@theymos your board sinking in chaos

[hilariousetc]

I wonder how much drama would actually stop if the feedback system was removed (or negative feedback doesn't paint you 'red'). No more hilariousandco vs mdayonliner? No more Lauda vs Quickseller? No more Cryptohunter vs Everybody? Sometimes I honestly think we should just do away with it because of all the drama it causes but it would only lead to more scams against the newer members. I wonder if we did remove it would we get threads every other day asking WHY ISNT THERE A FEEDBACK SYSTEM HERE in some variation or another.

I don't think suchmoon should get tagged for buying one of Bruno's accounts. Suchmoon does have a decent amount of trust, a lot of merit, and is on many people's trust lists. If someone was looking from the outside, and saw suchmoon do something, they would reasonably think, based on her stats that it would be acceptable to engage in similar behavior. Suchmoon is not the only person who has bought/sold forum accounts that can be described this way.

Some have argued they don't want to go back "far in time" to tag people who have engaged in this activity. However I would ask those who regularly tag these types of people what they would say if someone saw that a very "senior" (lot of good trust related stats) forum member did something, and assumed this was acceptable behavior, and proceeds to engage in similar behavior? 

That was a fairly unique case and I think they should be taken on a case by case basis. I think suchmoon stepped in to try take the account off the market because bruno was trying to sell it and suchmoon effectively gave him a loan so he didn't have to and the account didn't fall into the wrong hands (which would be a good thing or net positive). I could be wrong though. Isn't the account returned to the original owner now anyway? There are plenty of other users that used to take loans out with accounts as collateral but that practice seems to have fizzled out (especially by more notable members probably since account trading became frowned upon).

[1713458211]

1713458211

[1713458211]

1713458211

[1713458211]

1713458211

[xolxol]

I'm sure scammers, account farmers and trolls will be dearly missed. How many more threads of crying are we going to see before you stop?

what about extortionists? are we going to paint these abusers too? 

[mdayonliner]

I wonder how much drama would actually stop if the feedback system was removed (or negative feedback doesn't paint you 'red'). No more hilariousandco vs mdayonliner? No more Lauda vs Quickseller? No more Cryptohunter vs Everybody?

hilariousandco vs mdayonliner

It did not start for the feedback you left for me for the 21BTC escrow offer (which I admitted almost immediately when I realized it was a mistake from my side), it started when you desperately started to accuse me of the connection of other accounts. And your goat head is too big that you even did not realize it all those days? You will never be convinced (I guess) that those are not me and will never apology for that. Knowingly or unknowingly you are damaging the forum.

Don't blame the feedback system, blame the people who are misusing it.

[hilariousetc]

I wonder how much drama would actually stop if the feedback system was removed (or negative feedback doesn't paint you 'red'). No more hilariousandco vs mdayonliner? No more Lauda vs Quickseller? No more Cryptohunter vs Everybody?

hilariousandco vs mdayonliner

It did not start for the feedback you left for me for the 21BTC escrow offer (which I admitted almost immediately when I realized it was a mistake from my side), it started when you desperately started to accuse me of the connection of other accounts. And your goat head is too big that you even did not realize it all those days? You will never be convinced (I guess) that those are not me and will never apology for that. Knowingly or unknowingly you are damaging the forum.

Don't blame the feedback system, blame the people who are misusing it.

I never said it did start with that. In fact, I think this is very relevant. You clearly lost the plot with me after the accusation and people painted the m_dayonliner account. You were seemingly ok and well behaved before that even though I left the original escrow feedback. Why would you even care about the accusation if it wasn't true or wasn't yours? I think you care because it likely is actually true and I effectively ruined that account you were busy working hard on to build your reputation and merit. Same goes for Retina. I only posted what I saw were very suspicious coincidences. Others found more and I'm not the only one who believes you are the same.

[Joseph R. Cord]

Thanks to your shitty trust feedback and known abuse of a small group your board is sinking in total choas.
Rules which have no value.DT members red tagging for any shit they belive is legit EVEN the rules clearly allow it.

Soon there will be no more much members left which won't be tagged as scammers.

Its nice to see how massivly the amount of destroyed accounts increase.

Signature campaigns accepting negative trust because there are no more many left without negative trust.

Another campaign creating choas that people get tagged as scammers for promoting something where the other group says its a legit offer.

Your board is clearly sinking in total chaos and i guess in 6 months you will be able to count high ranked member accounts without negative ratings with your own fingers.


You are in my eyes clearly part of the abuse as its you who allow a small group to destroy massiv amount of legit accounts for something which is a joke expecially having forum rules for which people get their accounts destroyed when following them.

Your trustfeedback goes to an end and hopefully also the massiv abuse you let the community feel from a small group which are destroying accounts based on their mood and business interrest.

How many new campaign managers have camplained to have their accounts destroyed by some DT members who are themself campaign managers ?


Traffic of that forum is already massivly sinking when comparing with other crypto boards......


A clear decline of your shitty trust feedback which is the biggest shit you could ever implement when having such manipulative DT members on board.

Absolutely "AGREED", some of these people think they are making the forum "BETTER", but that's wrong and their intention is entirely different. It's fairly "COMMON" to see them "ABUSE" disrespect and do everything to a "NORMAL" member, as they feel they are "SUPERIOR" in every way.

I am sure "ADMIN" had this feedback system "ONLY" to make the forum better and to make people "STOP" doing something "WRONG".

But thanks to these people that "SYSTEM" has become irrelevant, in the finest way "POSSIBLE".

IF anyone needs to find logic then just "CHECK" the feedback that most people get. It will 90% have it from people who are "BLIND" followers or want to be in "GOOD" books of the big bullies, so if they see someone is "TAG" by that "BIG BULLY" they join in "BLINDLY", so rest it won't matter anything because no one is going to "ASK" them anything for this, instead there is "BIG" chance of them receiving "MERIT" for their NOBEL action.

So in short explanation, they basically "CLOSE" the door on faces of people who made "MISTAKE", and since they are not given chance to "CORRECT", they start caring "MINIMUM" for it and due to this the system is simply becoming useless, and I "BET" in next 6-8 months, it will become absolutely "MEANINGLESS".

And as said by Thule, soon there will be "NO ACCOUNT" left to tag, then these bullies will tag themselves!!!

I wonder how much drama would actually stop if the feedback system was removed (or negative feedback doesn't paint you 'red'). No more hilariousandco vs mdayonliner? No more Lauda vs Quickseller? No more Cryptohunter vs Everybody?

hilariousandco vs mdayonliner

It did not start for the feedback you left for me for the 21BTC escrow offer (which I admitted almost immediately when I realized it was a mistake from my side), it started when you desperately started to accuse me of the connection of other accounts. And your goat head is too big that you even did not realize it all those days? You will never be convinced (I guess) that those are not me and will never apology for that. Knowingly or unknowingly you are damaging the forum.

Don't blame the feedback system, blame the people who are misusing it.

I am sorry to disagree, but you got to "BLAME" the system. The reason you do is that it is created on "UNFAIR" grounds, as everything that works "WELL" in this world is one that has "BALANCE" and "CHECK" system.

Unfortunately, and really really unfortunately, with the "CURRENT" Feedback system, there is "NO CHECK", so it's like throwing "LOWER RANK" people in the cage of "HUNGRY WOLFS", they will eventually eat up "EVERYTHING".

The system has become a "JOKE" because of reasons already mentioned by many. YET unfortunately the "ADMIN" is BUSY in watching or ignoring.

[suchmoon]

I don't think suchmoon should get tagged for buying one of Bruno's accounts. Suchmoon does have a decent amount of trust, a lot of merit, and is on many people's trust lists. If someone was looking from the outside, and saw suchmoon do something, they would reasonably think, based on her stats that it would be acceptable to engage in similar behavior. Suchmoon is not the only person who has bought/sold forum accounts that can be described this way.

Except I didn't buy the account. But you're right, if this sets an example that it is acceptable to engage in similar behavior, i.e. help someone out and prevent them from doing something ill-advised - that's fantastic. And I don't mind getting red-trusted for it.

[Joseph R. Cord]

I don't think suchmoon should get tagged for buying one of Bruno's accounts. Suchmoon does have a decent amount of trust, a lot of merit, and is on many people's trust lists. If someone was looking from the outside, and saw suchmoon do something, they would reasonably think, based on her stats that it would be acceptable to engage in similar behavior. Suchmoon is not the only person who has bought/sold forum accounts that can be described this way.

Except I didn't buy the account. But you're right, if this sets and example that it is acceptable to engage in similar behavior, i.e. help someone out and prevent them from doing something ill-advised - that's fantastic. And I don't mind getting red-trusted for it.

Be little bit more honest. You mind it, but you know you "WONT" get such tags, because people who are "BULLIES" here won't try to target someone like you, as that's not "HOW" they work.

The only "TARGETS" they have is people who "CANT" fight or if they even try, they have "ENOUGH" in the bag to trouble them further.

So why do you "SERIOUSLY" think these "WISE" head will pickup a "FIGHT" with someone like you, who can damage them "EQUALLY".

[The-One-Above-All]

I wonder how much drama would actually stop if the feedback system was removed (or negative feedback doesn't paint you 'red'). No more hilariousandco vs mdayonliner? No more Lauda vs Quickseller? No more Cryptohunter vs Everybody? Sometimes I honestly think we should just do away with it because of all the drama it causes but it would only lead to more scams against the newer members. I wonder if we did remove it would we get threads every other day asking WHY ISNT THERE A FEEDBACK SYSTEM HERE in some variation or another.

Cryptohunter VS scammers, liars, trust abusers and their supporters and ass kissers, from where we are watching.

There is no evidence to suggest the pseudo security of NOT having a red tag does not do more harm than just getting rid of the entire system? I wonder the number of successful scams that took place because the person says to himself: hmmm he would have a red tag if he was a bad guy. I'll send him my bitcoins.

I wonder how many HUGE scams were pulled by green trusted users?

These stupid petty scams the DT idiots bust, are only the scams the VERY dumbest and most greedy would fall for. The LARGEST scams are the projects here that produce convincing white papers, with a credible team, that burn through their dev funds, dump all their tokens and have some fake bust up and years later nothing happen but a bunch of newbies and greedy bums lost all their BTC and the dev team unloaded all their expensive tokens and took the dev funds in huge wages.  They then pop up later to start a new project. The billions lost there and the damage to confidence in the entire decentralized trust less dream is magnitudes more than these petty 3rd world thieves DT members think they prevent trying to snipe a couple of btc.

If you want a trust system THE MINIMUM is not allowing person on to it that are observable liars, scammers, extortionists, or guilty of ANY financially related untrustworthy behavior AT ALL, AND give some sensible fucking guidelines and enforce them. You only tag people that scam or you have a STRONG case they are going to scam. How hard is it? people that think they can red tag others who simply present facts about them, or wish to examine their behavior publicly, can be blacklisted, obviously.

[suchmoon]

Be little bit more honest. You mind it, but you know you "WONT" get such tags, because people who are "BULLIES" here won't try to target someone like you, as that's not "HOW" they work.

The only "TARGETS" they have is people who "CANT" fight or if they even try, they have "ENOUGH" in the bag to trouble them further.

So why do you "SERIOUSLY" think these "WISE" head will pickup a "FIGHT" with someone like you, who can damage them "EQUALLY".

There is no fight. I have clearly stated numerous times that I would not retaliate against a neg trust rating. And there are plenty of DT members whom I can't "damage" even if I wanted to.

[yogg]

THE MINIMUM is not allowing person on to it that are observable liars, scammers, extortionists, or guilty of ANY financially related untrustworthy behavior AT ALL, AND give some sensible fucking guidelines and enforce them.

Scams as well as trust are not moderated.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I wonder how much drama would actually stop if the feedback system was removed
<***>
I wonder if we did remove it would we get threads every other day asking WHY ISNT THERE A FEEDBACK SYSTEM HERE in some variation or another.

Yes of course, the forum can never please everyone. Just like the days of no merit system, we did have some users complaining of the easy rank up of spammers and now we have those complaining the system isn't working sorry that they aren't benefiting from the system. The scammers all over meta complaining of the trust system not working or been abused are the same people using their alt account to tag any user that's opposing them. If theymos feels the trust system is doing more harm than good he'll remove it without a second thought just as he did with Yobit signature spam encouraging campaign.

[The-One-Above-All]

Be little bit more honest. You mind it, but you know you "WONT" get such tags, because people who are "BULLIES" here won't try to target someone like you, as that's not "HOW" they work.

The only "TARGETS" they have is people who "CANT" fight or if they even try, they have "ENOUGH" in the bag to trouble them further.

So why do you "SERIOUSLY" think these "WISE" head will pickup a "FIGHT" with someone like you, who can damage them "EQUALLY".

There is no fight. I have clearly stated numerous times that I would not retaliate against a neg trust rating. And there are plenty of DT members whom I can't "damage" even if I wanted to.

Your word is not worth much though and you operate as a gang. Therefore one of your friends or alts will find a reason to red trust at some point. That is not to mention that the same gang gives out all of the merits (to each other mostly)  so they can kiss goodbye to any rank up etc.

You only need to read the true legends most important thread of the year to understand how it all works and the clear implications.

@yogg

yes, that is WHY it is a suggestion for improvement. That is why the board is a gamed and abused mess. With you and your crew of obseravable liars, scammers and probable extortionist trust abusers contributing to its imminent demise.

Of course you do not want to be accountable for your actions.

@CryptomanureBrainlessboss

Present evidence of the scammers that are complaining ? or is that just your latest ass kissing attempt to get to a higher rank to spam your signature ? 3rd world ass lickers are sickening. I see that cabalism13 is now begging to use his "wifes" account to spam 2 sigs.
Must be terrible to be so desperate for btc crumbs.  If you are going to spam the board with your sig please make sure your post has some tiny value rather than obvious net negative nonsense. Present the evidence to support your claim. Where are the scammers that are complaining? where are their scams? I find it impossible to believe any REAL scammer is going to come to meta to complain about the DT system.

Bring evidence or you must be branded as one who would false accuse others for some merit scraps and to spam your sig. No more pajeets ass kissing with false allegations.

[actmyname]

-snip-

You want double enforcement on the trust system? Moderators, enforcing DT members, enforcing all members?

Or perhaps would you like every feedback to be peer-reviewed before it is published, giving time for scammers to proliferate and the opportunity for the system to be spammed?

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

<***>

No men you have to try something new, I'm already getting used to been judged based on some conditions i have no control over like been born in a 3rd world country. Beside I'm not ashamed of that, that's why I boldly updated it on my profile and that's the only reason why you got to know that I'm from a 3rd world country. The trust system was introduced to combat scammers therefore anyone wearing a red tag must have been a scammer, tried scamming or associate themselves with scam either through alt accounts or any other means. I don't have to proof anything to you. It isn't rocket science, it's just common sense and from the look of things I'm very sure you don't have one.

If your post is not deleted then there should be a good explanation of why.

Still waiting for a notification of post deletion. Normally I don't reply to direct replys from your type and this also will be my last (hopefully).

[The-One-Above-All]

<***>

No men you have to try something new, I'm already getting used to been judged based on some conditions i have no control over like been born in a 3rd world country. Beside I'm not ashamed of that, that's why I boldly updated it on my profile and that's the only reason why you got to know that I'm from a 3rd world country. The trust system was introduced to combat scammers therefore anyone wearing a red tag must have been a scammer, tried scamming or associate themselves with scam either through alt accounts or any other means. I don't have to proof anything to you. It isn't rocket science, it's just common sense and from the look of things I'm very sure you don't have one.

If your post is not deleted then there should be a good explanation of why.

Still waiting for a notification of post deletion. Normally I don't reply to direct replys from your type and this also will be my last (hopefully).

My type? those that tell the truth and ask for idiots like your to back up your nasty allegations with some evidence?

The only thing you need to be ashamed of is your obvious stupidity. Stop appearing so desperate, and ass kissing so hard, for a few merits and some btc crumbs.

Thanks for confirming you are accusing people of being scammers with ZERO evidence, and can not provide any even when called on to provide it.  It is not rocket science to see that you are shrinking away, from providing anything to substantiate your wild accusations and net negative dirt, you spill everywhere spamming your  sig.  

You illustrate the point clearly: that these systems remove all accountability. They are damaging ill conceived junk that allow any fool such as yourself to label a person a scammer when NOBODY can present any case to demonstrate they have scammed or intended to scam anyone, even when challenged. I can present evidence that many DT members are very untrustworthy: some are scammers, liars and probable extortionists? what  do you say about that?

Thanks for illustrating 2 points, the other being that your off topic sig spam that broke my local rules was not deleted because the mods are as corrupt as most of the DT members here. They selectively delete what they feel suits their agenda and fits in with their pals here.

You need to show up and be my assistant more often.
Or will you run away and hide now ?


@actmyname


The low level bogey men here are avoided by all except the most foolish or most greedy. The real bogey men are not something DT have the power to prevent or capacity to identify. Presently some of the mid level bogey men are the DT members.

Some objectivity and accountability will return free speech to the board and ensure scammers can not brand honest members with a scam tag.

The implications you mention, are likely mitigated to a large extent, with a couple of simple tweaks.

Rushing to judgement is at times, potentially useful, but for the judgement to stand, it must be accompanied by a strong case. Those failing to provide after a sensible time frame are removed from DT, if they do not remove the red tag.

Free speech, and protecting the innocent from self enriching scammers and liars, is far more important that a small (if any) % real benefit in saving the greedy or foolish from themselves.

[actmyname]

some objectivity and accountability will return free speech to the board and ensure scammers can not brand honest members with a scam tag.

I disagree with the idea of giving out negatives for contrasting beliefs. I'm assuming that's what you're describing: am I correct?

the implications you mention are likely mitigated to a large extent with a couple of simple tweaks.

If you can elaborate on your ideas then I would be glad to discuss the ramifications and consequential effects of your tweaks. I enjoy playing devil's advocate in all cases and believe that no idea begins in its final state: it must be polished thoroughly.

rushing to judgement is at times potentially useful, but for the judgement to stand it must be accompanied by a strong case. Those failing to provide after a sensible time frame are removed from DT if they do not remove the red tag.

I can agree with that. Sometimes, potentially compromised accounts or incredibly likely scams (that have yet to be proven) should be given an initial block as to safeguard the general public from malicious entities.

[Joseph R. Cord]

There is not a "HUGE" problem with the "SYSTEM", the only issue is that there is no "CHECK" on it.

Now what this means is that "PEOPLE" are FREE. Like someone said above, it almost gives "OPEN" opportunity to people to "GANG" up against ANYONE, who is even "CORRECT".

Although, I believe some people here are genuinely "GREAT" in terms of their intention, but by large, there are more who are making life "HELL" for beginners here.

The only "WISH" I ever have is that there should be proper "MODERATOR" super-mod like and he should be incharge along with the Admin to keep "CHECK" on members who have the "POWER" to give Feedbacks.

Just like we can "REPORT" posts, there should be "APPEAL" option against the feedback, where the said user should be able to add his opinion along with the proofs.

Which should go "DIRECTLY" to the Admin and Mod. And then IF they consider that it's right, then not only the "APPEAL" should be rejected, but also the user gets "BANNED" for certain number of days/week/months. And in case the IF the "APPEAL" is proven "SUCCESSFUL, then the user who provided feedback should be "REMOVED" from that position or probably should be "GIVEN" warning along with asking to delete the Feedback.

I am not going to be crazy and say Admin/Mod should be check every single such Appeal deeply, but probably could just take some overview of it.

But even just having "SUCH" system will "INSTALL" fear on such "BULLIES" that there is SOMETHING that can "STOP" them, as right now there is "NOTHING" that's there for it. And that's the reason why some people think they are "ADMIN" of this forum.

[actmyname]

Big capitalized words don't make me want to read it. They have the opposite effect on your post. This is amplified by an order of magnitude when you bold it. Now, if you were to color it blue... that would certainly be an eyesore.

There is not a "HUGE" problem with the "SYSTEM", the only issue is that there is no "CHECK" on it.

Let's start with this statement.

You can appeal. In Reputation. And there have been instances in which DT members have disagreed with one another and countered the rating. Example: me, on multiple occasions.

Now what this means is that "PEOPLE" are FREE. Like someone said above, it almost gives "OPEN" opportunity to people to "GANG" up against ANYONE, who is even "CORRECT".

Show me an example of such a case where the red-trusted member was in the right.

Although, I believe some people here are genuinely "GREAT" in terms of their intention, but by large, there are more who are making life "HELL" for beginners here.

I agree. There exist many scammers frolicking across the forum.

The only "WISH" I ever have is that there should be proper "MODERATOR" super-mod like and he should be incharge along with the Admin to keep "CHECK" on members who have the "POWER" to give Feedbacks.

It's called DT1.

Just like we can "REPORT" posts, there should be "APPEAL" option against the feedback, where the said user should be able to add his opinion along with the proofs.

It's called Reputation.

Which should go "DIRECTLY" to the Admin and Mod. And then IF they consider that it's right, then not only the "APPEAL" should be rejected, but also the user gets "BANNED" for certain number of days/week/months. And in case the IF the "APPEAL" is proven "SUCCESSFUL, then the user who provided feedback should be "REMOVED" from that position or probably should be "GIVEN" warning along with asking to delete the Feedback.

And when we start getting threads of "my appeal was rejected??!?!?!" and false positives/negatives?

I am not going to be crazy and say Admin/Mod should be check every single such Appeal deeply, but probably could just take some overview of it.

Unfortunately the reality is that for a significant chunk of negative feedback, looking over the evidence will take an equally significant amount of time. I would know: I had to pore over a few hundred of Lauda's sent feedback.

But even just having "SUCH" system will "INSTALL" fear on such "BULLIES" that there is SOMETHING that can "STOP" them, as right now there is "NOTHING" that's there for it. And that's the reason why some people think they are "ADMIN" of this forum.

theymos has blacklist power.

[Butterscotch Cartman]

I got red trust from Lauda for saying positive things about bitcoin cash.............

[Joseph R. Cord]

Big capitalized words don't make me want to read it. They have the opposite effect on your post. This is amplified by an order of magnitude when you bold it. Now, if you were to color it blue... that would certainly be an eyesore.

There is not a "HUGE" problem with the "SYSTEM", the only issue is that there is no "CHECK" on it.

Let's start with this statement.

You can appeal. In Reputation. And there have been instances in which DT members have disagreed with one another and countered the rating. Example: me, on multiple occasions.

Now what this means is that "PEOPLE" are FREE. Like someone said above, it almost gives "OPEN" opportunity to people to "GANG" up against ANYONE, who is even "CORRECT".

Show me an example of such a case where the red-trusted member was in the right.

Although, I believe some people here are genuinely "GREAT" in terms of their intention, but by large, there are more who are making life "HELL" for beginners here.

I agree. There exist many scammers frolicking across the forum.

The only "WISH" I ever have is that there should be proper "MODERATOR" super-mod like and he should be incharge along with the Admin to keep "CHECK" on members who have the "POWER" to give Feedbacks.

It's called DT1.

Just like we can "REPORT" posts, there should be "APPEAL" option against the feedback, where the said user should be able to add his opinion along with the proofs.

It's called Reputation.

Which should go "DIRECTLY" to the Admin and Mod. And then IF they consider that it's right, then not only the "APPEAL" should be rejected, but also the user gets "BANNED" for certain number of days/week/months. And in case the IF the "APPEAL" is proven "SUCCESSFUL, then the user who provided feedback should be "REMOVED" from that position or probably should be "GIVEN" warning along with asking to delete the Feedback.

And when we start getting threads of "my appeal was rejected??!?!?!" and false positives/negatives?

I am not going to be crazy and say Admin/Mod should be check every single such Appeal deeply, but probably could just take some overview of it.

Unfortunately the reality is that for a significant chunk of negative feedback, looking over the evidence will take an equally significant amount of time. I would know: I had to pore over a few hundred of Lauda's sent feedback.

But even just having "SUCH" system will "INSTALL" fear on such "BULLIES" that there is SOMETHING that can "STOP" them, as right now there is "NOTHING" that's there for it. And that's the reason why some people think they are "ADMIN" of this forum.

theymos has blacklist power.

I have "NOT" written a "LOVE" story that I want you to read, there is nothing much to read with me using the "BOLD" part, it was just done like that.

If you "LIKE" the appeal in that format, then why not have "REPORT" in same format?

If I begin showing "HOW" lovely some Feedback are then probably it will take days to get even 50% of it. And I am sorry I am not going to waste my time on that.

It's called DT1.

It's called Reputation.

So, basically you want to "TEACH" things here. Do you seriously think I am not aware of it? So, please talk sense if you can.

And when we start getting threads of "my appeal was rejected??!?!?!" and false positives/negatives?

An action by Admin or Mod is far more "RESPECTABLE" than done by these genius and self-claimed admins.

Lastly, IF you read my post "AGAIN" you should understand I NEVER said that it should be checked "DEEPLY", but just a moment of overview to see anything really wrong while there should be record of appeal against anyone, so if there are too many appeals against someone, then that person can be checked properly for once, at least.

While the "SYSTEM" I suggested automatically makes people "FEAR" to "APPEAL", as rejected one means "BAN" of certain time and similarly, it also install "FEAR" on the person who leaves feedback, as he too can "LOSE" his power.

That's how you keep "CHECK"

And I am not saying that just because "I" or "SOME" dislike the system that it should be done, but this is just "HOW" LIFE is.

Check the "WORLD" a country that doesn't have a proper "CHECK" system are suffering the most, while ones where there is check and balance, they are growing stronger and better.