You cant even make a post without contradicting yourself within it. Basically you are saying Socialism (Communism stage 2) is not for government control because they VIEW the government as the people more than the government. Then you proceed to claim this state control because viewed as the people is not really state control, and is actually stateless. Well shit if it is that simple why don't you just view every government that way? OH RIGHT YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE REALITY BY REDEFINING WORDS! DAMN!

I have actually read the work that the waste of space, boil covered ass, hypocrite Marx wrote. He was a joke from start to finish and himself met none of his own standards. He even had an in house servant which he refused to pay, which he then impregnated, and disowned the child. Essentially she was his house slave, but I am sure this man was serious about bringing power to the people and not just feeding his own fat boil infested ass. He was a tool, and you are a tool for following that hypocrite.

So you lived with a small handful of smelly hippies. Cool story bro, I guess we can scale it up to the nation state now without problem!

I think you already set the system up to do that by creating neutral ratings. I don't think the trust system needs more additions, what it has needs to be more tightly directed. The more parts you add to a system the easier it is exploited or broken. I realize you don't like hard and fast rules, and I understand your fears here, but you should also realize if those are actually your primary concerns, the current environment allows for MORE of that type of behavior not less of it.

The fact is a negative rating is a penalty for people and inhibits their ability to trade here. These warning ratings will do little but slow down fraud at best. Either they should be a warning which can be widely applied, or a penalty, not both. If it is both then the counterproductive element of catching too many people in the wide net is a problem. This is why I am advocating for using neutral ratings with scam accusation/reputation threads referenced as the warning. This benefit is two fold, it reduces the signal noise of false ratings, and it teaches users to actually read the ratings before trading. Then when you see a red tag it actually means something.

You may want to run this place in a more anarcho-capitalist friendly way, but as I said before the forum is still inherently centralized, there is no way around this. As a result you inherently are the one to define these rules. When it was smaller this free for all kind of approach worked better, mostly because the community was more cohesive.

Now it is getting larger and in some ways unmanageable in the same ways, and frankly this obsession with not wanting any hard rules is hurting this community, not helping it at this stage. I don't think setting up a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating is at all excessive, and in fact is quite minimalist. Furthermore as I defined it would actually allow people to have a fair overview, not just a summary execution by suspicion and its over with.

Currently most of the people in control of the trust system have no accountability as it is. The arbitrary nature of the "guidelines" creates so much ambiguity you could drive a bus through to avoid responsibility for a bad rating. The standard I am advocating for would absolutely leave people responsible for their own ratings. Not only would most people expect them to back the rating up with evidence, but it would have to make sense in an objective way, as opposed to the non-standard we have now of "I feel like...[insert crime here]".

You are afraid of this place morphing into the standard authoritarian type environment. I get it. What I don't think you do get is that we are already largely there, it is just some thing you never see because of the complete ambiguity and lack of accountability of the people doing the ratings and exclusions. Anyone who has a complaint is easily dismissed as a scammer without a second thought, and to you it is as if it never even happened because it happens so often it might as well not have.

And you are somebody? No delusional sense of grandiosity here... Also I can say fairly confidently most of the last people posting are no where near leftists, but whatever fits the meme you want to try to force go for it.



Yes, actually you did make the assumption, and you did it again by stating it as a given that there would again be the same number of ratings needing review. Not at all true. If you aren't suggesting they help prevent scams what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.

No evidence? How about simple logic. more signal noise = less reliable signal = more people ignoring signal. It is not a complicated concept. Again, you are assuming these ratings are some how helpful, but in a way you refuse to define or demonstrate. Ratings for petty subjective issues are not helpful. That is why we need an objective standard for leaving ratings.

The objective standard also conveniently gets rid of the majority of cases of disputes over what is an acceptable rating so, no they will not all require discussion. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

I see you criticizing, I don't see you offering solutions or even arguing my logic, just making repeated assumptions to justify your position.

Well I think asking who is a fair question... but the end goals are increasingly clear...

I am sure several of you have seen this already. If not please watch it. Watch it carefully and then think about what is going on in the Western world now all around you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g

There is a reason I harp on Post Modernist subjectivity so much...

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best. If people aren't even going to read the person's ratings having a red mark in a sea of red marks is not going to signal much and actually ends up providing cover for them. Furthermore that level of complete lack of due diligence guarantees a user will eventually be robbed regardless of what anyone else does.

Second you are assuming that every one of those ratings was valid, beneficial, and needed to be made. That I highly doubt. Also the whole point is there are less negative ratings left. Now only instead of any crime they can imagine happening being justification for a rating, they will have to document it first. The result is then higher regularity and quality of ratings and oh suddenly those red and green numbers have meaning again don't they? After all they are practically meaningless as quick indicators as they are currently used.

Last you are arguing from a point of view that the forum can even be actively protected from these scams, and attempting to do so pre-emptively is desirable. The fact is even if these people spend all day running accounts through the meat grinder negging them, at best it slows down these people. The question is at what cost to the contributing user base?

I agree, it is not only overly complex, it is actually counter productive to its intended goals. I also agree reading ratings would be a better use of the system, which is why I am advocating for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating, and teaching users to do due diligence.





I already directly answered your question to you elsewhere before, but hey lets all pretend like none of you have had answers to these questions already.




Sock puppets now? You are taking the moral high ground from a sock puppet now? This is how desperate these people are to hold on to their control and have no accountability. They don't even want the accountability of confronting me so they don't have to look like they are trying too hard.

The difference is I want to engage in a logical discussion, and I have. I suppose I should be stoic and stand silent while I get mobbed so I can meet your standards better eh Mr. Sock Puppet who is totally not part of the trust cartel?






Actually you got several explanations from me which you continually pretend don't exist. Here is another one of them quoted below. I have repeatedly attempted discussion with you and you repeatedly demonstrate you would rather play games and side track the discussion. This demonstrates to me among other things your inability to counter the logic of the argument itself.

Cool story bro. Work on putting together a cohesive sentence structure first then move on to following a premise, then macro-economic theory.

Thank you. Explaining basic things he should have learned in high school is getting tiresome.

Yeah except its really not future technology in spite of your relativism and demands he must be speaking of the very specific type of model you were thinking of in your head but only later mentioned when called out on it then and insisted this could be the only way.

It is kind of hard to use the government in the same way... when the government is no where near the same thing so. Cool story bro. Maybe you can tell me more about my own country while you tell me more about how those protests are "scaling down" in yours eh?

Jet Cash, that is easy for some one who does little to no trade here to declare. It like saying no one needs air tanks because you don't ever go scuba diving. It gets used against you like it or not.

It is not a logical fallacy first of all because I made other arguments in support of my premise, and second because your experience in the system here is relevant to your understanding of it.

1. You make a conclusion which you assume to be true then expect me to operate from that assumption as a given. No. You don't just get to declare it a non-viable solution. I already explained the use of neutral ratings and warning threads. The ratings are overused and therefore ignored and meaningless anyway. Restricting their use to objective standards returns the standard back to quality not quantity so when you see a negative rating it means something.

2. Again you are repeating your argument from before only from another perspective. The community already follows Theymos's guidelines to a large degree as I already demonstrated. At the end of the day all this talk of decentralization is meaningless because this is a centralized site, and he is the ultimate authority here. So yes a simple post from him making this the standard would change things.

Do you mind rephrasing that first statement again, only this time with a clear premise.

Oh I see, since what he was talking about was not what you were thinking about, you aren't wrong then huh? Coin4commies is not an expert on anything except Critical Theory, so sorry if I missed his expert review.

And there we go. All of your evidence comes from the least scientific branch of the most unscientific field of study that people barely qualify as a science. Social sciences can maintain no controls, can not directly observe results, can not account for so many variables... IE it doesn't follow scientific theory. It attempts to at best. You think we have diggen far enough though, so lets stop diggen.

You like attributing motive to others a lot. Motives to me, motives to these people you talk about. No one deserves anything. People deserve what they can create for themselves. Just because some one works grinding themselves down forever does not mean they have no choice or are unable to change this. You insist on looking at everyone as victims. This doesn't help people. What helps people is not having a bloated bureaucracy sucking up endless resources while it regulates everyone around it to death while never actually attaining any of the goals it was designed to meet.

You only want to see the victim aspect of this story. The reality is some people belong in those factories, if you asked a few of these people a lot of them would tell you so themselves. A lot of them are grateful just to have a dependable wage, but no, here you come to save them from that for their own good! Aren't you morally superior!

BWAHAHA now you care about logical fallacies do you? That wasn't an argument, that was literally me just asking you what nation you are from. You seem to purposely obfuscate it while constantly criticizing other nations. I am curious.

Also what does that have to do with the fact that thorium reactors are not future technology?

I have plenty of empathy. I just don't make the mistake of confusing it with logic. All the empathy in the world doesn't help anyone without logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Background_and_brief_history

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/06/130605-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-tennessee/



That's funny. The government = citizens. That is the whole point of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, to make sure the people have equal POWER with the government. It very explicitly limits government power, and details birth rights the government can neither grant nor take away. What are you implying, unless we start a civil war against ourselves we are cowards? I am sure you are very hard core on the internet. Where are you from again? Lets talk about your nation.