Quote from: hilariousandco on November 18, 2014, 07:29:13 AM

You added this bit in after I posted:

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 18, 2014, 06:45:20 AM

The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.

Isn't abusing the default trusted position damaging the community? And funny you bring up egos as it was your ego that got you into this mess in the first place. What you really want is for nobody else's "ego" to get involved or make the rules but yours. Everything was fine and dandy apparently until somebody said something you didn't like and you abused your weight of the default feedback to try get your own way. If default trust is such an issue just disregard it, but it seems it was fine whilst you were on it.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 18, 2014, 07:06:02 AM

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

Exactly and this is the irony and hypocrisy here. People abuse the trust system then complain when they're removed from it. Users often complain that people on the default trust have a monopoly over it and that they're free to leave feedback for whoever they don't like but if it's unjust clearly this isn't the case and the community responded appropriately. I think this is a good thing. You can't have it both ways.

Yet you have it both ways, picking and choosing who does and does not get to have influence in the trust system. It has basically now come to a point where people who have dedicated enough time here to be really trusted now are SO TRUSTED that it is unacceptable for them to even defend themselves, and you expect them to sit by idly and be harassed. You sure aren't doing anything about it when it is reported, but again you "have the right to interpret the rules" now don't you. Why would you care if I am being harassed, no skin off of your back.

I never really thought the trust system was a good idea because it gives people a false sense of security, but I never really had a problem with it because what I was told is that the system was UNMODERATED, but clearly that is not the truth. Some one dictating from a central position who is and who is not to be trusted is not a trust NETWORK, it is a trust DICTATORSHIP. Solution: stop dictating to people who they should and should not trust. Of course this all happens behind closed doors so no one ever really gets to witness this coercive process, so how would anyone know unless they experienced it themselves?

Quote from: hilariousandco on November 18, 2014, 07:29:13 AM

You added this bit in after I posted:

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 18, 2014, 06:45:20 AM

The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.

Isn't abusing the default trusted position damaging the community? And funny you bring up egos as it was your ego that got you into this mess in the first place. What you really want is for nobody else's "ego" to get involved or make the rules but yours. Everything was fine and dandy apparently until somebody said something you didn't like and you abused your weight of the default feedback to try get your own way. If default trust is such an issue just disregard it, but it seems it was fine whilst you were on it.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 18, 2014, 07:06:02 AM

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

Exactly and this is the irony and hypocrisy here. People abuse the trust system then complain when they're removed from it. Users often complain that people on the default trust have a monopoly over it and that they're free to leave feedback for whoever they don't like but if it's unjust clearly this isn't the case and the community responded appropriately. I think this is a good thing. You can't have it both ways.

Your "abuse" of the trust system is another mans legitimate use of it. Trying to dictate the content of the reason for the trust left is asinine and not something that can be equitably enforced. Furthermore the staff catering to people who are clearly acting in a provocative manner then making complaints to put trusted members in a defensive position is far more destructive than a few posts from me. All you can see is what you see every day moderating. Similar to a cop who just starts seeing every citizen as the enemy you start to see every user whom you have taken action against as making unjust complaints. You don't see I am trying to point out a problem you are creating for yourself and others in this community because you would rather be correct than right.