Bitcoin Forum

Instead of one person being able to neg another person since their on the default trust. We should have "trust trials" were people are put on trial by the community.

I believe, this is a forum to discuss bitcoin... not a judiciary system.

too much room for abuse

I think this was suggested before and the potential for abuse would be high if there were "judges". If you wanted a whole community to discuss it, I think the system would get overwhelmed with too many accusations. Also at what point is the person deemed guilty or innocent? The sheer number of people voting yes/no? Could also be open to abuse by bots/shills/puppets.

their could be jury duty

Who comprises jury duty? Full members and up? How active are they on the forum? How trustworthy are they? Can they be bribed?

This is a forum, not a courthouse. The Jurors can be bribed/biased. Socks and Shills can be used to abuse A person with a lot of friends on jury duty can be proven "innocent" even if he is a scammer. Theymos is the judge, he is mostly, if not always, reasonable about who is on the default trust list.

No one should determine one's trustworthiness based on the trust system, it is only for reference and it can be inaccurate, just check out the reference and think for yourself.

There would be to much bias and retaliatory posts being made which would lead to a number of other things. I would agree on a group of people being chosen to monitor these accusations, however that's basically how the system is already set up. If someone has good judgment and is active in the community they have a good chance of becoming trusted (Edit: However in some cases it's been proven that some people that are being added to the trusted list by depth 1 members I think it is really don't have a lot of trading history or activity around the forum [but as far as I know no scams have occurred because of this]), and then if they abuse their power or make inaccurate accusations they will be removed from the trusted list.

That would way too time consuming and it would leave way too much for error. The point of the trust system is to be unmoderated (mostly). When you have "trials", you leave room for speculation and abuse. And who would be the ones to make the decision? Leave it to a poll? That would lead to alts affecting voting. Leaving one person up to the vote could lead to some opinionated decisions. The trust system works good enough. Not perfect, but neither is anything.

These trials would be too much of a fuss and time-consuming. Besides, if someone leaves an unjust feedback or someone disagrees with one they can complain about it in here and if they've been found to abuse their position there will likely be consequences so the community usually policies itself on these matters anyway.

Sounds cool but would never work.
Anyone found guilty would probably blaim corruption and who's to say that wouldn't happen either.
Not to mention the time involved, you would have to pay member for dury duty time they put in as only highly trusted members would be aloud to judge.
it just couldn't work easy.