Quote from: Vod on February 20, 2020, 08:34:32 PM

Techy tries to remove me from DT for five years.
but also
Techy says my posts are the best thing on this forum.

I guess when masturbating, when you get that special feeling you tend to lose logic. :/

You seem to be rather obsessed with me masturbating. A bit weird, but ok.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 06, 2015, 09:59:38 AM

Once again VOD has gone too far and has now left me negative trust because he did not like the fact I criticized his abuse of the trust system. In order to prove he does not abuse the trust system he has abused the trust system to leave me a negative rating:

Vod 16: -0 / +9(9) 2015-01-06 0.00000000 "Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.

Not trustworthy."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15728

My goal was not to have you removed from the default trust list until now...

If you don't like me advocating for your removal from the default trust list, maybe don't abuse your authority under it. Your years long pattern of abusing it are well documented in the quoted thread. I don't know how you find the time to post here frankly, I figured you would be busy trying to extort OGNasty into apologizing to you, for something you do regularly I might add. I guess felonies are ok here though, as long as your name is Vod.

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.

I don't think the gun control analogy is useful honestly, as there are a lot of other factors here far beyond self defense vs "public safety".

Ideally, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately as the trust system stands, it doesn't take into account these avenues of abuse very well. Since people can't be trusted to not abuse this system, and clearly are not willing to hold people accountable when they abuse it, then the system itself is broken and needs to be changed. Requiring a base standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws I think is the most efficient and realistic way to modify the system for the best results.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 20, 2020, 08:41:58 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 20, 2020, 08:15:22 PM

My point is that people acting so recklessly they don't take simple precautions and do minimal amounts of research, such as reading neutral ratings, will eventually be robbed.

And my point is that just because some people will eventually be robbed doesn't mean the entire system is useless. Some people will drive recklessly and eventually kill themselves in a car accident. Doesn't mean we should all stop wearing seat belts.

I would still like you to provide some examples of this:

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 20, 2020, 07:54:32 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 20, 2020, 06:08:33 PM

Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors.

You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system.

Now all you are doing is ignoring the point I made, yet again, and opting to repeat your point, as if that some how makes it less of a straw man argument. You aren't making a retort to my point, you are simply repeating your point, again, without addressing mine.

Once again, the people who are most likely to fall for the cons you think you might protect them from, are the same people that will in fact be robbed regardless of how many people you tag. No one said anything about the entire system being useless. This is just yet another straw man argument on your part. I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences.

As far as your car analogy, it is not an honest one. You compare your position to putting on a seat belt vs not because some people drive recklessly. A more appropriate analogy would be people running around and slashing the tires of anyone they think is driving recklessly. Sure, maybe it might keep some reckless drivers off the road temporarily, but they can quickly just get new tires, and now we have to live in a culture where it is ok for people to run around slashing tires as long as they can make up some lofty pretext to justify it. What could go wrong there?