Some users agreeing to exclude certain users (privately or publicly) isn't any kind of gang nor retaliation.
That straw-man is not my argument.
Doesn't matter, needed to put that out there before trolls bring a bandwagon.
However, why would you exclude someone just because they exclude you especially given that you agree with most of their feedback?
frivolous and unprincipled to some extent
Somebody can be a good person for 99.99% of their life, but then one day they decide to murder some old woman; why would you convict someone given that you live
mostly the same life?
That's quite an extreme example, isn't it?
My point is that the disagreements that are there can be fundamental or show a lack of principles. If somebody I have known on a friendly basis suddenly distrusts me without explanation, then that person is not somebody I can trust the judgement of. Being unwilling to explain your actions is usually a good sign that there is something about them your'e unwilling to stand next to. I'm not saying that's the case here, because it's been hectic and I am patient.
What I am saying though is if somebody is unwilling to explain why they distrust you and you have had nothing but positive interactions with that person, then there is no way you're going to trust the judgement of that individual.
I think you are taking an trust list exclusion too personal and wrong. Just because they exclude you, that doesn't mean that they distrust you. Maybe they distrust your list, maybe they distrust your judgement (
note: you can be in a relatively good relationship with someone without trusting their judgement). Besides, you shouldn't exclude
all of their included users and sent ratings just because you think 1 isn't proper. Even if you strongly believe that is not right, it would be within a margin of acceptable error anyways.
they don't owe you an explanation just as you wouldn't owe anyone one.
Correct, but without one I am only able to conclude that they have done so without reason. This
would lead me to distrust their ratings; how many other exclusions, inclusions or even ratings are without reason?
This is not a logical conslusion but an emotional response.
Then when I come to this conclusion and exclude them, the assumption would be revenge and retaliation when I am doing the only rational thing.
No. Excluding someone back just for the sake of it isn't a rational response (again, it's an emotional one). Psychology is fun.
So you honestly believe that someone's opinion of you should hold no bearing on your opinion of them? Please correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds wild. We can argue semantics, and you very well may be right, but I am more interested in the principles.
If there is basis (e.g. not outright lies, etc.) for their opinion (and in a perfect world..), no. You should try to keep it as objective as possible.
People are going to be afraid to exclude when they are being accused of retaliation for legitimately distrusting the trust-network of another user.
In almost all cases, the only reason for excluding someone just after you've figured out that they've excluded you is in fact retaliation. This does open a problem where user 1 might have been contemplating to exclude user 2 for some time now. However, user 1 has gotten excluded by user 2. User 1 might be afraid to react (as you've mentioned above).
New DT2 members
Gavin Andresen
Not this again.
Stop including people that probably don't even know that the trust system exists. Thanks.