Quote from: figmentofmyass on April 03, 2018, 11:00:11 PM

when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods?

i'm guessing not.

i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't.

this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority.

not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest.

otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty.

What you are doing is contradictory. you have the same post-activity counts. you are an alt account. only your friends have merited you. you have 1-3 posts in average when you are actually active. what kind of consistent interactions could you possibly have with this community to have the audacity to talk about consistent standards of DT members? you are not active enough to know about their good deeds, but you have a deep understanding about their friends, enough to conclude there is a conflict of interest.

You caught the retribution from my post above. why don't you consider the circumstance? if Lauda has left negative feedback on somebody for selling one account 3 years ago. Lauda should do the same to Blazed. but if Blazed is willing to pay a fine and exonerate himself and if Lauda agrees on it, there is nothing you could do other than paying the same amount for the same wrong doing if you were tagged by Lauda for selling account 3 years ago. if there is any evidence of any wrong doings by DT members which has to have happened on the same day as Lauda leaving negative trust on somebody else for the same wrong doing, provide us with that evidence.

OP is saying that Blazed did something in the past, Yahoo did something in the past and OP is asking Lauda to tag them because she has tagged others for the same reasons. I'm telling @OP, show us a negative trust by Lauda on the same dates and for the same reasons on other members. show me evidence of Blazed selling an account yesterday and a negative trust by Lauda on another member for selling an account yesterday. if there is such evidence and you couldn't get justice in this community would be an obvious abuse by the ones in power.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on April 03, 2018, 06:50:49 PM

I was not insinuating that I think Blazed deserves negative trust. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with your proposed solution. If the community deems that a $200 fine is sufficient to warrant the removal of negative trust, so be it.

I didn't say that community should deem that amount to be sufficient or any amount. I said what if. I sold an account 3 years ago but just now Lauda tagged me for that. Lauda should tag Blazed too. that never happened.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on April 03, 2018, 06:50:49 PM

There are, however, other ways to prove that you are trustworthy. Blazed has done just that, which you can see with even a brief glance at his trust page. He is not comparable to some shitposter trying to buy their way in to a signature campaign. Leaving negative trust for the latter and not for the former is a perfectly logical position to hold.

Wrong. if Blazed is doing something as selling accounts today, Lauda should tag him. do we have any evidence to prove that to be true? saying that Blazed has done so many good things for this community, let him sell accounts today and look the other way, that is what you are saying. or you are saying that Lauda should be the only judge to decide if somebody is posting garbage or not? isn't that the reason to have merit system, to stop garbage posters slowly and don't tag them just for posting garbage?

Quote from: suchmoon on April 04, 2018, 04:18:53 AM

The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.

If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy.