Quote from: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 07:24:21 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2014, 07:14:06 AM

Quote from: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 07:01:32 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2014, 06:51:34 AM

Quote from: malaimult on December 21, 2014, 06:43:14 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2014, 06:40:46 AM

Quote from: BadBear on December 18, 2014, 07:56:09 AM

Quote from: Mabsark on December 16, 2014, 09:01:44 AM

Quote from: BadBear on December 16, 2014, 06:42:38 AM

Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s.

Funny how it is only coercion when it is one of your buddies. I warned you guys this would become a pattern, but you would rather pretend to be right than actually being right and running an impartial trust system.

These kinds of things do not happen overnight. IIRC it took several weeks for you to be removed from default trust list. If I had to guess, I would say that theymos is trying to figure out how to modify the trust system so that Canary can be removed but also so that there are not too few "trusted" people on the forum

Admitting that moderating the default trust system is a flawed and destructive system and ceasing the inquisition on those on the trust list would be a good start. If people get out of line, the community has the ability to swarm people with negatives. We do not need disinterested third parties moderating trust ratings in a manner that only protects their own income stream and does not serve the community that actually built the actual trust.

No, it is not appropriate to give someone negative trust for arbitrary reasons. The only reason why someone should receive negative trust is because they are scamming, they will scam or they are trying to scam. The only reason for positive trust is because of a positive trade experience with someone, or they otherwise trust them (positive trust is much more flexible as it does not carry as much weight). If your trust ratings are not accurate, then other people should not rely on your ratings to make a decision on if someone should be trusted or not.

What we have with canary is not only do we have trust essentially being given to himself (and his business associates) but we also have negative trust being given to his competitors when the only evidence of a scam is the lack of evidence they are operating in a legit manner.

You can have all the moral dogmas you want, unless you also have a fair, accurate, and impartial system of enforcing that, then it is nothing more than a destructive blind ideology. If people are abusing the feedback system, others within that same system have the ability to call it out. We don't need a disinterested trust cartel dictating what should be done with their only concern being their own revenue stream from the forum.

Theymos does have a vested interest in making sure that trade on here is safe. If trading is not safe then people will not trade on here, and if people do not trade then they will not visit as much, then ad revenue will decline. The feedback that you gave was not feedback that was reflective on the receiving person's potential to scam in the future and as a result your feedback should not be relied on by others. I cannot think of anything more fair then to have you removed from default trust list. It would be unfair to allow you to remain on default trust list as at least one innocent user would be negatively affected by your inaccurate feedback rating.

The same is true for Canary, but to a larger degree. He is allowing (and encouraging) someone to leave feedback that is unsubstantiated on his competition and is giving himself positive feedback making him appear to be more trustworthy

You know what I think is unfair? Users who come here and deal with scammers and trolls for years and whom treat everyone fairly getting punished for not obeying commands because of "justice warriors" who go around all day looking for "wrongs" to right and the trolls that incite them. My rating was completely accurate, he was harassing me and that is exactly what I said in the rating and why I left it. If staff hadn't have stuck their nose into it he might have removed his slanderous posts and I would have deleted his trust rating, but they have no interest in restorative justice, only protecting their income stream. Instead they attacked me openly and gave this user the impression that the staff would some how "fix" his negative rating, so he had no incentive to cooperate with me, because in his mind, he was going to get what he wanted anyway. As a result I am off of the default trust list and Armis now has a permanent negative rating. They got what they wanted, neither I nor Armis did. This serves only the staff.

Theymos has no interest in justice being served. He has interest in his bottom line being protected, IE some are allowed to abuse more than others. People like me who aren't part of the boys club get excommunicated for not following orders. Someone like VOD can get on the forum and throw around negative trust like candy for the flimsiest of reasons almost daily, but your right... that single "questionable" negative trust I left certainly is reason to remove years of work and negate everything I have given to this community.

First they claim the trust system is unmoderated, now suddenly theymos is messing with individual ratings and commanding people to be removed from trust at threat of their own removal. So I guess my simple question is.. Do you really feel the user I left negative feedback for has more to add to this community? If not then this policy only punishes the ACTUAL PEOPLE who build real trust here by making them subject to these inquisitions by trolls and sock puppets.