Quote from: SaltySpitoon on April 26, 2015, 10:24:59 PM

There a few things you don't seem to comprehend. Theymos can enforce his trust list as selectively as he likes. I can enforce my trust list as selectively as I like, Tomatocage can do what he wishes with his trust list. Being on default trust isn't a right. Self interest is the motivation to make your own trust lists in the best interest of the community. If I put a bunch of jerks on my trust list, by association, I'm a jerk. I don't want my feedback to be watered down by people who inherit trust from me that then abuse their positions. Perhaps Tomatocage feels that the good that Vod does is worth the controversy, but hence the reason Vod isn't on my trust list, I dont. Lets all go tell Tomatocage he can't trust who he wants because it would be unfair to people who were treated differently by different people.

There are no official guidelines for trust? Leave accurate feedback is one, don't make up BS trade values, does common sense need to be posted? Need I remind people to breathe? As I stated, for things that aren't common sense, it is up for the community to decide. The Staff didn't decide whether or not people could leave feedback if they hadn't traded with that person, others did. Who is popular on the default trust list? Is there a correlation between traits in a person that others like and whether or not they are suitable to help the community? No, as proposed we can't have a decentralized feedback system. Look at forum polls, how much do you trust their results? Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks. Majority rule is not the way to go, centralization isn't the way to go either, but without a better idea, putting faith in people who have some sort of long term stake in the community is a better bet.

The problem is, you are completely disillusioned by your vindictiveness. You blame staff for everything that has happened, because A) a staff member directly removed you from their default trust list B) You made an ass of yourself which lead others to not trust you C) It was all because Staff members didn't help you in a timely fashion. Why would the staff be out to get you at the time? You keep refering to forum staff as the moderators of the trust system that have this presence over others. Have we threatened someone who didn't obey with bans? Are all forum staff members even on Default trust? What reasons would they have for trying to silence you, or bully you? What does the forum staff have to do with anything? Are we talking about default trust here, or deleting posts? If forum staff had this overwhelming power you claim they do, why would we put up with the constant harassment and insults? You can't back any of your statements with anything you can prove as true, you make a theory and base your factual statements on those theories without stopping to think, wait... does any of this make sense in the slightest? What would Theymos or the other staff have to gain by controlling the default trust list? Why would we want to involve ourselves in squabbles between people? Wouldn't it just take up more of our time and drag us into discussions like that are tedious?

If you feel like a written list of rules would help everyone out, why don't you make it?

Could you be anymore condescending? I understand fine, I just don't accept your narrative as an excuse for lack of standards and posted rules. No one is saying other people should be told who to trust. I am pointing out you have the ABILITY to take action, but you refuse to. Just because you know the rules as a moderator does not mean that everyone else is just magically as familiar with them as you are.

"Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks." Sorry to be the one to tell you, but this is exactly what the current trust system is. I don't have "faith" in the default trust list or the trust system itself. These are people, not Gods, and I don't worship at the alter of the default trust. People do fucked up things like humans do without a frame of reference known as rule of law to provide a clear line of what is and is not acceptable. Human beings are notorious for being able to justify very fucked up things without any outside forces checking them.

You know what your problem is? You confuse me not giving a shit if you like what I have to say with not having awareness of it. I don't blame staff for everything that happened, I blame them for not having any kind of posted or regularly enforced standards as well as not taking any responsibility for their own part in the disorder caused by the lack of clear rules. They enforce their own personally serving form of "justice", but if it doesn't personally serve them, then suddenly they have more important things to do and they are too busy, or are magically always looking the other way. There is nothing that complicated about it. It is just plain old self serving behavior and nepotism. I have answered many of the questions you are repeating again before in the past. You pretend like individuals who are also admins and staff some how can act as an individual without also being an admin or staff at the same time. This is just doublespeak and an excuse to quietly moderate the trust system while also pretending you don't overtly.

What exactly about me speaking critically about mods/admins/staff is so insulting and harassing? Because it might offend you, suddenly it means I am harassing you for having an opinion you don't agree with and not submitting to your viewpoint? Do you even read what you type? What I am saying makes plenty of sense, you are just very eager to do whatever mental gymnastics that are necessary for you to continue pretending like the points I raise aren't actually an issue.