i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. either way, you're bizarrely blowing that out of proportion
Yes, it was unreasonable because
you blew it out of proportion, repeatedly (millions of members),
after nutildah had already stated what he meant. I take it that's another one of those standards where you get to talk shit but melt down when someone dares to call you out on it.
it wasn't a conspiracy theory. it was a comment about the current makeup of DT and how the trust system is intended to work.
You said scam busters or whoever it was voted each other into DT, with no proof of any kind, when a more plausible explanation is available. So yeah, a conspiracy theory. I understand why you'd want to backpedal from that too but it's kinda hard to ignore it seeing how you built a whole mountain of bullshit on top of it.
i intend to, thanks. since you've decided to obscure who you're talking about, i can't immediately review the account or references.
For such a vocal trust abuse fighter you're incredibly dense when it comes to the actual use (and abuse) of the trust system. So you didn't review the people you added to your trust list? How did you pick them? Based on nice words they said?
This guild is just brilliant, and getting better by the day.
both feedbacks appear to have been left after alleged trust abuse, which raises another important question:
part of the issue i'm struggling with regarding my trust list inclusions is the existing status quo---DT trust abuse is rampant, but the wrongfully accused or those who stand against DT trust abuse are generally silenced (within the trust system) by DT1 exclusions. in other words, abusive DT tags stand but the other side is effectively silenced.
in the face of trust abuse, i would obviously prefer the community work together to ostracize the abusers, but this is a long term process at best, and no doubt an uphill battle. in the interim, what seems acceptable re inclusions? let's take the example of a user whose feedback and trust inclusions we generally agree with, but who may have responded in-kind to perceived trust abuse with a negative tag. should we attempt to silence such people? that seems to put current victims of trust abuse at a great disadvantage.
Nice pretzel trying to justify more trust abuse. Eye for an eye, what could possibly go wrong. Quit looking for excuses or wipe your trust list if it's becoming too hard for you to grasp your own standards.
@suchmoon, please respect that i'm just attempting to participate in a discussion about the topic. i should be able to discuss trust system standards without constantly defending myself from your off-topic personal attacks virtually every time i post. i am sure you are capable of responding to my position or questions without engaging in ad hominem attacks. i'd really appreciate that, thanks.
Could've fooled me.