Quote from: The Pharmacist on February 20, 2020, 10:06:54 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 20, 2020, 08:33:50 PM

unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags.

I don't know what box I fit into, but my understanding has always been that red trust is for shady behavior/scams, and inclusions/exclusions are to be used to express confidence in another member's judgement as far as their leaving feedback. That might not be others' understanding, of course.

the contention is around what constitutes "shady behavior". for example, i posted a link earlier ITT of a case of DT2 negative trust where the only evidence provided was the victim's trust list. that seems like outright trust abuse, but it's become acceptable now.

nobody seems to be able to say what standards even exist for the trust system at all. really, there are none. it's a "might makes right" system where combating trust abuse is incredibly difficult due to the forces of inertia.

my theory: nobody on DT wants to "rock the boat" and step out of line because they know how commonplace retaliatory tags and retaliatory trust exclusions are, and they don't want to lose their status/reputation. it's much easier to brush the issue under the rug and act like trust abuse doesn't exist. nobody wants to directly antagonize trust abusers either, for obvious reasons.

it's a shitty situation but one we find ourselves in nonetheless. this is why i encourage anyone and everyone to begin using customized trust lists, so we can perhaps establish a new consensus that might better represent public opinion.

Quote from: suchmoon on February 20, 2020, 10:50:54 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 20, 2020, 10:22:47 PM

"established" means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact.

You used "established" as a verb but linked to a dictionary definition of an adjective.

indeed, i used "established" as a verb and then you mischaracterized it to mean an "established fact".

still a mischaracterization: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish

and who the fuck cares about this? you've yet to address why you are continuing to distract from the discussion with this completely unimportant tangent.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 20, 2020, 10:47:50 PM

If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me. You are all free to include and exclude people you choose to, no explanations needed because it is your right to do it as you please. When I include and exclude people it is proof of trust system manipulation. Whatever serves your preferred narrative best is what you go with, reality be damned. What is important is you just keep throwing shit at a trust page until something sticks. You take the target and arrange the facts around the goal, you don't examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on it.

+1