This is exactly what they want you to say. They want to shift focus, attack your character, derail and drive you out.
Don't let them do it over and over again.
Stick to the core points that are indisputable.
* The trust system should provide accurate, credible, quality warnings for scammers, those that are trying to scam or attempting to set up scams. There must be objective independently verifiable evidence of direct financial threat or the huge list of undeniably net negative insoluble problems is generated.
Stick to this inviolable truth and they have no argument that will stand up to scrutiny.
You guys are making it very easy for them to throw doubt on the objectivity of those standards that form the basis of the guild.
A list of all those that agree to operate within objective standards that have been repeated time and time again.
Notice how suchmoon and malboroza or any other critic dare not refute the or even try to form any rebuttal against the implementation of those objective standards.
They only want to pick apart the past behaviors of those in the lists. I expect since it has been fully acceptable for people to give lemonade drinkers red tags for a while that nobody will have upheld impeccable standards for their entire history. Of course their own lists likely include those that have abused trust far more regulatory and ruthlessly.
That makes no difference to them at all. They will operate as they always do: if they can not defeat your core and central points they will find any other minor detail, irrelevant or unimportant detail or even just make things up to list and discredit the possibility of losing their favorite, subjective, and manipulated weapon :the red tag.
Losing the subjective excuse to abuse people and maintain their advantage in many areas, including financial selfish gain, is going to mean they will try anything to prevent objective independently verifiable standards that ensure all members are treated equally are introduced.
Stop playing right into their hands. Force them into one open decision:
support a shift to an objective standard or produce and argument that stands up to scrutiny. That argument does not exist. There is room to crush every aspect of their argument, and still maintain clear objective definable standards and removal the insoluble problems.
Stop allowing them to focus on non essential details that are not required for the shift to an objective standard to take place.
Who cares who makes the choices and warnings so long as they are accurate, credible, valuable warnings that prevent scammers, those attempting to or setting up scams from operating unanswered.
Neg tags need removal. Neutral or positive only and the warnings are taken care of by flags and only for those posing direct financial threat.
How hard can it be to realize there has been no possible counter argument that will stand up to scrutiny? don't give them any other non essential details to cling on to.
Failure to support the objective standard for warnings going forward can get you on the excluded list no problem. The lists will be dynamic anyway and being added on either will only be that members own choice to operate and abide by the objective standards or not.
I have not seen one valid argument stand against the core ideology or goals of the guild. Only trying to pick holes in the lists. Take away their detailing material, we don't even need it.
