Quote from: amishmanish on January 30, 2020, 04:49:38 PM

Suchmoon has been through most of that drama and has found refuge into simplifying the system. "Trust is only for trade, easy-peasy".

This is untrue. Yes, I oppress criminals and dishonest people. Can't scam anymore and cheat the systems with your account? Boo fucking hoo. It's a system of trust not a system of trade. My rating on TECSHARE Is not going anywhere and will be rewritten, expanded as more deceptive and untrustworthy behavior occurs. I may need to open a whole thread because there are too many references as is, let alone in the coming future.

Closing remarks:

Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2020, 12:59:27 PM

They are just that, examples, which serve as evidence for the claim that the introduction of the flag system/change in the trust-system had to have had a weakening effect on the requirements and not the other way around. I have spent time looking for some examples rather than telling you "Hey look at all the years until now" in hope that you see how things really always were.

Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2020, 02:22:56 PM

The only remaining option is to ask an administrative authority, i.e. theymos to provide an elaborative opinion on his own guidelines..
I will be choosing the latter option..

This claim is now also backed up by theymos. Therefore, I hope that people start spreading this to be the truth and not the reverse (that the requirement for negatives is stricter now - because it is not!).

Quote from: theymos on January 29, 2020, 05:54:04 PM

Yes, the threshold for negatives was weakened. On the rating form, it says: "Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk." (Pre-flags, it used to say something much stronger.) So if for any reason you think that trading with the person is high-risk, then a negative rating may be warranted. (This does exclude giving negative trust just because you dislike them or their opinions, though, since that has nothing to do with trading.)

I fully agree on this, trolling on itself it's sufficient especially not occasional instances of trolling (labeling occasional and consistent trolls as one would be wrong). Also keep in mind the distinction between "their opinions" and having an opinion about somebody i.e. their trustworthiness based on their actions.

Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2020, 12:59:27 PM

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..

However, it also confirms that deceptive behavior is in fact more than appropriate for a negative because it relates to a person's trustworthiness - and that's related to trading. Now, some people might take a illogical route and argue that trolling itself is deceptive behavior. Sure, you can look at it like that. I can also say that stating that the Earth is flat is deceptive. However, that would be moving the goalposts just for the sake of destroying the argument (as we're talking about actual deceptive behavior) and a display of behavior you should not be tagging for - re: opinions on subjects (which is different from slander/libel/etc. - see quote again).
Some people may seemingly misunderstand my rating on OP, but that's because they already have a conclusion about it before reading it. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of his opinion or his trolling (for which he's long overdue for a ban). That's irrelevant.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 29, 2020, 05:59:38 PM

Exclusions aren't personal attacks, simply a disagreement of opinions, and sometimes a compromise in an imperfect system.

That is how it should be, but is not how the state of things are unfortunately. Most of the time they are seen as personal attacks. How many times did someone get excluded because they first excluded the other person?

That would be it. I'd appreciate that nobody wastes my time by either replying to me, or PM-ing me links to inside this thread. I'll be doing my best to ignore it as it's fruitless.