Re: DT1 users abusing their power to increase their own trust
Do DT members get some sort of guidelines sent to them by theymos when they are added to DT1? Blazed mentioned theymos said "Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback", which makes sense to me, but I'm seeing a few comments here which seem to imply DT members are being added based on trades, in general. DT1/DT2 members leaving positive trust for someone is what I would see as someone saying "I trust this person, based on this particular trade/reason/comment".
nonnakip should have just gotten positive trust, and maybe multiple, based on various work or trades with Og/Nasty*. I feel like Og's response to nonnakip being added to DT2 may just be "Well, I trust him!".. which he may, but does the inclusion of nonnakip help the DT network, no. Does it hurt it? Short-term probably no, long-term may be debatable. Unless there are specific guidelines sent to DT1 members like Og* specifically stating all of this, it seems tough to deem this "DT abuse". Maybe I've missed it but I'm not sure I've ever really seen any public guidelines involving DT1 members and why they should or should not be adding people to DT2.
It seems like the real question to be asked for inclusion by DT1 members is "Do I trust this persons feedback and/or judgement of other members on this forum?" If the person has not left feedback for others, there is nothing to go off of. Even if the person added has left good feedback on eBay and gives you good feedback on your product/services directly, it doesn't mean they are going to have useful or accurate feedback on this forum towards other members, and so while they may be trustworthy to you, I'm not sure they are beneficial to the DefaultTrust network which serves an important niche of the community.
As for centralization/decentralization of DT. It makes me nervous to think of many more DT1 or DT2 members being added to the DT network as a way to decentralize it, as I believe this increases the percentage of shadiness/scams that may occur within DT, and DT-level shadiness IMO is the worst kind because of the power it creates, whether the power was intended or not - it exists, and higher-level scams may likely occur more often when those percentages of DT members suddenly increase. Adding more DT members in the name of decentralization feels like a double-edged sword to me.
They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why. So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network. That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.
It would be nice to hear theymos clarify what he meant when he referred to the DT network becoming centralized, as maybe I have misinterpreted this. My take was that centralization of power was occurring around the activity level of a handful of DT members, as opposed to being related to the count of DT members. Additions and/or exclusions may need to happen, but educated decisions in a slow and controlled manner.. not just add a bunch of new DT1/DT2 members and say we are more decentralized now.
nonnakip should have just gotten positive trust, and maybe multiple, based on various work or trades with Og/Nasty*. I feel like Og's response to nonnakip being added to DT2 may just be "Well, I trust him!".. which he may, but does the inclusion of nonnakip help the DT network, no. Does it hurt it? Short-term probably no, long-term may be debatable. Unless there are specific guidelines sent to DT1 members like Og* specifically stating all of this, it seems tough to deem this "DT abuse". Maybe I've missed it but I'm not sure I've ever really seen any public guidelines involving DT1 members and why they should or should not be adding people to DT2.
It seems like the real question to be asked for inclusion by DT1 members is "Do I trust this persons feedback and/or judgement of other members on this forum?" If the person has not left feedback for others, there is nothing to go off of. Even if the person added has left good feedback on eBay and gives you good feedback on your product/services directly, it doesn't mean they are going to have useful or accurate feedback on this forum towards other members, and so while they may be trustworthy to you, I'm not sure they are beneficial to the DefaultTrust network which serves an important niche of the community.
As for centralization/decentralization of DT. It makes me nervous to think of many more DT1 or DT2 members being added to the DT network as a way to decentralize it, as I believe this increases the percentage of shadiness/scams that may occur within DT, and DT-level shadiness IMO is the worst kind because of the power it creates, whether the power was intended or not - it exists, and higher-level scams may likely occur more often when those percentages of DT members suddenly increase. Adding more DT members in the name of decentralization feels like a double-edged sword to me.
Og said this about nonnakip, not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation:
I removed nonnakip from my trust settings. I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.
They are trying to stir up trouble and don't care about facts, that's why. So far all this thread managed to accomplish is to have a few people removed from the DT network. That makes this thread an epic fail as we should be decentralizing the trust network, not making it more exclusive.
It would be nice to hear theymos clarify what he meant when he referred to the DT network becoming centralized, as maybe I have misinterpreted this. My take was that centralization of power was occurring around the activity level of a handful of DT members, as opposed to being related to the count of DT members. Additions and/or exclusions may need to happen, but educated decisions in a slow and controlled manner.. not just add a bunch of new DT1/DT2 members and say we are more decentralized now.