⭐ Merited by Vispilio (2)
You and I have a major disagreement over this.
My rules for trust as in a feedback and for putting people on my trust list do not match with yours.
If that's intentional, I won't stop you of course My rules for trust as in a feedback and for putting people on my trust list do not match with yours.
But I do think the Trust system functions best if most people use it the way it's intended.Admin said this:
LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.
And this:
Trust lists
- If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
- If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)
- If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
- If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)
A very simple solution for most of the "self-scratching" drama would be to require at least 2 inclusions from DT1 to be on DT2. That would mean nobody has to decide on their own who gets to be DT2, and nobody can increase their own Trust ratings without at least someone else agreeing.
Wrong that would centralize control more those that are already entrenched due to their own self scratching via merit cycling.
The design is a clusterfuck that in undeniable. Hence why you have a bunch of newbie scammer supporters and shady scum thinking they can tell the elder members who have huge trade histories and zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing or supporting those that do in their past here.
There is zero reason to follow guides or interpretations of guides to a system that is fatally flawed in the first place.
If these people have proven they are trustworthy financially they are no less likely to show " genuine" poor judgement that those that have scammed or supported and worked with scammers.
The system is over complex and a total failure.
Self scratching and forced collusion is the basis for gaining entry to DT and staying there.
DT core scum self scratch in every way conceivable. They simply want OG out. Since he is not afraid to tag them red when he sees scamming. They dont want that.
Wake up.