No, you are just assuming values of a metric while not totally understanding the various reasons that metric might be the way it is. My point was this is something that would result as a standard trading marketplace behavior where trust often has to go both ways. Through building that trust, as the system was actually intended to do, you are then more likely to understand the user and their interactions increasing their chances of being trustworthy.
When you add somebody to your trust list, it doesn't mean you (just) trust somebody with money. It means you trust they will leave proper feedback and will add the right users to their own trust list.
If you'd trust somebody with money then leave positive trust. I'm just reading
what I quoted. It's very clear.
Probably we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
But as you put it I am wrong, and by default you are right and your highness is above such discussions of their relations to the actual social dynamics of the forum relating to trust lists. You have fun with your finger wagging.
This kind of useless words are the ones I ask you to avoid using to interact with me and the ones I tend to ignore. I hope it's clear now.
Again, you are only interested in your own definitions for what trust is and how it should be decided and totally ignoring the reality that some times (but not always) if some one is reputable in trade, that is to say they do what they say they will do when money is involved, it is representative of their ability to leave honest ratings. By you pretending this is invalid and wrong, yes, you are precisely telling me which metrics I should use to gauge trust and applying moral values to them. Keep wagging that finger your highness.