Guidelines are not damn rules, they're guidelines. Not only does theymos give the guideline that it's OK to give trust for a person, not a trade, it's also not actually abuse of the system to use it for anything at all. The system allows anything to happen. You can decide not to trust the feedback of someone if you want, but that doesn't stop them from making the damn feedback. Grr.
Decentralizing the trust is good, but not when the GUI choice of red text
is centralized:
The only reason anyone cares about abuse of the Trust system, is because the database for it is interpreted in one centralized way by the GUI of the system.
Again I posit that my plans for a decentralized database (on a blockchain) for a Bitnet forum will remedy this problem, because we will all choose GUI clients which we want to choose. So the data will be displayed according to what people think it is rational. Thus of course nonsense data in the Trust system will not be highlighted as red by most participants clients.
Yoda says trust the decentralized Force, as it is the powerful ally of truth and production and the enemy of time wasting trolls, scammers, and other forms of waste.
The trust system is unmoderated and sucks. The red crap does not show on your avatar on right side of posts, when you are not posting to Altcoin Discussion.
You can not claim you have a decentralized system and that no moderation is necessary, when you have a centralized shitting on others by the fact that GUI is forced on everyone to be one way and that one way is to put really shitty read "
Do not trust this person" on their avatar when posting in Altcoin Discussion.
Since I and @kiklo were posting often in Altcoin Discussion (given we are altcoin developers), we did not like the fact that Bitcoin maximalists could put a red crap on our avatar in Altcoin Discussion.
We do not like the centralized shitting on altcoiners.If you had slaved away to develop an altcoin and then some idiot could put this
highly conspicuous "
Do not trust this person" by default on your avatar and digital reputation/identity that
everyone sees, then you also would not be happy about it and would not invest in BCT.
But am I wrong in saying that prophylactic trust feedback is a good thing?
If someone is known to have scammed someone, is it wrong to say that such an individual is a scammer?
Agreed that sharing information about others can be a good thing, but it needs to be entirely decentralized otherwise really abhorrent centralized outcomes manifest, as explained above.
Make a post in Altcoin Discussion and see what I did to your avatar because of this centralized decision to marry decentralized ratings with a centralized choice of shitting on avatars.
I understand the reason they put the shit on the avatar in Altcoin Discussion is that they thought altcoin discussion has more scams. But then it is no longer is congruent with an unmoderated Trust system. It is just improperly contemplated centralized design.
With a decentralized interpretation of Trust, then each user would in effect enable moderation of their choice on Trust ratings. So thus those users who think @Lauda is abusing the system by complaining about the way @kiklo posts, would tend to remove @Lauda from their trusted Trust raters list. Complaining about the way people debate and discuss in a Trust system is inane. Form decentralized groups for discussion instead (except there are no features for that on BCT). I too do not like the way @kiklo uses blue text when he replies thus trying to focus the readers eyes only on his posts (@Dorky is even worse as he embeds his blue text in the quotes he is replying to which is really discombobulating and difficult to quote). He doesn't do that occasionally but nearly always when he is agitated. I would delete his posts from my moderated view (and users who follow my moderation) when they contain that blue text. He would eventually learn not to do that in threads where I am the prominent moderator trusted by most of the readers. There are decentralized ways to anneal these issues without turning the Trust system into a clusterfuck of purposes for which it is not ideally suited.
(Now I understand that @kiklo is 84 years old and has chronic back pain, so that explains why he gets so agitated when he feels someone is wrong or offended his sensibilities. If he can find a way to improve his physical quality of life, probably he will be less agitated more often. I have some empathy and understanding for aging and chronic health problems+pain)
P.S. if you get the point and need me to remove it, just ask in PM. Having you ask is to impart upon you the inefficiency and lack of individual degrees-of-freedom of the current design of it.