Yeap, tribalism, what a wonderful reason to diminish the weight of words of some potential discussion parties in advance. But you know, the idea of tribalism have a negative side as well. Guess, who was the first one I ever distrusted?
Yeap, Ratimov. And it was meaningful decision to add him to my Trust list with a ~. There was a discussion of how is it correct to work with a Trust system and how is not. And Ratimov stayed with a ~ for several weeks until he showed that he understood what was the problem. It took more than a year before I added him without a ~.
I saw the discussion which lead to this situation before it was deleted from the topic on the forum. And as I see it, it was over before GazetaBitcoin came, no one was offended, everyone saw the point in the other's words but saw no reason to change an own position. Then there was a short discussion full of mutual misunderstanding between GazetaBitcoin and Ratimov with a result of mutual tags. And I'd say that both sides were too involved and too emotional then, so I'm not going to say that any part was right, misunderstanding was from both sides. And tags from both sides were mistakes. I didn't want to add fuel to that, so I didn't want to take part in that, LoyceV said it better than I could:
Ratimov's plagiarism loophole has been discussed before, in several topics. He didn't get banned for it, which means Mods think it's okay. If Mods think it's okay, who am I to disagree?
Bad and rude language is allowed, and shouldn't be a reason for negative feedback either. The same for retaliation feedback.
My take: both of you should remove the negative feedback. If I would loan either one of you $100, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't scam me. That's what the Trust system is for, and that means negative feedback is unwarranted.
You guys don't like each other: that's okay! Agree to disagree. Ignore each other. Or get a beer together. Find common ground instead of drama.
To quote upper management:
I hoped that it will end in some way like that.
And I still think that everything in this case is personal and emotional from both sides. And I still think that the best idea is to do like LoyceV said.
Yeap, Ratimov. And it was meaningful decision to add him to my Trust list with a ~. There was a discussion of how is it correct to work with a Trust system and how is not. And Ratimov stayed with a ~ for several weeks until he showed that he understood what was the problem. It took more than a year before I added him without a ~.
I saw the discussion which lead to this situation before it was deleted from the topic on the forum. And as I see it, it was over before GazetaBitcoin came, no one was offended, everyone saw the point in the other's words but saw no reason to change an own position. Then there was a short discussion full of mutual misunderstanding between GazetaBitcoin and Ratimov with a result of mutual tags. And I'd say that both sides were too involved and too emotional then, so I'm not going to say that any part was right, misunderstanding was from both sides. And tags from both sides were mistakes. I didn't want to add fuel to that, so I didn't want to take part in that, LoyceV said it better than I could:
At last, my name is listed here as well! I feel honored to be part of this select group! /s
WTF are you guys doing over there? Ratimov's plagiarism loophole has been discussed before, in several topics. He didn't get banned for it, which means Mods think it's okay. If Mods think it's okay, who am I to disagree?
Bad and rude language is allowed, and shouldn't be a reason for negative feedback either. The same for retaliation feedback.
My take: both of you should remove the negative feedback. If I would loan either one of you $100, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't scam me. That's what the Trust system is for, and that means negative feedback is unwarranted.
You guys don't like each other: that's okay! Agree to disagree. Ignore each other. Or get a beer together. Find common ground instead of drama.
To quote upper management:
The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.
I hoped that it will end in some way like that.
And I still think that everything in this case is personal and emotional from both sides. And I still think that the best idea is to do like LoyceV said.