Post
Topic
Board Meta
Re: DefaultTrust changes
by
bill gator
on 14/01/2019, 19:20:10 UTC
Which promotes gang-like retaliatory exclusions [1] (the first case is TheFuzzStone, who only excluded TMAN and suchmoon because they excluded him (for legitimate reasons)).

I feel like this is already going on and these changes actively work against it. For example, TMAN and owlcatz have excluded me without explanation even though I have reached out for one via PM. I'm conflicted whether or not to exclude them, because aside from their surprising and sudden exclusion of myself we have had nothing but positive interactions and even transactions (with owlcatz). Most of their feedback, in fact almost all of it I can agree with wholeheartedly. I am failing to find a legitimate reason for them to have done so, and so I am only able to conclude that their trust-list seems to be frivolous and unprincipled to some extent until further explanation is provided. I am giving these users the benefit of the doubt at the moment, and hoping they provide me with an explanation at some point, because I have never had a problem with them.

As per the OP, retaliation is not welcome. Therefore, I'm unsure what's theymoses game theory reason for allowing this.

I think there is justification behind excluding somebody that excludes you. Unless you are distrusting of yourself and approve of their exclusion, how can you do anything other than disagree with their exclusion? Once you realize that you disagree vehemently with their trust-network, it makes perfect sense to exclude that person from your own trust-network. All of this is assuming you disagree with their reasoning to exclude you in the first place, but in rare circumstances there is agreement and accountability from the excluded that wouldn't be appropriate in most cases. Self-Defense is different from retaliation, is it not?