It's TECSHARE. Do you really think I would make it up? What a fucking tool.
i didn't think you made it up. i didn't want to waste hours of my time (tracking down feedback ratings from 2015!) for the sake of substantiating
your claim.
Let's now see the next level of weaseling you will engage in to avoid taking responsibility.
do 2 ratings from 5 years ago imply that he is
regularly ignoring the standards? serious question.
anyway, i've already been trying to discuss this specific issue over and over:
i'm trying to flesh out a complex issue and i'm asking for guidance about it from people in this thread, given the stated goals in the OP and the current power dynamics in the trust system. you are clearly putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position. you're also ignoring these points in the OP, which i agree with, and which leave room for
some level of grey area---not nearly as much grey area as the current system, but some nonetheless:
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
3. Users who regularly and repeatedly ignore these standards should be excluded from trust lists.
i also think theymos made a good point when he said this, which i'm trying to reconcile with my view of how the trust system should be used:
A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.
This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.)
you keep straw manning my position to be completely inflexible and black-and-white. i've shown that it's anything but.
i said i agree with the stated principles of the Objective Standards Guild and that i strive to work towards them. those principles, as stated above, say that accusations without documentation should be
minimal (=/= non-existent), and that
regular offenders should be excluded.
let's try this in reverse. you're including someone who posts unreferenced feedback like this:
This guy is just a total fool. Like an annoying housefly he needs to be swatted out of here.
who left that feedback, and do you think that's proper usage of the trust system?
Ah shit, well, throw them out of your guild at once then.
so you can hold me to completely faultless/impeccable standards re trust inclusions (which i actually never agreed to---see above), but you don't care
in the slightest about trust abuse in your own inclusions?