Quote from: nullius on January 29, 2020, 04:07:05 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 03:46:44 AM

Quote from: nullius on January 29, 2020, 03:29:29 AM

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's incorrect. I didn't say that every trade deserves feedback or that trust ratings must be based on trades, and I don't believe the wording on the trust page requires that. Positive or negative trust ratings may be based on other facts as long as you can show either that the person is unlikely to scam or that trading with the person is high-risk. A successful 0.00001 BTC trade may not mean the person is unlikely to scam. A successful 1 BTC via escrow may not mean the person is unlikely to scam. Someone impersonating another user may be deemed high-risk preemptively.

Thank you for clarifying.

What about somebody who has malicious, dishonest motives other than simply outright stealing money? For a concrete example, I have oft observed (including earlier on this thread!) that high-intelligence scum usually prefer becoming politicians, lawyers, bankers, etc. to being low-grade scammers or street criminals.

Many such people will execute perfectly correct trades with youeven for millions or billions of dollars. Is it wrong for me to label some large, perhaps large majority subset of that group as untrustworthy and likely to harm people?

That is only a conceptual example, for the purpose of illustrating my pointthough I must observe that in DT politics, TECSHAREs general behaviour is what would be expected of a moderately shrewd low-grade political jobber.

AKA, I disagree with you and you don't like it, and you are willing to use the trust system as a tool of retribution for daring to disagree.