TECSHARE (OP)
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 08:15:22 PM |
|
we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.
You forgot to attach "some form of documentation" to your accusation. As usual, you are working overtime to confuse these legitimate arguments to serve your own goals. He is not making a negative rating over this now is he? Good job pretending as if you don't understand the argument though. Gold star. People who aren't doing this basic level of due diligence are just on borrowed time until they are robbed and no amount of shitting out tags is going to stop them from getting stolen from. I disagree. We can't expect every newbie to crypto to instantly be able to tell what is a scam and what isn't. Maybe in the early days when the majority of people involved in bitcoin were technically minded, but if bitcoin is going to grow and appeal to a global audience then it has to start attracting less technically literate people. I don't think it's fair to just say "Do your own research/do your due diligence" and then refuse to arm them with the tools to do so, such as warnings in the form of trust ratings. Sure, red tags won't protect everyone, and sure, there are some who will ignore them and be scammed anyway, but I don't agree with the implication that pre-emptively negative rating scammers doesn't achieve anything. I should clarify here I am talking solely about pre-emptive ratings on obvious scammers, like the examples I gave in my previous post. In terms of the reference you make to ratings being spammed to punish people for opinions or disagreements, I am in agreement that they are entirely inappropriate. Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors. You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system. The idea that you are protecting these people is an illusion. Also you will notice you didn't actually address my point, and instead opted to argue a totally different point. My point is that people acting so recklessly they don't take simple precautions and do minimal amounts of research, such as reading neutral ratings, will eventually be robbed. No amount of spamming tags is going to prevent this. There is no reason that neutral ratings can't be used for warnings that don't meet the standard of evidence. This insistence that negative ratings are needed is more of a compulsive need to serve the one rating so they feel like they had an impact than serving the user base by giving a warning. You are attempting to treat the symptoms, not the cause. You, instead of addressing this point, make some lame straw man argument that we can't expect all newbies to be able to tell what is and is not a scam, therefore, you conclude, we must maintain the status quo. Your preferred status quo doesn't give them any tools either, it just makes them dependent on being told who they shouldn't trade with, giving them a false sense of security, and enabling blind trust in false accusations. As I already explained several times, and a point you seem to be willfully ignoring at this point, is it is not a question if it works some times. It is a question of, is the minuscule benefit it might result in, worth the very obvious abuse and conflict that results from preserving such ambiguous standards? Clearly the answer is no, but I am sure you will think of another straw man to argue.
|
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 08:33:50 PM |
|
we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.
You forgot to attach "some form of documentation" to your accusation. it's not an accusation. it's literally how the trust system works. in fact, i'm actually encouraging people to customize their trust lists so they can vote who they want onto DT1 the same way. unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags.
|
|
|
|
Vod
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3808
Merit: 3118
Licking my boob since 1970
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 08:34:32 PM |
|
Techy tries to remove me from DT for five years. but also Techy says my posts are the best thing on this forum.
I guess when masturbating, when you get that special feeling you tend to lose logic. :/
|
|
|
|
o_e_l_e_o
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18697
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 08:41:58 PM |
|
My point is that people acting so recklessly they don't take simple precautions and do minimal amounts of research, such as reading neutral ratings, will eventually be robbed. And my point is that just because some people will eventually be robbed doesn't mean the entire system is useless. Some people will drive recklessly and eventually kill themselves in a car accident. Doesn't mean we should all stop wearing seat belts. I would still like you to provide some examples of this: Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors. You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system.
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9009
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 08:49:29 PM |
|
we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.
You forgot to attach "some form of documentation" to your accusation. it's not an accusation. it's literally how the trust system works. in fact, i'm actually encouraging people to customize their trust lists so they can vote who they want onto DT1 the same way. unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags. Uhm... "literally" doesn't mean what you think it means. "we've already established" - who's "we", where did "we" establish that, and how did "we" do it? "self-styled scam busters" - who exactly are they? "have voted each other into DT positions" - impossible to verify without listing out the "self-styled scam busters" and showing the math to prove it that their mutual inclusions made them DT members. I doubt you could do that, particularly given the fact that some parts of said math are not quite public. "by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists" - even assuming that you can actually prove the "fact" (might be possible with some creative definition of "hardly anybody"), you would have a really hard time proving that if more people customized their trust lists then the result would be different. I'd call it a hypothesis at best. Not cool to state it as an "established" fact. As usual, you are working overtime to confuse these legitimate arguments to serve your own goals. He is not making a negative rating over this now is he? Good job pretending as if you don't understand the argument though. Gold star.
Have you read the OP? I recommend, it's a doozy. Core tenets:
[...]
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
|
|
|
|
HCP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2086
Merit: 4318
<insert witty quote here>
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 08:53:53 PM |
|
This whole debate looks very much like the "Pro-Guns vs Anti-Guns" debate...
Guns have legitimate uses Guns can be used for non-legitimate purposes
Trust Ratings have legitimate uses Trust Ratings can be used for "non-legitimate" purposes
From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.
Are there not methods to deal with users who are misusing trust? That is to say, exclusions/DT 'voting' etc? Perhaps it is these methods of "checks and balances" that need to be examined and/or modified if they are not proving effective.
|
|
|
|
marlboroza
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2270
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 09:07:30 PM |
|
One of accounts in TECSHARE's trust network, HostFat, sent this feedback: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fd69gZtx.png&t=665&c=EwVQglNdvVeBrA) Why is this person adding accounts who are tagging users because they speak and advocating others to exclude users he doesn't like? Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systematic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
I agree, lets work together! TECSHARE I am suggesting you to place 2 accounts to "~ list": BayAreaCoinsHostFat More observable instances are yet to come.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE (OP)
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 09:39:24 PM Last edit: February 24, 2020, 09:58:02 AM by TECSHARE |
|
Techy tries to remove me from DT for five years. but also Techy says my posts are the best thing on this forum.
I guess when masturbating, when you get that special feeling you tend to lose logic. :/
You seem to be rather obsessed with me masturbating. A bit weird, but ok. Once again VOD has gone too far and has now left me negative trust because he did not like the fact I criticized his abuse of the trust system. In order to prove he does not abuse the trust system he has abused the trust system to leave me a negative rating: Vod 16: -0 / +9(9) 2015-01-06 0.00000000 "Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis. Not trustworthy." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15728My goal was not to have you removed from the default trust list until now... If you don't like me advocating for your removal from the default trust list, maybe don't abuse your authority under it. Your years long pattern of abusing it are well documented in the quoted thread. I don't know how you find the time to post here frankly, I figured you would be busy trying to extort OGNasty into apologizing to you, for something you do regularly I might add. I guess felonies are ok here though, as long as your name is Vod. This whole debate looks very much like the "Pro-Guns vs Anti-Guns" debate...
Guns have legitimate uses Guns can be used for non-legitimate purposes
Trust Ratings have legitimate uses Trust Ratings can be used for "non-legitimate" purposes
From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.
Are there not methods to deal with users who are misusing trust? That is to say, exclusions/DT 'voting' etc? Perhaps it is these methods of "checks and balances" that need to be examined and/or modified if they are not proving effective. I don't think the gun control analogy is useful honestly, as there are a lot of other factors here far beyond self defense vs "public safety". Ideally, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately as the trust system stands, it doesn't take into account these avenues of abuse very well. Since people can't be trusted to not abuse this system, and clearly are not willing to hold people accountable when they abuse it, then the system itself is broken and needs to be changed. Requiring a base standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws I think is the most efficient and realistic way to modify the system for the best results. My point is that people acting so recklessly they don't take simple precautions and do minimal amounts of research, such as reading neutral ratings, will eventually be robbed. And my point is that just because some people will eventually be robbed doesn't mean the entire system is useless. Some people will drive recklessly and eventually kill themselves in a car accident. Doesn't mean we should all stop wearing seat belts. I would still like you to provide some examples of this: Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors. You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system. Now all you are doing is ignoring the point I made, yet again, and opting to repeat your point, as if that some how makes it less of a straw man argument. You aren't making a retort to my point, you are simply repeating your point, again, without addressing mine. Once again, the people who are most likely to fall for the cons you think you might protect them from, are the same people that will in fact be robbed regardless of how many people you tag. No one said anything about the entire system being useless. This is just yet another straw man argument on your part. I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences. As far as your car analogy, it is not an honest one. You compare your position to putting on a seat belt vs not because some people drive recklessly. A more appropriate analogy would be people running around and slashing the tires of anyone they think is driving recklessly. Sure, maybe it might keep some reckless drivers off the road temporarily, but they can quickly just get new tires, and now we have to live in a culture where it is ok for people to run around slashing tires as long as they can make up some lofty pretext to justify it. What could go wrong there?
|
|
|
|
marlboroza
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2270
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 09:58:17 PM |
|
~
^ I like the way how you ignore me when I post something you don't like Core tenets:
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
Lets work together to bring a balance of power to this forum and check its culture of rampant and systematic abuse. Feel free to suggest your own inclusions and exclusions based on these standards.
SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS: bill gator
Why is this account in "suggested inclusions" list? Why is this account in TECSHARE's trust network? This is not by "techare's standards"! Observable instances: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnC8jdLH.png&t=665&c=wMYkFtt723KBpQ) ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTvb0H5f.png&t=665&c=zGptYDuWmNnGsA) Where is evidence of theft? OH! ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FV3G5Tfx.png&t=665&c=6hhozTctieouFA) Let's work together! Adding request for "suggested exclusions" list: BayAreaCoinsHostFatbill gator
|
|
|
|
Vod
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3808
Merit: 3118
Licking my boob since 1970
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 09:58:54 PM |
|
You seem to be rather obsessed with me masturbating. I bit weird, but ok.
Stop bringing it up all the time then. Get a girlfriend. :/ I guess felonies are ok here though, as long as your name is Vod.
Or OGNasty. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
The Sceptical Chymist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 6947
Top Crypto Casino
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 10:06:54 PM |
|
unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags.
I don't know what box I fit into, but my understanding has always been that red trust is for shady behavior/scams, and inclusions/exclusions are to be used to express confidence in another member's judgement as far as their leaving feedback. That might not be others' understanding, of course. From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.
Yeah, of course. And the trust system here is a bit....complex, to say the least. We've got green/black/red trust, we've got flags, and we've got inclusions/exclusions to trust lists. It's no wonder it's a free-for-all.
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9009
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 10:20:37 PM Last edit: November 30, 2020, 03:45:12 AM by suchmoon |
|
I'd like to see what TECSHARE's trust rating is at default trust compared to what it will be when including and excluding those in his SUGGESTIONS.
Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken imageLet's see if anyone can guess which is which.
|
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 10:22:47 PM |
|
I'd call it a hypothesis at best. Not cool to state it as an "established" fact. what a fucking straw man. i never said it was a fact. it was an opinion. "established" means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact. why the fuck are you creating these useless tangents, if not to distract? to convey what i mean, this is the post you responded to: when I say you are in the minority, I mean DT-wise.
so you're just saying "i'm currently on DT1 and other people currently on DT1 haven't net excluded me"? wow okay, well that's sort of a circular meaningless argument that ignores the whole point of this thread. we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.that's what we're trying to change. one of the primary purposes of this thread (IMO) is to say that the rest of the forum can have a vote too: you only need 10 earned merits and then you can participate and affect the default trust system by "voting" for objective/fair members and against biased/unfair members.even people who have been wronged by DT trust abuse can help to remove their abusers from DT. one of the crucial elements is that you must include members as well since a member's trust list must include 10+ users before they can be on DT1. so people need to do more than just exclude abusers and hope DT1 members do the same---they need to build bigger trust networks (with inclusions) so they can actually affect the DT1 lottery or be voted in themselves.this is a numbers game. if everyone keeps refusing to customize their trust list, then nothing will change. the same people will keep voting themselves onto DT1 and perpetuating the current system. Vires In Numeris.i also appreciate that TECSHARE has provided some reasonable cover for people who want to include/exclude people in the OP. on this forum, some DT members have been known to use their position to publicly/privately pressure other members into changing their trust lists. this culture of intimidation (combined with fear of DT retaliation) stifles honest usage of the trust system. perhaps OSG could allow us to create somewhat of a "united front", which DT abusers tend to enjoy, but which the abused never have the privilege of. why did you take the third sentence, completely mischaracterize it as an "accusation", twist my words to imply i presented something as "fact" (when i didn't), and then proceed to ignore the entire post?i already know why---because straw man arguments are the only thing you know.
|
|
|
|
o_e_l_e_o
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18697
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 10:27:18 PM |
|
I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences. Then let me once again ask for some evidence of the negative consequences you have previously spoken about. Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors. You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE (OP)
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 10:47:50 PM |
|
I'd like to see what TECSHARE's trust rating is at default trust compared to what it will be when including and excluding those in his SUGGESTIONS.
![Loading...](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.snipboard.io%2FCojkQ4.jpg&t=665&c=oO4bIYmDsZv4Lw) Let's see if anyone can guess which is which. It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust. This is another example of the drooling gibbering excuses for arguments you people present in an attempt to confirm your bias rather than presenting a logical argument. It reminds me a lot about the accusations Nutilduhhh made of "manipulating the trust system" that other users used as a pretext to negative rate me over. If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me. You are all free to include and exclude people you choose to, no explanations needed because it is your right to do it as you please. When I include and exclude people it is proof of trust system manipulation. Whatever serves your preferred narrative best is what you go with, reality be damned. What is important is you just keep throwing shit at a trust page until something sticks. You take the target and arrange the facts around the goal, you don't examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on it. I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences. Then let me once again ask for some evidence of the negative consequences you have previously spoken about. Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors. You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system. Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments? No, I don't think I will. I could, but all it is going to do is give the usual clowns fodder to argue over and distract from the point of this thread. It isn't hard to find examples. Furthermore, the very act of asking me to document what allowed a scam to happen is rather asinine on its face, and simply bait for you to try to get me to attempt to document things that by their very nature are not conclusively documented. All of this is just yet another sad attempt to avoid addressing my point yet again. Maybe if we slash a few more tires we will all end up safer.
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9009
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 10:50:54 PM |
|
"established" means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact. You used "established" as a verb but linked to a dictionary definition of an adjective. "we've already established" is a clear statement of fact and lacks any signal words of an opinion. I can throw dictionaries around with the best of them. Your hyperbolic bullshit has been duly noted but I'm not buying it.
|
|
|
|
marlboroza
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2270
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 10:52:04 PM |
|
~
Why did you ignore The Pharmacist? I don't know what box I fit into
Please, tell everyone your opinion and reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Vod
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3808
Merit: 3118
Licking my boob since 1970
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 11:08:04 PM |
|
If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me.
Kind of reminds me whenever I leave trust, remove trust, include, exclude, etc. You are always there with your same old boring claim. :/
|
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 11:08:57 PM |
|
unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags.
I don't know what box I fit into, but my understanding has always been that red trust is for shady behavior/scams, and inclusions/exclusions are to be used to express confidence in another member's judgement as far as their leaving feedback. That might not be others' understanding, of course. the contention is around what constitutes "shady behavior". for example, i posted a link earlier ITT of a case of DT2 negative trust where the only evidence provided was the victim's trust list. that seems like outright trust abuse, but it's become acceptable now. nobody seems to be able to say what standards even exist for the trust system at all. really, there are none. it's a "might makes right" system where combating trust abuse is incredibly difficult due to the forces of inertia. my theory: nobody on DT wants to "rock the boat" and step out of line because they know how commonplace retaliatory tags and retaliatory trust exclusions are, and they don't want to lose their status/reputation. it's much easier to brush the issue under the rug and act like trust abuse doesn't exist. nobody wants to directly antagonize trust abusers either, for obvious reasons.it's a shitty situation but one we find ourselves in nonetheless. this is why i encourage anyone and everyone to begin using customized trust lists, so we can perhaps establish a new consensus that might better represent public opinion. "established" means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact. You used "established" as a verb but linked to a dictionary definition of an adjective. indeed, i used "established" as a verb and then you mischaracterized it to mean an "established fact". still a mischaracterization: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establishand who the fuck cares about this? you've yet to address why you are continuing to distract from the discussion with this completely unimportant tangent. If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me. You are all free to include and exclude people you choose to, no explanations needed because it is your right to do it as you please. When I include and exclude people it is proof of trust system manipulation. Whatever serves your preferred narrative best is what you go with, reality be damned. What is important is you just keep throwing shit at a trust page until something sticks. You take the target and arrange the facts around the goal, you don't examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on it.
+1
|
|
|
|
truth or dare
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 15
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2020, 11:15:37 PM |
|
I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences. Then let me once again ask for some evidence of the negative consequences you have previously spoken about. Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors. You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system. It is irrefutable that as there is an increase in frivolous ratings the tagging metric is diluted and devalued. To speculate on the point where such a lack of accurate or useful ratings becomes critical is going to be inaccurate. I have no knowledge of any member saying I ignored a tag because I had read multiple other frivolous flags but that does not mean it has not happened. People generally don't like to admit they ignored warnings then got scammed. However one could reason that a member has been harmed or deceived into loss finsncially, when they avoid a trade or miss out on a great deal due to a frivolous inaccurate tag and pay more to get it elsewhere or where a member is forced out business by a frivolous tag given for personal retribution. Or scammed out of their sig. There are also these insoluble problems we must never forget * members are treated equally and with consistency * free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion * high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals * to make sure people are not afraid to bring to light scams where the scammer can ruin their account with red trust * prevent all the infighting a contued contempt for the abused trust system * prevent red tags destroying competing legit business or destroy legit completion for sig spots * preventing dilution and devaluing legitimate direct example of financially motivated wrong doing with warnings about lemonade, daring to whistle blow on scamming or swearing at someone I would say for sure that the irrefutable threat to free speech is magnitudes more worrying than the loss of pre-emptive warnings because they will always carry an irrefutable risk of punishing the innocent or those lacking knowledge without being trying to internationally trying to scam. However the type 1 flag will still allow you to give credible valuable and accurate warnings of setting up a scam out attempting to scam or requesting luring people into directly vulnerable postions in a strictly financial sense. People trying to make this all about tecshare or any personal disputes are clearly not interested in find what is best for the forum. If they were they would be debating this in that context not speculating on tecshares motivation and trying to use it to criticize him. The point regarding the suggested list was answered and their tags will be abolished with everyone else's and the system will ensure their future warnings are as responsible and accurate as any other members. I say again, the includes list is possibly a stumbling block. Better to build a large group of members that support reducing greatly the subjectivity, by moving to the flagging system and sharpening the lever 1 flag to those that specifically pose a direct financial threat in terms of attempting to scam or setting up a scam. There is no credible argument to retain tagging. It will be found net negative compared to the suggested transparent objective system in every scenario.
|
|
|
|
|