Quote from: nutildah on February 21, 2020, 07:49:25 AM

Quote from: nutildah on February 20, 2020, 04:21:25 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on February 19, 2020, 01:03:21 PM

You had me until here.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on February 19, 2020, 04:08:06 PM

I don't care to make this about me when it's so obviously all about you.

Quote from: nutildah on February 19, 2020, 05:32:02 PM

LOL.

Quote from: marlboroza on February 20, 2020, 02:36:36 PM

What the hell is this?

Quote from: Vod on February 20, 2020, 07:19:23 PM

Techy is hypocritical, like Greta.

Oh, now that Vod is here, we have everybody I think TS has named as being part of the Clown Car. However, the definition is still open to including every DT member that potentially pisses off TS at some point.

Quote from: HCP on February 20, 2020, 08:53:53 PM

This whole debate looks very much like the "Pro-Guns vs Anti-Guns" debate...

Guns have legitimate uses
Guns can be used for non-legitimate purposes

Trust Ratings have legitimate uses
Trust Ratings can be used for "non-legitimate" purposes

From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.

Are there not methods to deal with users who are misusing trust? That is to say, exclusions/DT 'voting' etc? Perhaps it is these methods of "checks and balances" that need to be examined and/or modified if they are not proving effective.

This is a very rational assessment. However, the different of opinion we have is when it comes to defining what "misuse" of trust means. Some times its quite clear cut; other times its not. I don't care for the whole randomness factor (the "Theymos Snap" as I call it) that determines who is an entrant into DT1 each month, but other than that, I think the system of "checks and balances" works decently well and is likely not going to get much better than it currently is.

Now of course TS and perhaps others are going to say that I like it as is because it "favors" me, but I'd like to think it only does so because my use of the system remains within the general bounds of what is considered to be acceptable.

The whole point of the system remaining open and flexible in its current state is to allow the DT community (which is frequently evolving) as a whole to decide what acceptable use of the trust system is. Of course, not everybody is going to agree on everything, and there will always exist minority and majority opinions, as should be the case.

I tend to go by what is listed here, which is an outline developed around previously-held discussions, and then modified after ongoing discussions in that thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

I am absolutely against setting rigid standards because then we are reliant on a single entity to set and enforce said standards, which is something theymos has been trying to get away from for quite some time.

That is not actually true, and the statement is not supported by any argument that would stand up to scrutiny.

The would still be no reliance upon a single entity. It is quite within the capabilities of most members here to correctly differentiate between behaviors that are a direct financial danger either scamming, attempting to scam or setting up a scam and those others like drinking lemonade, and having different opinions to other people, calling people a twat, etc.

I think claiming we will need theymos to tell us every time a lemonade drinker, a person with unpopular opionions, or any other behavior that is totally unrelated to trading, money, direct financial matters of any kind ia not a direct financial danger is incorrect.

Also what theymos is aiming for or attempting, should not be conflated with that which is proven best or optimal for the forum. So the theymos said, theymos wants, theymos hinted are not immediately to be accepted as the final and best answers or solutions. I'm sure he would agree. One person can not be expected to come up with the optimal solution to all problems. We are decentralizing the problem solving process here or perhaps distributing the process.

Also a single entity Making the decision alone that future decisions with in his system He designed alone are optimally formed in a decentralized manner Is full of problems for those trying to leverage that as some totally decentralized and credible final argument of absolute guarantee of must-be-right-right.