Conflict of Interest on DT1

[OgNasty]

What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts.

Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion.

Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts.  I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest.

[1714058820]

1714058820

[1714058820]

1714058820

[digaran]

What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts.

Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion.

This is how it works every where, when you have done something against the rules (DT2 made up rules) you would pay a ^[1]fine.
There is no written law to determine the amount here, I'm writing them now and it could be agreed upon by consensus voting. if Lauda has tagged any member of this forum for selling an account 3 years ago, should Lauda remove their tags if they agree to compensate for their wrong doings according to Lauda? if Blazed agrees to pay $200 and Lauda accepts that to be enough for community's retribution. anybody with negative trust for selling an account 3 years ago, has to pay $200. or any amount determined by Lauda and it should be paid to the forum.
I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution.
^[1]

A fine or mulct is money that a court of law or other authority decides has to be paid as punishment for a crime or other offence. The amount of a fine can be determined case by case, but it is often announced in advance.
The most usual use of the term is for financial punishments for the commission of crimes, especially minor crimes, or as the settlement of a claim. A synonym, typically used in civil law actions, is mulct.

One common example of a fine is money paid for violations of traffic laws. Currently in English common law, relatively small fines are used either in place of or alongside community service orders for low-level criminal offences. Larger fines are also given independently or alongside shorter prison sentences when the judge or magistrate considers a considerable amount of retribution is necessary, but there is unlikely to be significant danger to the public.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_(penalty)

Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts.  I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest.

And we should find alia (the real young girl on camera) for you as a bonus for your valuable inputs. you don't get to decide here, there is a conflict of interest, you would benefit from the result of your solution. should I call the forum's fella to explain this to you?

~B ~LM for beggar and the forum's law maker.

[Lauda]

I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution.

Quickscammer is likely to be OP; what else should one expect? A solution that actually makes sense? This thread is boring, like all the other ones started by this cartel. Just give them a few number 6's with a diet coke and they are going to be silent for a while.
The first rating I gave to someone regarding this was in Q4 2016 I believe. I don't like digging graves.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution.

You misunderstand me. I was not insinuating that I think Blazed deserves negative trust. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with your proposed solution. If the community deems that a $200 fine is sufficient to warrant the removal of negative trust, so be it. I, however, think the exact opposite; paying to hide the fact you are untrustworthy is even more untrustworthy.

There are, however, other ways to prove that you are trustworthy. Blazed has done just that, which you can see with even a brief glance at his trust page. He is not comparable to some shitposter trying to buy their way in to a signature campaign. Leaving negative trust for the latter and not for the former is a perfectly logical position to hold.

[figmentofmyass]

I was surprised to see yahoo's trust farming thread from 2014. But it only took him 1 reply from Vod and 10 minutes to realize it's a bad idea, and lock the thread. Let's call it a rookie mistake.

when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods?

i'm guessing not.

i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't.

this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority.

I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc

Well there ya go.  If Blazed doesn't get negative trust for selling an account, and working with a scammer, then no one else should get negative trust for selling accounts either.  

not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest.

otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty.

[suchmoon]

He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided.

His "normal" account is already red-tagged the wazoo, so no, this is just the opposite - trying to make it look like more users are joining Quicksy's vendettas.

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. Despite Blazed owning 12% of DT or whatever, the remaining 88% could easily tag those users if they choose to do so. So again, Quicksy is just throwing a fit like a 3-year old who didn't get his ice cream for breakfast.

[Lauda]

not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest.

If you think that is consistency, then there is something wrong with your brain. There is a reason for which, when laws or social norms change, we don't apply consequences to people who used to break them before the change.

[digaran]

when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods?

i'm guessing not.

i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't.

this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority.


not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest.

otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty.

What you are doing is contradictory. you have the same post-activity counts. you are an alt account. only your friends have merited you. you have 1-3 posts in average when you are actually active. what kind of consistent interactions could you possibly have with this community to have the audacity to talk about consistent standards of DT members? you are not active enough to know about their good deeds, but you have a deep understanding about their friends, enough to conclude there is a conflict of interest.

You caught the retribution from my post above. why don't you consider the circumstance? if Lauda has left negative feedback on somebody for selling one account 3 years ago. Lauda should do the same to Blazed. but if Blazed is willing to pay a fine and exonerate himself and if Lauda agrees on it, there is nothing you could do other than paying the same amount for the same wrong doing if you were tagged by Lauda for selling account 3 years ago. if there is any evidence of any wrong doings by DT members which has to have happened on the same day as Lauda leaving negative trust on somebody else for the same wrong doing, provide us with that evidence.

OP is saying that Blazed did something in the past, Yahoo did something in the past and OP is asking Lauda to tag them because she has tagged others for the same reasons. I'm telling @OP, show us a negative trust by Lauda on the same dates and for the same reasons on other members. show me evidence of Blazed selling an account yesterday and a negative trust by Lauda on another member for selling an account yesterday. if there is such evidence and you couldn't get justice in this community would be an obvious abuse by the ones in power.

I was not insinuating that I think Blazed deserves negative trust. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with your proposed solution. If the community deems that a $200 fine is sufficient to warrant the removal of negative trust, so be it.

I didn't say that community should deem that amount to be sufficient or any amount. I said what if. I sold an account 3 years ago but just now Lauda tagged me for that. Lauda should tag Blazed too. that never happened.

There are, however, other ways to prove that you are trustworthy. Blazed has done just that, which you can see with even a brief glance at his trust page. He is not comparable to some shitposter trying to buy their way in to a signature campaign. Leaving negative trust for the latter and not for the former is a perfectly logical position to hold.

Wrong. if Blazed is doing something as selling accounts today, Lauda should tag him. do we have any evidence to prove that to be true? saying that Blazed has done so many good things for this community, let him sell accounts today and look the other way, that is what you are saying. or you are saying that Lauda should be the only judge to decide if somebody is posting garbage or not? isn't that the reason to have merit system, to stop garbage posters slowly and don't tag them just for posting garbage?

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.

If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy.

[figmentofmyass]

when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods?

i'm guessing not.

i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't.

this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority.


not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest.

otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty.

What you are doing is contradictory.

what, exactly, was contradictory?

you have the same post-activity counts. you are an alt account.

wtf? so now shitposting everyday every week to outpace the "activity" count is a prerequisite for not being labelled an alt? you forum police are taking this shit too far.

and how---exactly---is any of this contradicting anything i said?

only your friends have merited you.

oh joy, the merit police have arrived!

dude, first of all, who gives a shit about merit? this is just pathetic.

second of all, since you're the merit police, let's have a gander. i received 15 merit total from 13 people. no one person gave me more than 2 merit. in your case, 30 of the 72 merit you received came from one person. that person also has two recent negative trusts for scamming. your alt account, i guess? or maybe just a friend, as you say?

see how fucking bullshit these baseless accusations are? you act like some tribunal member in some orwellian fiction. get over yourself.

you have 1-3 posts in average when you are actually active. what kind of consistent interactions could you possibly have with this community to have the audacity to talk about consistent standards of DT members? you are not active enough to know about their good deeds, but you have a deep understanding about their friends, enough to conclude there is a conflict of interest.

first of all, please learn how to apply the english definition of "standards":

something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : criterion

an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

whether standards are consistently applied is a matter of objective fact.

i don't need to have been around for years or have consistent interaction with the community (whatever the fuck that means? explain) to talk about matters of objective fact. if someone posts examples of DT members applying inconsistent standards, anyone with a brain is capable of assessing that. this requires logic and reason, not a certain quota of forum posts per day. it's completely ridiculous---no, embarrassing---that this needs to be said.

second of all, i've been reading this forum for like 5+ years. who the fuck are you to say i'm audacious for expressing extremely general opinions about the shittiness of the centralized trust system? the fucked up trust system and the pro-doxxing (and surprisingly anti-libertarian) culture here is why i would never go near the marketplace with a 10-foot pole as a vendor.

and third, i spoke very generally about how authority and conflicts work, and thus why the trust system is doomed to failure. wtf are you on about with "a deep understanding about their friends" and other bullshit like that? you're just making even more shit up now.

[LoyceV]

when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods?

I think the correct answer is: "sometimes". But I also think it's pretty clear the majority of Newbies use disposable accounts hoping to pull a quick scam. Once they receive red trust, they move on to the next account.

[Bardman]

He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided.

His "normal" account is already red-tagged the wazoo, so no, this is just the opposite - trying to make it look like more users are joining Quicksy's vendettas.

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. Despite Blazed owning 12% of DT or whatever, the remaining 88% could easily tag those users if they choose to do so. So again, Quicksy is just throwing a fit like a 3-year old who didn't get his ice cream for breakfast.

''The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.'' Why is that a big fallacy? You would be abusing your power if you only tagged people that you wanted to. If you agree that account sellers should be tagged then all of them should be tagged otherwise what's the point of trust ratings. If anyone can do whatever they want then we might as well not have a trust rating system.

[Lauda]

He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided.

His "normal" account is already red-tagged the wazoo, so no, this is just the opposite - trying to make it look like more users are joining Quicksy's vendettas.

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. Despite Blazed owning 12% of DT or whatever, the remaining 88% could easily tag those users if they choose to do so. So again, Quicksy is just throwing a fit like a 3-year old who didn't get his ice cream for breakfast.

''The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.'' Why is that a big fallacy? You would be abusing your power if you only tagged people that you wanted to. If you agree that account sellers should be tagged then all of them should be tagged otherwise what's the point of trust ratings.

If you see things as black and white when they clearly aren't, then there is a very obvious fallacy (false binary) present.

If anyone can do whatever they want then we might as well not have a trust rating system.

That's pretty much how it has been recently more or less (see recent collusion to exclude people you disagree with and whatnot); well, at least for those who abuse it. Theymos rarely steps in (next to never), which makes it even worse.

[suchmoon]

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.

If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy.

It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever. If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.

Why is that a big fallacy? You would be abusing your power if you only tagged people that you wanted to. If you agree that account sellers should be tagged then all of them should be tagged otherwise what's the point of trust ratings. If anyone can do whatever they want then we might as well not have a trust rating system.

Besides being physically impossible, this is just plain ridiculous. We have 100+ people in DT for a reason. If some turkey fucker is reluctant to tag someone then someone else can step up. If no one does then maybe the supposed offender doesn't need to be tagged.

Yes, I'm tagging only people that I "want to", i.e. have the time to review their alleged offence and to make up my mind. Trying to make me tag someone I don't "want to" could amount to extortion, something the OP claims to know a lot about.

[figmentofmyass]

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.

If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy.

It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever.
If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.

that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before.

the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same.

that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head.

this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist.

[Blazed]

Back when I bought that account we did not have the current spam issues and no sold accounts were being tagged. The main reason I was fine with buying the account was my knowing the person who was posting with it (known him for 15+ years now). You can tell the thread was publicly posted as was the norm back then.  Paying fines to remove trust is a really bad idea and will lead to all sorts of trouble.

[suchmoon]

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.

If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy.

It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever.
If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.

that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before.

the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same.

that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head.

this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist.

No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy. The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women.

Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%?

Quicksy has been going on about all this "DT abuse" nonsense for years ever since being kicked out of it. This thread is just a ridiculous waste of bandwidth.

[Bardman]

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.

If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy.

It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever.
If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.

that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before.

the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same.

that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head.

this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist.

No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy. The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women.

Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%?

Quicksy has been going on about all this "DT abuse" nonsense for years ever since being kicked out of it. This thread is just a ridiculous waste of bandwidth.

Well, lauda for instance has 2 negative ratings from shorena and Ognasty and yet he is still on DT2 isn't he? So they are actually tagging each other, it's just that it doesn't seem to matter, I mean is Lauda a scammer or not? Is Ognasty giving false ratings then? Is Lauda allowed to give shorena trust ratings in retaliation or viceversa? The whole thing seems to be a mess honestly.

[suchmoon]

Well, lauda for instance has 2 negative ratings from shorena and Ognasty and yet he is still on DT2 isn't he? So they are actually tagging each other, it's just that it doesn't seem to matter, I mean is Lauda a scammer or not? Is Ognasty giving false ratings then? Is Lauda allowed to give shorena trust ratings in retaliation or viceversa? The whole thing seems to be a mess honestly.

Lauda was briefly kicked out of DT2 as well. Perhaps all this is the proper reflection of the non-monochrome nature of the issue. Lauda has the negs clearly visible to anyone who cares. Lauda also has tons of sent feedback that was deemed important enough by a DT1 member to re-include Lauda. This has been litigated publicly for so long that I doubt there is anything else that needs to be done here.

Og seems to be douche-canoe of epic proportions but that's an entirely different topic.

[figmentofmyass]

It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever.
If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.

that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before.

the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same.

that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head.

this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist.

No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy.

i didn't say that. that's a straw man.

the above said, "get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law." it didn't say, "anyone who got off the hook is the cop's drinking buddy." words matter.

i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. eg if a DT member posts in this thread, it's reasonable to assume they are aware of the cases being discussed. the question then becomes, what are their standards per their sent feedback? if their standards are inconsistent, can we at least form some community standards instead of just perpetual hand-waving? to outsiders, the message is "only those get tagged need to answer for anything; those who who do the tagging are always in the right." this is why i talk about authority. that's the same logic that people apply to cops who beat up, rape and murder people, then protect each other from prosecution. you apparently prefer to give cops, DT members and other authorities the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time. i don't.

for example, if account selling was perfectly trustworthy on date x and scam tag-worthy on date y, can we establish a standard? how about trust farming---how far back is long enough to let bygones be bygones? if there is a time aspect, can users who got tagged get rehabilitated or let off for "rookie mistakes" after a certain period of time, or does this logic only get applied to a limited group of people (who might also now happen to occupy DT)? what about "lying" and "slander?" when does "lying" warrant negative trust?

if you don't hold anyone to any standards, then these threads won't go away. and more bandwidth will be wasted yet.

The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women.

conflicts of interest don't require collusion. they just confer personal benefit.

and there should be a general expectation that people in positions of authority are supposed to self-police. this is why government agencies have ethical codes that lay out precise standards and define what is and isn't a conflict of interest, with emphasis on preventing them. this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. you're using that as a basis to say DT members don't use their position for personal benefit. i just disagree.

Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%?

nobody is saying everyone is in cahoots. that's another a straw man:

i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders.

you point out how few DT members there are. yet a comparison to "all speeding drivers in the world" is applicable? you're conflating well-known DT members with newbie throwaway accounts to bolster the idea that all conflicts of interest are just based on ignorance or nonchalance, because there's oh so many people in the world, can't tag them all! but actually, we're talking about a pretty small group of people.

anyway, just talking about how social authority works in general. i've already said too much here---already got that bootlicking toady digaran lobbing ad hominem attacks and claiming merit abuse because i expressed a general opinion about the trust system. pfff and you guys wonder why people post in meta/reputation from alt accounts? lesson learned: i'll use an alt next time i post an opinion that isn't just parroting groupthink. already half-expecting my opinions to be construed as "lying" or generic "untrustworthy" behavior or "slander" and red tagged anyway.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts.

Nor does anyone here have any real authority, except the ability to leave a feedback.  Some are weighed more than others, but in the grand scheme of things a greater weight does not equate with the user whose feedbacks have the greater weight having "authority".

DT members aren't the police.  There certainly may be collusion amongst them (or among any number of members of bitcointalk), and if you don't like it...there's not much you can do about it except do what you're doing, which is writing long, screaming treatises about how unfair the forum is.  This isn't a democracy, this isn't the job market, the department of labor, the Chinese government, or anything else.  It's a discussion forum with a trust system that's obviously (to me) broken, and a bunch of human beings of varying intelligence and honesty.

You can keep complaining about all of this, but eventually people will stop coming over to play once they realize the debate is failing to resolve anything.  That's exactly what's going to happen.

If you have evidence of specific people doing specific evil acts, bring forth the proof in the form of a scam accusation in that section of the forum.  Until you do, life--and bitcointalk--will continue on its merry way, being cruel and unfair.