Moved here to stop going off topic.
The exact criteria for a red tag comes down to this:
You think that trading with this person is high-risk.
No it comes down to this.
The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
~snip~
- Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
- Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
I would not consider drawing conclusions from the ruling of an arbitrated dispute to be unstable behavior. So again unless these posters are simultaneously acting in bad faith regarding Trades/Services, I advocate for neutral tags to note opinions on their behavior/opinions/posts.
That or we could start tagging people for typos and grammar. They could mess up the terms which makes them a risk to trade with.
That's my piece and the more I wrote I feel I needed to end it with this. I try not to tell people how to do things and seem to be having a harder time of it lately. This is my opinion, take it for that. It's your feedback use it as you will, but there are guidelines.
What I quoted and what you quoted signify the same thing. You're leaping to conclude that the ratings would necessarily be based on personal disagreements when this isn't the case.
Stretching out the argument out to include red tags for "typos and grammar" serves no purpose -- you're headed down the straw man path which is counterproductive to discussion of the issue at hand.
The actual disagreement between us is whether or not the trust system should be used proactively. You're entitled to your opinion on that matter, but to assume contrary opinions necessarily fall into the basket of wanting to use red trust to punish people for disagreeing with them is a stretch.
Telling me what our disagreement really clears things up for a fella
You can consider it leaning to a strawman all you want. I offered it up as a comparison as I find the idea of telling people they can't comment about a ruling after the fact with their opinions on either party, or risk being red-tagged; to be as ludicrous as my example. I see no difference in threatening to see people red tagged over commenting their opinions one way or another over an arbitration in a scam dispute. No point in my post did I say "Well this is what you say is okay and it's the same as this which is so stupid, can't believe you are for this."
What I quoted lends to the idea that this is a nuanced system and not as black and white as the "You think trading with this person is high risk". I was sharing what seems to be forgotten all to soon information and guidance. Telling people if they post in this thread after deserves a red tag, is well outside what I consider to be appropriate use.
I then left the caviat where the reasoning of tagging someone for their opinions/posts could warrant a tag. If it falls into unstable behavior which in itself is a wide net.
I would re-read your last sentence and apply it yourself in this case. I am not against pro-active use of the trust system, I am against the lines being blurred to the point where peoples opinions on a forum matter and comments about this afterwards are now negative tag worthy.
I straight up advocated to tag these users neutral if people feel a tag is necessary.
