Quote from: actmyname on February 05, 2018, 02:33:11 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 05, 2018, 02:16:14 AM

Correct; the problem isn't for tagging actual merit system abusers, but rather tagging users where there isn't enough evidence to support the claim.

So in this case, should we only tag users that we are strictly sure are abusing the merit system?

i.e. not through circumstantial merit exchanges of large amounts but rather threads or other media that voice merit trading/selling?

Seems like it'll let alt rings get away scot-free and will also let people who do off-site trading boost their merit.

Well, defining what *definite abuse* of the merit system (without a direct alt account connection) is somewhat hard. IMO, in cases where there is no clear alt connection you should watch for more signs of abuse (not just points sent once or twice between a few people).

Quote from: actmyname on February 05, 2018, 02:33:11 AM

I'm willing to retract some ratings that are circumstantial but I believe there are at least some that seem pretty absolute.

Indeed.

Quote from: nullius on February 05, 2018, 05:54:42 AM

As food for thought, and not to suggest any sort of legal proceeding or legal implications, here is an intentionally cute layout of a spectrum of standards of proof; treat this as if I made it all up on the spot:

Reasonable (articulable) suspicion: You have a suspicion which can be clearly explained in reasonable terms. More than a mere hunch; much more than a guess. But still no more than a suspicion.
Probable cause: On the face of things (at first sight, prima facie), the accused probably did it.
Preponderance of the evidence: Evidence of guilt outweighs evidence of innocence. Implemented via those balance scales you see carved into statues of blindfolded ladies. Note: This requires reasonable thoroughness in loading both sides of the scale, not just stuffing one side and jumping to a conclusion.
Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence of guilt is strong. Evidence of innocence is weak or nonexistent.
Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt: The only way he didnt do it is if space aliens[1] did it instead.

The 4th case is the simplest, and I think that was what theymos was aiming at with his statement of clear abuse. However, as per your post as well, I believe this to be short-sighted. It's very easy for people to abuse the merit system, people which are not alts of each other, via outside communication channels. If we were to completely skip the first three standards, then we would probably miss the majority of abusers.

Quote from: nullius on February 05, 2018, 05:54:42 AM

Based on the timing, I have a reasonable suspicion that the DDoS attack expressed displeasure over the merit system. Thank you for your efforts to protect it, actmyname.

I haven't though about that. If it were the case, then the account farming business is even heavier than I expected. Undecided

Quote from: Ucy on February 05, 2018, 09:45:26 AM

Forum needs a strong BLOCK button. I think it will make people a bit more careful with silly utterances.

Go away deep onion shill.

[1] Replace space aliens with space cats. Thanks. Tongue