Not going to get into a legal debate with you because you don't have any idea what you are talking about, but you don't have any idea what you are talking about. I was hoping you would maybe do some reading but I can see your reply before I even finished editing tells me you didn't even read the wiki blurb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Under Napoleonic code the French legal system effectively operates under a standard of guilty until proven innocent.

The IRS is the private collection arm of the private bank known as The Federal Reserve anyway, so it is not part of the government to be shut down.

If I remember right France does not operate under common law, so essentially the law there is the law of code, and they can simply declare you in violation at any time with little to no recourse. That is why places like the USA, one of the last remaining governments to still recognize common law are so important.

Do you believe I have the forum's best interest at heart based on my statements? Then believe me when I say what you are doing is not helping.

That is not the point I made. That is the point you made then projected on to me. I never said anything about since we can't get them all we shouldn't tag any. This is your own addition not mine. What I said is there should be a standard of evidence of documentation, an agreement violated, and or a law violated before rating.

With this base standard the rating system again becomes an accurate guide of who can be trusted to trade with rather than who washes all the right balls. The alternative, is to continue as it is and have the trust system not only be a joke, but a constant source of conflict serving as cover for con artists to hide in the chaos, steal more, and take retribution on those that exposed them.

Well that should be fun having nothing to stand by.

What is the best way to deal with these noobs? Constantly running after them like mommy and daddy trying to keep them from bumping their heads and padding every sharp corner? Or to we teach them that they need to do their own due diligence?

Some times people need to get robbed before they learn, and the people getting robbed WILL get robbed regardless of how much you preemptively try to protect them. All this policing does is give these scammers a veil of legitimacy to operate under because of the army of half ass forum cops running around professing how much they're protecting the forum. This gives new users the impression that some one has already done this due diligence so they need not.

 In realty their motivation is usually just to give themselves influence. Unfortunately their reputation is usually raised at the cost of people just trying to do voluntary trades with each other they don't agree with for whatever reason.

The problem is there are a lot of other cases where trust effects users other than just shit posting sig campaigners. Bitcoin is after all is (or is supposed to be) a method of exchange. This community will ALWAYS have a core of traders by its nature. What some users here call "pajeet" traders (an annoying and kinda racist stereotype IMO) are really just people trying to build a trust network from the bottom up with smaller trades. The problem is a lot of these forum cops are in nice cushy industrialized nations judging people who survive on 20% of the income they do, for doing smaller trades.

From a forum cop perspective it is just a hassle and an inconvenience to deal with, and I agree. Perhaps instead of beheading nickle and dime traders all day, and then screaming from the mountain tops about the bear they killed with their bare hands, maybe find something better to do with the time.

Unless the trust system has rules set around it restricting negatives to trade, where a loss of some kind can be documented, that is in violation of the agreement between the users, or is in violation of the law it will become meaningless. Everything else should not be anyone's business really, and certainly should not be grounds for a negative rating. Ratings do matter, because this is a forum centered around a method of exchange. The question is will the trust system be a gauge of who jerks each other off around here or who is able to be trusted in trade?

Yahuh. You are quick to enter into death battles with people you don't know on the internet aren't you? If you can take a break from LAARPing for a second, you can see I said "by your own logic" not "we can never agree and we are justified in killing each other." I only support violence in defense from violence, and to a lesser extent to protect ones rights and property.

You however were very eager to toss debate out the window in favor of violence. Little boy, you don't even have a clue what you are trying to get into. You have no frame of reference for which to understand the hell your play revolution is going to cost, because one day it is going to get VERY real.

Having a basic set of rules for using the trust system is not the same thing as completely centralizing it. All it will do is create a base standard to operate within. All the other aspects regarding the majority of enforcement will be community based. There need to be rules for this or else this forum is going to end up a complete cesspool of cons, infighting, and continually pissed off and ripped off users. I suggest something simple like a base standard of some kind of documentation of a theft/fraud for a negative rating to be valid. Also some kind of system of escalation of dispute resolution would be useful, for example starting with a public post with relevant information, community review, DT member review, and ultimately staff if need be as last resort.

I there is clear cut dry documentation of attempted fraud then I would agree a negative rating would be appropriate. However every numpty with a CSI playset around here wants to play Sherlock Holmes to raise their own profiles and entertain themselves at the expense of the reputations and freedoms of others. This isn't ok either. There has to be some basic standard of evidence otherwise this whole forum is little more than a puppet to dance at the pleasure of con artists.

If it doesn't take a detective, why do we need dozens of them to tell us what is obvious? Are you not seeing the gap in your logic here? Oh its obvious its a scam! Well sure, then its obvious to people who are doing ANY sort of even superficial due diligence isn't it?

In that case all it is serving to do is create even more conflict trying to be some kind of Barney Fife Tom Cruise hybrid pre-crime forum police. People who aren't doing any due diligence will ALWAYS BE FUCKED no matter how many nannies want to run around any try to baby proof everything. Respond with a negative after evidence is presented of a crime, not before. If not stick to neutrals and posts in the appropriate reputation and scam accusation areas.

No one said you were not free to do so, the question is should you? I mean this forum is one of the very few places on the net where some of these freedoms are allowed. Having an army of self promoting trust police is counterproductive. Victims of theft and fraud tend to be very vocal about being ripped off, focusing on that would be better. To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

If marking people negative isn't a deterrent, then what is the point? If it is then you are punishing them frivolously. If it isn't then what is the point? What is being accomplished that could not be done with a neutral?

This is a perfect example of busybody 3rd parties inserting themselves into transactions where they need not be. If a user wants to start an escrow service they should be able to without a rectal inspection by a dozen 2 bit wanna be forum cops. At the end of the day lazy or careless people are going to lose their money no matter what you do. More importantly it is not up to 3rd parties to dictate to the rest of the forum what their acceptable level of risk is. This forum shouldn't be a "nanny state".

This is something people often define as "concern trolling", and as I said it is very transparent as one of the direct beneficiaries of the Barney Fife system of raising your influence around here, you are simply using this as a convenient method of attempting to discredit my opinions and derail the discussion by injecting old bullshit in a very lame attempt at pretending you don't know what happened. You aren't fooling anyone.

Speaking of Master-P, who was it that got him to return about half of the stolen funds using words alone? I forgot...

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZGcjrN7X7Rc

YES Gary... yes...

Or maybe just an opportunity for you to pursue your own grudge... as if you can't simply read the post history. This is very transparent.

You "know" I have a grudge against default trust, yet you don't even know what happened. Interesting.



That is the primary reason why I suggest a set of standards one agrees to abide by as a prerequisite of inclusion is to reduce these grey areas that not only con artists operate in, but also the kind of con artists that burns the clueless or confused user base to make themselves look good.

I have been trying to tell this forum for a REALLY long time that we need a very clear set of rules we all agree to abide by. Inherently any time you do this there will be imperfections of course, but not having a base set of standards for users here is FAR MORE damaging. It is more important that some ANY frame of reference exists for us all to refer to than it be perfect in every way. Without this BASE standard, there will never be respect for any authority or rules here, unwritten or not, because all rules will be a result of arbitrary and selective enforcement.

While I empathize for Theymos here in some ways (I wouldn't want it to be my problem), I also think that this latest default trust system change was like throwing gasoline on a dumpster fire. Honestly though, in some ways I find it hard to blame him. What better way to kill a tumor than to burn it out using its own energy? The problem is the forum might go with it.

Dumpster fire aside, I think this is also a genuine opportunity for the users here. Theymos is essentially indicating he wants the user base to fix their own problems regarding trust. Nothing is stopping users talking to those within their own networks of trust and forming a constitution of sorts, or rules for being part of the trust network. What I suggest is that these individuals and groups write their own rules for engagement with others on the forum, and those within those networks can form their own rules for inclusion.

I am sure a lot of you just puked in your mouths right now thinking about such a future, but the fact is this is the system we already operate under regarding these factions, Theymos just removed the veneer from it. It is time for the productive, constructive, and creative part of the user base here to use this as an opportunity to create counter forces to these abusive trust network cartels that already operate here (for whatever the reason).

Lets create a set, or multiple sets of rules that are universal, clear, able to be uniformly enforced, and create a system of redress of grievances. Con artists and power hungry sociopaths have trouble with rules when they aren't the ones dictating them. This forum is amazing when it comes together and upholds the standards that make it great. Lets make some basic, clear, enforceable, and just rules that don't end up causing more trouble than they are preventing. Then we can finally tell the resident forum Barney Fife's to go pound sand when they try to accuse and harass others to increase their own influence.