Quote from: Quickseller on February 27, 2016, 04:42:03 AM

EM seems to be much more mature then the other two and I would say that he is contributing positively to the community. He seems to not like people selling what is clearly stolen gift cards (who would like these people -- except other people involved in fraud), but instead of unanimously starting to leave negative trust for a bunch of sellers, he solicited feedback, input and advice from the community on when to leave negative trust for gift card sellers. This is evidence that he is not adopting policies on negative ratings based on his own personal feelings but rather based on the community norms.

Uhuh, so was I supposed to create another thread when such shady activities were brought into light by him? Also you're confusing "feelings" with "opinions". He has pretty much stated that the ones he has tagged will stay that way until they provide proof, I don't find my ratings to be any different(exception being anonymous as I am not entirely sure if he's selling illegal GCs, considering the reasonable discount).
Also since my arguments sound simplistic/immature , here's cryptodevil

Quote from: cryptodevil on February 26, 2016, 10:47:39 AM

Personally I find the arguments and faux-outrage of those of less-than-honest nature, when it comes to being marked as having a less-than-honest nature, utterly fallacious.

Just as much as nobody is here to stop them doing whatever they wish to do in their libertarian utopia, we are equally as entitled to objectively mark them as evidently having demonstrated a less-than-honest nature.

We're not stopping them, we're simply communicating to others the facts of their past behaviour.

It's called consequence, people.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 27, 2016, 04:42:03 AM

I believe that the other two have good intentions but maybe they got power hungry (this was suggested above)

Don't get me confused with y'self Wink

.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 27, 2016, 04:42:03 AM

and they seem to develop their policies of negative ratings as they go. I fear that they may get to the point that if they wanted to, they could adopt policies that would apply specifically to their enemies and/or critics. Imo the best basis for a negative rating is when someone actually stole money from someone and/or clearly attempted to steal money from someone. I believe they are greatly expanding above this threshold and this is dangerous.

If you're talking about my "Policy for the most common negs" , I feel they're as reasonable , if not more than reasonable , than the ones implemented by Vod or pretty much any members who tags newbs who ask for loans with no collateral.

Also show me an example of when I have "adopt policies that would apply specifically to their enemies and/or critics"