...so this is a good opportunity to agree to disagree.
Though that was addressed to Lauda, it is disingenuous whereas you are arguing with Lauda over what you said here:
...I countered the rating nonetheless and will exclude nullius if that red trust remains.
Agree to disagree is exactly what I would tell you (and
have, in essence told you) when you express to me your opinion about the proper standard for negative feedback. But you are not agreeing to disagree.
I think there is a difference between a "valid" use, and use appropriate for DefaultTrust.
And how? ~ exists precisely for the purpose excluding people who make
invalid use of the trust system,
i.e. persons with poor judgment; and inclusions exist precisely for the purpose of categorically endorsing someone elses trust decisions as valid.
I'm pretty sure you can red-trust someone for disliking lemons and stretch the interpretation of "high risk" to mean that dislike of a fruit makes trading said fruits with the person "high-risk".
You are shifting the goalposts (and it is not the first time that I have seen you do that in an argument).
The question here is not what people
can do.
Reductio ad absurdum, I
can issue negative feedback to Lauda with PROOF that she is a WITCH (
Reference
She turned me into a newt.). Feedback is unmoderated. But the predictable result is that any sane person would ~nullius.
Dont state the obvious fact that people
can do anything with trust feedback, when we are discussing your express support for TECSHAREs demand of ~nullius on grounds that I am supporting good tags by Lauda and Vod.
To avoid waste of time, I will not reach other fallacies in your argument.suchmoon, with candour and not hostility, I must observe that at this point, the only reason why I dont immediately ~suchmoon is that I will not join you in grandstanding over a pet issue in some way that backfires against big-picture, important objectives. You are sharp in investigations, and you issue (usually) good tags within your own narrow standards; your downfall would be celebrated by exactly the types of characters who are cheering you in this thread. Thus, although I think that you are showing poor judgment in this thread, I prefer, if practicable, to take the high road and avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by obsessing over one tree in the foresteven if I am admittedly enough peeved to be tossing out
awful mixed metaphors. (Sorry, folks.) And I encourage others to think likewise.