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.
Yet you claimed that
if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict.
No, it's not reasonable to assume that at all. If you can prove the conflict of interest - go ahead. Merely not tagging is not proof of anything.
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.
I may know some case or another and still have no time to dig deep enough to warrant a tag. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by withholding my judgement. I think it would be wrong to pressure DT members to do it the way you seem to be implying.
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.
Not at all. I simply don't assume that ALL DT members, or cops, think and act exactly the same all the time. If one DT member doesn't tag someone tag-worthy, another can do it, and DT members generally don't rape or murder but I have to admit that your gang of straw-people looks mighty spiffy.
If none of the 88% tag the presumed offender(s) then it's very likely that's a nothingburger. Having said that, I would like to see a more diverse set of DT members but recently there was another butthurt thread whining about too many DT members so there goes the "community standard"...
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?
Then we might as well put it into rules and let moderators deal with it. Trust network is more than just a rigid set of standards. There are guidelines and there are processes in place (e.g. exclusions) to deal with abusers.
if you don't hold anyone to any standards, then these threads won't go away. and more bandwidth will be wasted yet.
All or nothing isn't how life works.
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.
I didn't say that at all. I said - post proof.
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.
"All speeding drivers in the world" -> "all account traders on Bitcointalk"
"one cop" -> "one DT member"
That was the context for the analogy.
Then, in a different context, I pointed out how unlikely it seems for everyone on DT to have conflicts of interest preventing them from policing each other. But if you can prove such - go ahead. Feel free to start a Scam Accusation against any user (DT or not) who you think should be tagged.
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.
What are you on about?
