I wouldn't want a bunch of snow Mexicans flooding in either... but you enjoy your accusations of racism for simply wanting the law to be enforced.

I actually pegged you for a pretty well rounded individual in spite of our disagreement about some topics. You know how logic and debate work unlike most people here. I found it sad you felt the need to feel like part of the in crowd over supporting my statements you already demonstrated agreement with meriting. I am not sure how a completely dry post about the trust system is entertaining... but whatever excuse you need to make so you are sure you don't find yourself out of the "cool kids" club by admitting you agreed with me once publicly on this topic.

The VERY POINT is they will not have absolute power. They have that now because the rules are COMPLETELY arbitrary because they are all subjective standards open to so much interpretation to be meaningless. These standards are not, they are objective, and everyone can look and decide for themselves based on objective things, not what some one suspects, feels, or guesses arbitrarily. In effect they can abuse and then just pretend they don't via wide interpretation. This narrows that ability for interpretation significantly, and reduces the ability for arbitrary and abusive use of the system.





Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it. If you have none of those things you either leave a neutral rating as a warning and or create threads warning about them in the reputation or scam accusation areas. I already said the system would be no different than it is now, EXCEPT we would be operating on a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. That's it.

All Theymos has to do is declare that his preferred standard, then the community then bases their trust list off of who follows it. He doesn't need to officiate over every fucking case, or really any, and I think you know that is not what I meant, but any opportunity to discredit you gotta take right? Or they can rate how they like and find themselves with no power in the trust system via community exclusion. All this other stuff is garbage designed to confuse the fact that this is a simply implemented solution to many problems.

It doesn't really matter, it is just yet another example of how the rules are for some but not for others around here. There needs to be an objective standard set around here for trust ratings or else the community will continue to eat its own face. Eventually it will go past the point of no return. The trust system is too easily corruptible and open to unaccountable abuse. There is no reason people can not leave neutral ratings an open threads if they want to warn people of users rather than negative rating them without evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

Kind of ashamed of you frankly, you usually are one to promote logical discourse instead of this mob hectoring that these control freaks depend on to constantly dismantle any discussion of changing the system that doesn't serve them personally. This place is just a big joke to them, and the user base toys to be played with. This is why they need standards applied to them, because they can't regulate themselves.


Especially since you merited this post...



I guess being part of "the in crowd" is more important than principles huh?

Everyone take a good look at them all closing ranks in a really pathetic attempt at marginalization and derailing. Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok. I guess it is just another case of rules for thee and not for me right?

Suchmoon ran out his feigned ignorance card and called in reinforcements to make sure they preserve the illusion this is just me and no one else agrees. Also it is a nice bonus chill effect to any one else thinking of speaking up. These are the people responsible for deciding who can and can't trade here, with zero oversight or repercussions to their abuse. After all, who is going to disagree with them and make themselves targets of their harassment and exclusions just for advocating for a change in the trust system?

We need a standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.



P.S. Nutilda I know you are embarrassed you made yourself look dumb in Politics & Society, but this is too cute. Also "snarky" is your buzzword not mine.

Yeah. No. I really don't. This is again more pathetic derailing tactics from the fact that the current system is widely abused with no recourse for anyone to have that abuse adressed. It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

The small handful of people I refer to are you and your pals that operate in lockstep attacking anyone who has any sort of complaint about your abusive behaviors. Just like corrupt cops behind your thin blue line you back each other up even when you know they are being abusive, inventing whatever narrative you need to create to discredit all complaints.

After all there is no penalty for you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

The trust system needs an objective standard for users to be held accountable to or this rift is going to destroy this community and turn it into a complete wasteland of fraud and trolling. I warned about this years ago, and here we are as it metastasizes and the little power thirsty trust cops are spinning the same exact tales to avoid their own accountability...

You mean like 2 years of daily "The Trump Russia collusion evidence will come out any day now! Any day!... any day... Muller please... please" You mean that kind of retarded?

Oh I see, more implying then pretending you aren't implying so you don't have to actually justify your words. You are dictating to me what you think "the community" has decided, therefore you are explicitly speaking for "the community". "The community has spoken" after all, and of course in your view "the community" is a small handful of abusive users who all shore up each others power in this system.

What conspiracy theory? This is really simple stuff here. There are clear financial motivations to maintain this status of arbitrary application of force over the community. Gay frogs need not be involved. The fact is a small handful of people lord over the entire community with zero ability for users to have reliable redress of grievances.

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

So you speak for "the community" now? Oh wow you mean a group of entrenched trust system overlords which abuse their power excluded me for reasons they will never publicly define or justify? Clearly I am a bad man and am wrong because I choose to present an argument that would put a serious check on their abusive behavior. I explained at least 3 times now how the standard would be enforced. Your feigned ignorance is now pretty overt at this point.

I am sorry if your reading comprehension is so poor you can not see I have repeatedly answered your question. It is right there in the quote you selectively edited.

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

Ah I see, since he is not fulfilling them all this promise being fulfilled is meaningless is it? Most people who support the wall don't care. Frankly I think he will figure that out later after everyone has forgot about it and assumes it has been abandoned. There are lots of ways to get it done, but they would all be impediments to getting the wall built which is the first priority.

Some additional interesting information...

So you are saying then your intent was to imply more ratings = due diligence? That makes sense? Also you then proceeded to say the standard I advocate for would only react after the fact, again making the implication that more ratings would prevent scams.

You made the implication of it being desirable, and there is really only one meaning it could have. You are trying to say more ratings protect people but without actually saying it otherwise you might have to demonstrate how it is true. Since it does not that would be difficult. There comes a point where quality is more important than quantity.

There also comes a point where your feigned ignorance becomes increasingly transparent.


We already do this every day. Only now we would try to meet the objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as opposed to whatever anyone feels like. People can still leave ratings for whatever anyone feels like, but those people will quickly find themselves with no influence in that system.

I would support this if logistically possible. I think it allows users to maintain a clean moderated discussion while still making a clear log of what they don't want people to see just in case. One of the main criticisms of the moderated threads is it could be used to hide abuse. This would largely counter that effect while still maintaining all of the benefits.

No you said this...


This statement makes a direct implication that more ratings is desirable and would offer more protection. It would not as I explained above. Furthermore your statement also implies that leaving arbitrary negative ratings will some how prevent scams. It will not. EVEN IF that was a valid argument, nothing is stopping anyone from leaving NEUTRAL ratings as a warning and making posts warning the forum in the appropriate "Reputation" or "Scam Accusation" subforums.

Your entire argument consists of "BUT THE SKY WILL FALL!", personal attacks, and thread derailing.



Yet I did explain it, above and and more detail elsewhere in threads I know you have red but for the sake of appearing like you don't understand you pretend you don't know..



Lots of frivolous red ratings. People go hey we aren't scammers. People learn red ratings don't always mean scammer. Red ratings now no longer useful warning. You understand?

In summary if the ratings actually have an objective standard they will ACTUALLY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE not just be a constant source of conflict, confusion, and cover for even more theft. Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not going to entertain your hypothetical bait to try to turn this into more interpersonal petty bickering. If you can't bring an argument against the logic itself then you have none.

Here is Captain Toadie right on cue to derail more. More trust ratings does not equal more protection, it means LESS as I already explained. If they are for petty reasons all you are doing is conditioning people to ignore them, justified or not. If this objective standard is set then the only ratings left will ACTUALLY MEAN something, and will have proof that can be referenced, you know like one looks for when they are doing due diligence?

Just because it is supposed to work that way doesn't mean it does or that it ever will, and after years of this horse shit it is not looking good. This standard will only work if it is implemented top down. That is how standards work. Unless Theymos comes out and says this is how it should be the confusion, conflict, and scamming will continue to grow.

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings.

Search for the “Howey Test” to see the standard set by the US government for what is and is not a security. This is not legal or financial advice.

Or perhaps I just knew what I was talking about all along and you have learned nothing yourself, but sure, I am the dumb one if it makes you feel better.

This is something that also confuses me and makes me question the real intent of all of these systems. I see a pattern of wanting to look decentralized while actually a small handful of people control everything from the top with no means of redress of grievances in any uniform way. This inherently breeds contempt for the general "rule of law" of the forum as well as any authority figures within it. People tend to not react well to the "rules for thee and not for me" type justice systems.

You bring up a good point about how convoluted this whole system is. Members who have been here for years still barely know how it works, yet some how we expect new users to understand all of this and that the ratings can mean various things. Instead of teaching these new users to rely on red and green numbers we should be teaching them to use that as a quick reference, and then do due diligence looking into a user before doing any trade. With all these self proclaimed scambusters running around shouting their virtues from the mountain tops, it also gives new users the impression that they will be protected from scams. The status quo is currently creating a lot of issues that are quite counterproductive to the intended purpose of the trust system. Then all the conflict created on top with the rating disputes and infighting is completely eating the community from the inside out. I am warning you all, this is exactly how communities are destroyed...

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings.

And who makes the determination how much reputation is enough before escrowing? Is this really what you want on this forum? A nanny state where a bunch of bored OCD people run around tagging people for whatever they deem offensive inserting themselves between people otherwise willing to make a voluntary exchange?

The trust system needs an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings. This is the only viable solution to all of these issues that is done in a manner consistent with existing community review, decentralization, and most importantly would end the majority of trust rating disputes before they ever happen.

It is almost like we could use an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings so all of this could be avoided.