@TECSHARE
after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.
i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.
thanks, onward and upward.....
Another good user falls victim to harassment and abuse for doing nothing more than speaking their mind.
I mean... that's certainly one interpretation. Another could be that users simply don't want to take your recommendations on who they should or shouldn't trust. If you had simply left it at the part where you said anyone could opt in as long as they follow the tenets and stopped there, perhaps people may have been more receptive to the idea. Each member could then form their own conclusions on who is and isn't following the guidelines and adjust their trust list accordingly.
But you had to go and "suggest" people exclude the users you don't personally trust. Then you act surprised or indignant when people infer that it looks like you're trying to reshape the trust system in a way that just so happens to cut out all the people you don't like.
I did ask:
How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?
And don't recall seeing it answered in your subsequent replies. So I can only conclude you don't actually want those particular users to be more objective, you just want to reduce the impact of their tags by encouraging other users to distrust them. I suppose you'll reply with more yet more indignation and claim that I'm being disingenuous for pointing out that funny little coincidence, but that's honestly how it looks.