Quote from: DooMAD on June 21, 2020, 10:32:19 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2020, 11:17:58 PM

What we have isn't a "trust system" is it a "popularity system". It is amazing how desperate people like you are to make this about me while you simultaneously chastise for making it about me when I attempt to defend myself.

You are making it about you. People use the trust system to decide whose ratings they want to include and exclude, as they're perfectly entitled to do. Then you complain that everything they're doing is because they don't like you and that there should be rules in place to prevent people including and excluding who they want because apparently it's all a vendetta against you.

You accuse others of making it personal, they start accusing you of stuff and it becomes yet another shitty thread full of pointless drama. You wouldn't need to "defend yourself" if you hadn't opened the hostilities and just kept your mouth shut to begin with. Again, stop being such a try-hard. It's annoying. If you really do believe it's a popularity contest, you'd think you'd be smarter than to piss people off so readily. Please give it a rest.

No, you are making it about me, then my choice is to defend myself from your bullshit, or simply ignore it and allow you to continuously repeat falsehoods. Of course you do this as you accuse me out of the other side of your mouth as making it about me. It is a transparent shitty little game that exposes your motives completely.

Ah, I see, so the solution is to shut the fuck up is it? That always makes things better doesn't it? The trust system shouldn't be based on who likes who, or who is popular. Ted Bundy was quite charming, I am sure he would be at the top of this trust system. Con artists are experts at manufacturing this kind of popularity. You know what they can't manufacture? Years of reliable and trustworthy behavior.

The trust system as it exists now is not just inequitable, it is a security threat. If anyone who has spent years building their reputation in this sea of fraud known as Bitcointalk can have it stripped so easily with a handful of sock puppets, what is to stop that from being done in order to force silence and complicity to obfuscate fraud? You all stand around and stroke yourselves off over what an asshole I am while you leave your backdoor open and get your place robbed blind because the bad man gave you a boo boo on your feelies with his mean words.

Quote from: DooMAD on June 22, 2020, 11:26:36 AM

Quote from: JaredKaragen on June 22, 2020, 01:44:48 AM

To be fair: I have witnessed TEC's claim of trust abuse first hand in a recent thread.
Some of his claims are definitely correct; and my chain of calling out vod in two threads recently paints a clear picture of this exact type of abuse that happens.

I will leave it at that. Nothing more, nothing less. Take it as you will.

If the offending trust feedback was removed, what's the problem? It might not always be as clean a process as we might like, but surely that's proof enough that people can be persuaded to do the right thing and remove inappropriate ratings.

Again, trust is based on feelings and instincts. People can get it wrong sometimes. I doubt it's practicable to eradicate that.

But it wasn't. Sure it is practical. Simply require trust ratings and flags to be based on observable and documented instances of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws. This is not a lofty or complex goal, in fact it is far more effective and simpler than what we have now, a clusterfuck of band-aids and patches designed primarily to allow fraud and sooth fragile egos.