Excessive confidence and absolutism may make you seem smart when you are correct, but when you are eventually and inevitably wrong it doesn't leave much room to correct yourself or save face..
Your premise of excessive confidence and absolutism is incorrectas is your assumption that I do not correct myself when I err (as inevitably occurs sometimes in mortal humans). You dont know me very well, to rather understate the matter. But the point is moot, for I am not wrong
here.
[Substantive edit: ...except in an embarrassing typographic error and inadequate proofreading in the topic title. Err though I did, I do know how to spell quelle. I hereby apologize to France. See? I correct myself.]
4. You mean all your frivolous positives you have received for non-trade related subjects?
This is incorrect. People are more likely to be actually trustworthy based on these long-standing ratings (i.e. continued display of X) rather than someone who just farms up with pajeet trade-deals.
People really need to learn how to exercise caution when giving out positives.^^^ THIS. The facile granting of positive trust shows the worst
poor judgment short of actual malice. That is no grand discovery on my part: It merely ancient wisdom of the type once upon a time called common sense. Any intelligent person over the age of 30 knows IRL to damn well distrust the judgment of people who trust others with foolish, childish ease. And on the forum, ~ exists for exactly this purpose.
I find it interesting that, objectively applied, suchmoons proposed standard (
which, pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding, is just that and no more!) will allow either positive or negative feedback based on a 0.00001 BTC tradebut will disallow any feedback at all based on such non-trading-related honest or dishonest behaviour as can have an extraordinary real impact, for good or for ill.
That aside, part of the deeper problem here is that the Reputation forum is dominated by those who are most vocal about trust decisions that they dislike. Those
mostly fall into two categories: Principled people, and whiners who got smacked with well-deserved negative trust. Now, which of those will complain about lightly-given positive feedback? And which group is far more numerous?
As an aside, reading through this thread it struck me that we haven't heard from CH/TOAA ever since he promised to leave the forum--or I may have missed their posts, but I don't think I did. Hooray for that but boo for all of this other drama.
Indeed. TECSHARE will not hereby exercise even the slightest influence over my actionsnot directly, and not indirectly. However, given some unexpected help, he has inadvertently succeeded at wasting my time that I had allocated for
important tasks.
Now please, lets not insult each others intelligence with I know youre smarter than that backhanded compliments.
That was genuine. I do think you're smart. Smarter than me most likely although that's not saying much. Don't let a disagreement make everything I say look suspicious.
I duly apologize if I misinterpreted you amidst a spirited debate.
As to the subject in itself, I do not care to argue it further. My position is clear, and will not change. If you choose to exclude me over that, then I will look to see if you
consistently exclude others on the same basis as you state; and I will be very sorry that
DT manipulator TECSHARE managed to troll you into helping assuage his fear of what will happen to poor, oppressed scammers and other wrongdoers if/when Nullius the Terrible gets into DT.
Anything else I could say to your latest post would be a rehash of what I have already said.