Quote from: dooglus on September 29, 2015, 06:49:16 PM

Quote from: dothebeats on September 29, 2015, 05:28:58 PM

Quote from: Keyser Soze on September 29, 2015, 04:50:49 PM

-snip-
Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

My opinion is that one shouldn't be marked -ve right away if in case they are promoting an obvious ponzi scam. They might not know what they are promoting though, so giving them -ve straight would be too rude and too judgmental. The case would be different if the user in question would promote the thread annoyingly and suspiciously, that's when they should receive -ve trust.

There is no point leaving negative feedback only after the Ponzi has run off with the money.

The time for warnings is before they run off, when the warning can actually do some good.

Yes. You are right. The warning should come before they run away. But, there is a catch. How do you decide a Ponzi? When you or your descendents are marking someone as a Ponzi, there must be some criteria that they are not satisfying and hence they are marked as a Ponzi. But, when the same criteria is not met by others, if you either turn them a blind eye or give them a benefit of doubt, you are not justifying your position in DefaultTrust. This is how you are simply allowing some business (possible Ponzis) to suck more while clearing their competition (possible Ponzis).

Please note that, previously CITM was also removed from DT for doing such partiality. It took time and a massive million dollar scam by his beloved FriedCat, but it did happen. Now, I see him crying on reddit that this forum is a BS etc. I do respect you for your contribution in this forum or as in bitcoin and I do seriously hope, you give a second thought to your judgement procedure.