Quote from: suchmoon on December 03, 2019, 09:53:28 PM

This new bizarre DT1 seems to be going in the opposite way than the "fear of retaliation" idea expressed in the OP. The chances of someone being excluded are decreasing significantly with more new members joining. Correspondingly the chances of retaliatory feedback from less-rational members are increasing, whereas more-rational members would refrain from retaliating. Or are we supposed to use red trust in retaliation? Red doesn't really matter that much after the first one, since there is no red warning and no exponential score anymore.

I think retaliation is "tacky" and not the best first method of resolution..

Even if you have been wronged, retaliating with negative trust that is also wrong or unfounded, is also wrong..
2 wrongs don't make a right..

However I think "This user abuses the trust system" in retaliation to trust abuse, is probably correct..
But I still think it would be somewhat "tacky" if it is seen as retaliation..

I think the new trust system should balance out by DT observers kicking out trust abusers, without the abused having to retaliate at all..
The centralization of merit as it relates to DT is what I think is disrupting this favorable outcome..

Quote from: marlboroza on December 04, 2019, 01:59:23 PM

@Theymos don't you think it is good time to blacklist some people from default trust network, for example accounts who are including scammers to their trust list?

And clear trust abusers, and possibly those including clear trust abusers on their lists..