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

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.

You can use neutral trust to label anyone any way you want. However if you use negative (red) trust you're clicking this:

Quote

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

So your trust rating should state and/or reference what makes trading with this person high-risk. Quite a few of your negative ratings posted this year (not going to 2018 - different trust system, different discussion) don't meet that criteria as far as I can see, including most recently TECSHARE's and Kalemder's ratings and I can't help but think the latter one is aimed at booting him out of the campaign. Not a good use of DT privileges.