when I returned to the forum, it took me all of three days to predict the long-term catastrophic failure of the new, democratic DT (my own term, BTW, which I am thrilled to see Lauda seems to have taken up :-):
Maybe Theymos can think of some better idea to stop and prevent 'more abuse dt wars'
It's not fun at all.
Well, I infer that was his purpose in neutering the effect of feedback, and essentially
democratizing DT in a convoluted way.
My prediction as to the latter is that it will destroy the trust system. In the long term, it will put DT under control of those who optimize for gaining control of DT by any means necessary, and devote unbounded time and effort to doing so. That is a bad criterion. As for cleaning up these sordid threads, it will backfire and will escalate, not quash the perpetual DT wars: Demagogues, agitprop, and negative campaign ads thrive in such a system.
Underlined: Perfect for TECSHARE! But I was expecting itthis, I was expecting in the long term.
The following was neither sour grapes nor mere idle talk, whereas I had spent the previous few weeks thinking about my own above-quoted prediction and the problem of democratic DT:
Since my life is too valuable to waste on flamewars with no objective other than arguing on the Internet, the worst that can happen (the worstfrom your [suchmoons] perspective) is that I decide that the DT system is broken by design, I mostly withdraw from Reputation in favour of more productive tasks, and meanwhile, I think about perhaps some long-term way to make the forum trust system obsolete. Cypherpunks write code.
But that was addressed to suchmoon, who is the real problem on this thread. I know how you feel about that, Vod; and I do not want to downtalk your friend to you. Please do understand that I must be forthright; and when the first eight pages of this thread are viewed objectively, it is clear that I have cause to say what I have said, and to say more of it.
Speaking thereof, I half-drafted a reply to suchmoons latest snarky one-liner. I will finish it and post it later. For now, as a priority, I am replying at some length to make it unequivocally clear to you, Vod, that (1) I refrain from replying to TECSHAREs drivel because it is drivel, not for any lack of confidence in tags that, as you will note, I am still firmly supporting; and, (2) I am unimpressed at TECSHAREs attempt to coerce your supporters. Some of the names on his hate-list look mighty tough to me. I doubt that they will throw you under the bus to appease TECSHARE, of all creatures (!); and if they do, I hope that others will step up to support you.*
* It seems apropos to remark that, as I have stated somewhere in other threads, my own inclusions list is extremely picky. How picky? I do not include theymosthats how picky.
Vod was one of the obvious choices for a shortlist of candidates for inclusion. After whittling the names down, I left him off my trust list for relatively trivial reasons of my own, irrelevant to TECSHAREs criticisms of him. I will not say what, because I dont want to give TECSHARE any ammo. I reconsider such things from time to time, anyway.