with me, he may not. It's evident that no evidence I bring forth or logically construed argument I use will change your mind on this. Therefore, I rest my case. Sorry for wasting everyone's time reading this whole exchange.

I've changed or am considering changing my mind on several things, including Quickseller, eddie, and so forth so I don't think this opinion of me is really fair.

Though that was addressed to Lauda, it is disingenuous whereas you are arguing with Lauda over what you said here:


“Agree to disagree” is exactly what I would tell you (and have, in essence told you) when you express to me your opinion about the proper standard for negative feedback.  But you are not “agreeing to disagree”.


And how?  ~ exists precisely for the purpose excluding people who make invalid use of the trust system, i.e. persons with poor judgment; and inclusions exist precisely for the purpose of categorically endorsing someone else’s trust decisions as “valid”.


You are shifting the goalposts (and it is not the first time that I have seen you do that in an argument).

The question here is not what people can do.  Reductio ad absurdum, I can issue negative feedback to Lauda with PROOF that she is a WITCH (Reference — She turned me into a newt.).  “Feedback is unmoderated.”  But the predictable result is that any sane person would ~nullius.

Don’t state the obvious fact that people can do anything with trust feedback, when we are discussing your express support for TECSHARE’s demand of ~nullius on grounds that I am supporting good tags by Lauda and Vod.

---

To avoid waste of time, I will not reach other fallacies in your argument.

suchmoon, with candour and not hostility, I must observe that at this point, the only reason why I don’t immediately ~suchmoon is that I will not join you in grandstanding over a pet issue in some way that backfires against big-picture, important objectives.  You are sharp in investigations, and you issue (usually) good tags within your own narrow standards; your downfall would be celebrated by exactly the types of characters who are cheering you in this thread.  Thus, although I think that you are showing poor judgment in this thread, I prefer, if practicable, to take the high road and avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by obsessing over one tree in the forest—even if I am admittedly enough peeved to be tossing out awful mixed metaphors.  (Sorry, folks.)  And I encourage others to think likewise.

The "new" trust system is exactly the same as the old one. The only thing that is different is the selection process of DefautlTrust members and the addition of flags. Which isn't really related to the topic at hand. I know that when EFS created the topic in 2014 the one thing we didn't have yet was the neutral feedback, though he updated the thread in 2015 and added it.

Vispilio's thread is a bit more inclusive, mentioning the flag system. This is why I have given them 50 merits as thanks, even though the thread is a translation of LoyceV's original thread. However, defamation of Local is unacceptable. The threads are there if people are willing to read them.

Thank you @Deathwing. But wrong information. The new Trust System was updated in 2019.
Topic you show is a very old topic. Trust System and Merit System are newly learned in the Turkish section.
Many people don't know what it is. Because it's very confusing.



****


This is true.

Trust sistemi nedir? Nasil Calisir?

Information about the trust system by EFS, written in 2014. Literally the 2nd pinned topic on the list.

I think there is a difference between a "valid" use, and use appropriate for DefaultTrust. I'm pretty sure you can red-trust someone for disliking lemons and stretch the interpretation of "high risk" to mean that dislike of a fruit makes trading said fruits with the person "high-risk". I would argue that this kind of rating is useless and possibly harmful for DefaultTrust, or at least for my own trust network, which is what really matters.

I think these overstretched interpretations of the effects of hypocrisy, trolling, etc on trading are not useful for my trust network and amount to using trust ratings against opinions. Others may think differently, the balance will determine how DT looks like, and I know better than trying to change your mind so this is a good opportunity to agree to disagree.

John K - negative for slander:
Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:

• Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
• Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
• General deceptive behavior.
• Many, many more..

According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.

---

I will try to add links to everything, it's really difficult with all the research required.

You didn't listen to me, you didn't ask me. But you're judging me. Yes, I am an active member in Turkish section. I do not follow the messages in the global section too much. I sometimes follow the meta section. Unfortunately, conspiracies are being made to me these days.

You are blame me for adding @TECSHARE to my trust list. I learned the Trust system 8 months ago. I did not have much idea about how the Trust system works. Because there was no Turkish info about the Trust system. That's when I started reading the meta discussions. I didn't know everybody much in the global section then. During that period, @TECHSHARE was supporting my ideas and I found some of his posts positive.

So I added him to my Trust list, I added other people I found positive to my trust list. It only took 9-10 days. Then, I removed @TECSHARE from my list.

Proof: http://loyce.club/trust/2019-09-21_Sat_06.17h/487377.html
Look week 34-36

We don't all have to learn everything right away. I learned better when @Foxpup told me the facts. I shouldn't be declared a bad person just because I do this. Actually, these ridiculous conspiracies are being set up because Chipmixer chose me.

I put a lot of effort into this forum. I worked hard at the art contest. I have never hurt anyone. I believe I am not a bad person. I tell Turkish community about the bitcoin and forum features. All this effort should not be ignored. Endless dramas are really exhausting me. I will delete my Trust list. I just want to keep writing good articles.

Dear @Nullius, You just gave me negative feedback for my thoughts, you and @lauda. It is not right to blame me on such a simple subject. Just talk and tell me. In fact, these movements do not give me confidence. I believe you misunderstood me. I request you and @lauda to delete this negative feedback, please.

I just wanted to defend myself in this matter. I have no other words to say.

Thank you and best wishes...