-snip-
Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white. But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case. Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself. That's fine. COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests. This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust. Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something. The idea in conflict of interest assertions is that two forces which are logically in opposition---the most classic case is regulators with ties those they regulate, another is say, wikipedia editors and CEOs of businesses (when the CEO of a business tries to edit the wikipedia article on his business); in those cases there's a clear conflict (CEOs have an obligation to promote their business' image; wp editors have an obligation to present things as objectively as possible). Imagine a case where a father is a regulator for coal industry and his son is the president of a coal mining company. Perhaps the father is ethically fulfilling his role as a regulator and shuts down his son's business without prejudice when it crosses some legal line, but perhaps not. My point is that conflict of interests don't necessarily lead to wrongdoing, someone may or may not succumb to them, but that they should be avoided when they are obvious. Thus, many people would object to father-son regulator-regulatee pairs at the outset. I think the same holds true with account-sellers and default trusters. The default trusters have an obligation to be just in neg-repping accounts, account sellers have an obligation to their own profit. Theirs a clear line connecting neg-repping of accounts to more profit for account sellers thus the conflict of interest exists.
Alright, I think we can agree that QS has a conflict of interest. My understanding of COI was indeed a bit off. I personally dont think they misuse their position on DT for their personal gain from selling accounts.
-snip-
I tend to thing that the better solution is to remove or eliminate default trust---as I wrote in another thread in meta. Many of the mods have also complained about people reading too much into the trust system's warnings, using them as a crutch for laziness, etc. A scaled back solution which may also help is going to be changing the text from the inflammatory "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" to something more descriptive "This person has received a negative feedback from someone on your trust list."
Its my understanding, and the last attempt to change the system by theymos reinforces this, that the Trust System is mainly a community driven tool. Yes, admins are on DT and add or remove people from it, but its rules are mostly decided by the community and can change over time. IIRC trading accounts lead to neg rep when I started here. Thus a change in the system would have to come from a large userbase or at least from enough influential members.
IMHO higher standards on ratings from those on DT should do the trick.
-snip-
Okay, back to trading trust. Mainly it seems that Salty and other mods just want to see it happen to really determine the outcome. I appreciate the empirical approach. But I think the OP's main point was to satirize the state of affairs where accounts can be traded outright but appranantly trust cannot. Maybe I should make an account "TRUSTSeller", and offer to escrow such deals and keep them secret (as QS does with account trades).
Yes the hyperbole was amusing for a while, but Im afraid it only resulted in the majority of people that actualy cared about this topic to abandon thread. I dont know, maybe you should. Maybe it turns out that a large portion of the community does not care about bought trust.