Reasons why I or many rational persons wouldn't trade with someone:
- Trolling - I wouldn't attempt to trade with a known troll due to non-trade related deceptive behavior.
- Dishonesty/hypocrisy - Who would?
- General deceptive behavior.
- Many, many more..
According to his own statement, all of these are valid use of the ratings.
I think there is a difference between a "valid" use, and use appropriate for DefaultTrust.
I believe the guidelines are for trustworthy people and DefaultTrust. There were never any guidelines for non-DT members (for the old or the new system), you could send as many frivolous ratings as you've wanted.
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". I would argue that this kind of rating is useless and possibly harmful for DefaultTrust, or at least for my own trust network, which is what really matters.
I'd agree with you, but labeling deceptive behavior which is inherently a risk-factor when considering trading with someone and the dislike of lemons which is in no way related to trade (unless, you want to maybe sell lemons?) is really not a fair way to argue against this.
I think these overstretched interpretations of the effects of hypocrisy, trolling, etc on trading are not useful for my trust network and amount to using trust ratings against opinions. Others may think differently, the balance will determine how DT looks like,
1) I've given you examples proving that the correct use is as claimed in the previous DT system.
2) I've given you theymoses own quote which proves that the trust system requirements were weakened.
3) The logical conclusion following out of 1) and 2) is that any previous rating that was valid use, is now definitely valid use.
Still, you just shut it down. What options are left? I know of only of two, one of which you mentioned above. See below for elaboration.
You know very well as I do that nobody's complaining, no matter how
right/just/objectively correct their view is (and I'm not claiming any of one of these in my claim in this post), will be a waste of time when it's up against groups of DT1 members or friends in DT1 members (strongly arguing the opposite view, even if incorrect), etc. Also, we both know that any exclusions and inclusions are now heavily politicized (this was was not the case before). This is why I don't want to go around PM-ing DT1 members, hoping that they'll do the right thing as I'll be labeled as some shady/evil wrongdoer going behind the backs of others (not by you - this is just the
current state of affairs here). There, I'm stating this
ugly truth publicly.
The only remaining option is to ask an administrative authority, i.e. theymos to provide an elaborative opinion on his own guidelines. The same method as used above can be used to reject his opinion if it doesn't agree with your view. The former option is entirely useless, and shouldn't even be considered as it will backfire on the entity that tries it (yes, I've said it - this was always the case with most people sadly, back in my DT2 (old), DT1 (new) and new DT2 (new)).
I will be choosing the latter option which is not my preference due to its centralizing nature (but the system has spiraled from decentralization into a weird form of
nepotism-based democracy with selective judicial enforcement). He may answer, he may not. He may agree with me, he may not. It's evident that no evidence I bring forth or logically construed argument I use will change your mind on this. Therefore, I rest my case. Sorry for wasting everyone's time reading this whole exchange.
and I know better than trying to change your mind so this is a good opportunity to agree to disagree.
I've changed or am considering changing my mind on several things, including Quickseller, eddie, and so forth so I don't think this opinion of me is really fair.