Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post.
Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here.
Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.
Your fourth paragraph doesn't require a response - I am not offering a solution because I'm not the one trying to change the system, and the assumptions you keep claiming I have made I have shown to be false.
A+ responding. Now trying addressing the points. Or don't. I'm kinda bored of going in circles as you attack me/fake assumptions/things I never said, instead of actually clarifying how you want your system to work.
Excuse me if your little selective editing game does not engender confidence in your unbiased examination of the topic. This is the same game Suchmoon likes to play. I answer the same question 8 times and each time they pretend as if I never even attempted to address it. You can continue along with this strategy if you like but I will just start using quotes if so.
Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post.
Yes, actually you did make the assumption, and you did it again by stating it as a given that there would again be the same number of ratings needing review. Not at all true. If you aren't suggesting they help prevent scams what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.
More exclusives standard for rating = less negative ratings = less dispute = no need for EVERY one to be disputed. If you feel you have case closing evidence against some one nothing is stopping you from rating, just know it will then be you under the microscope if you are wrong.
You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best.
I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out the number of negative feedbacks being left which, under your system, would each require discussion.
Here you are again insisting that the number of ratings disputes will HAVE to be the same for some undefined reason, I explained above why it will not be the case. Your insistence that there must be more ratings directly implies that more ratings are desirable for some reason. If not, then why exactly must we have the excessive amount we currently have? This is another case of trying to say something without saying it. This question has been answered, several times.
Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here.
No evidence? How about simple logic. more signal noise = less reliable signal = more people ignoring signal. It is not a complicated concept. Again, you are assuming these ratings are some how helpful, but in a way you refuse to define or demonstrate. Ratings for petty subjective issues are not helpful. That is why we need an objective standard for leaving ratings.
Rather convenient you need not reply to a simple logical formula. After all it does not fit the definition YOU wanted, therefore it MUST be invalid right? I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that you have no argument against the logic itself. No it is just nonsense and beneath you to reply is it?
How about this. How about you define an attainable metric under which
"evidence that too many red ratings provide cover." is potentially obtained.
Then we will operate from there. Of course you didn't purposely word this in such a way that you could later add qualifiers making answering this question to your satisfaction impossible now did you? Of course you could provide a metric under which this is possible to prove right? Oh no? Then lets use simple logic, like the kind you just summarily dismissed and declared you need not respond to.
Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.
Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.
How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now.
Again this is just a rephrasing of the same argument you made above in a different way. Every rating will not result in a dispute or a discussion. It is not a hearing, it is a presentation of evidence upon which a proposed rating will be given. Nothing is stopping anyone from rating at any time as long as they are willing to endorse the evidence. In short this is what happens in scam accusations every single day, only now you would be expected to have evidence before damaging some ones trust ratings.
Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.
The objective standard also conveniently gets rid of the majority of cases of disputes over what is an acceptable rating so, no they will not all require discussion. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.
How many ways are you going to rephrase the same argument? You didn't demonstrate anything. You made assumptions then operate from those assumptions while completely ignoring the explanations why your assumptions are wrong. You are assuming. You are assuming it "doesn't work" because "overload" which I explained in detail will not happen above because every rating will not be disputed. It does in fact change the system because the standard will be evidence instead of "I feel like [insert crime here] prove me wrong." That means we start from an objective point, not a guaranteed dispute point as is standard now.
In summary you haven't shown anything to be false. Essentially you have one argument you repeated in three different ways then proceeded to pretend I had not already answered all of these arguments. Here they are. Refute them, or keep repeating yourself then blame me for talking in circles as you rephrase the same argument 8 different ways.
