Remember you have come this far, don't run away now. Stay until we have finished the public debate.
Still waiting for confirmation of Theymos as arbitrator.
But I don't mind answering those three questions.
1. Do you or have you in the last 3 months included on your trust list lauda, tman or nutildah and do they include or have they included you in the last 3 months? Please answer in full
All publicly viewable:
https://loyce.club/trust/2019-11-02_Sat_07.33h/897509.htmlhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtviewNutildah and Tman are on my trust list.
I don't know Lauda well. Lauda has never been on my trust list and Lauda has not trusted me.
I do communicate with Lauda at times and the information they have sent to me has always been reliable.
There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Lauda but I don't expect everyone to always agree with my opinion.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Tman was added to my list around August. I had issues with the zeroaxl issue (I did not follow it completely) which was very poor judgement but
in my opinion not with malicious intent. His work on resolving the Russian issue made me regain faith in his ability to work through issues.
A lot of things happen behind the scenes that determine whether I do or do not trust someone.
I believe that Tman has always had me on his trust list but I didn't check.
Tman is a dick
sometimes. But I believe his heart is in the right place and he is sometimes exactly what is needed.
I consider myself to be a moderate libertarian with liberal tendencies. I try to work with other opinions. Sometimes I learn new things from people with different opinions. Sometimes we just agree to disagree.
And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation.
Nutildah has been on my trust list since January. I did not know Nutildah at the time he offered his account for sale.
2. Do you accept that the purpose of negative trust is to place a warning of " financially high risk" or " scammer" ( since those are the 2 messages you get at the top of your threads if you meet certain thresholds theymos has set here for negative trust (old system) or flags (new system)). This is the PRIME and central reason for the negative trust and flagging systems. These are clearly theymos's intentions since they are his own words on the warning banners?
I agree with the wording used by Theymos. This is what Theymos said:
You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
3. Is someone that lies or intentionally deceives others for their own direct financial gain .. a scammer and financially high risk? yes or no?
Whether something constitutes a lie or is deceptive is sometimes subjective.
Each situation has to be judged on its merits.
For instance - having an alt account(1)
and denying that it is an alt account (2) if that account has negative trust (3) that is a form of scamming.
In my opinion placing negative feedback require several important factors to be considered:
1)
In my opinion - is this person involved consistently in deceptive conduct.
2)
In my opinion - is this person unlikely to stop their conduct.
3)
In my opinion - could this conduct result in the financial harm to other forum users. (Includes scamming and defamation)
4)
In my opinion - can a rating potentially prevent such conduct.
My tagging principles are based on
my interpretation of
Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT We have so many threads like this nowadays, people twerking for merits.
There are a lot of pointless "summarize something obvious" posts, but IMO btcsmlcmnr's summary added something.
Forgiveness and de-escalation are key to getting Trust working smoothly:
-
Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the
future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
-
De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.
I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.
In particular, in my view:
- Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
- Giving negative trust for merit trading and
deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
- It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to
this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an
untrustworthy person. DT selection is
meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture
somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.