⭐ Merited by digaran (3)
It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever.
If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.
If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world.
that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before.
the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same.
that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head.
this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist.
No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy.
i didn't say that. that's a straw man.
the above said, "get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law." it didn't say, "anyone who got off the hook is the cop's drinking buddy." words matter.
i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. eg if a DT member posts in this thread, it's reasonable to assume they are aware of the cases being discussed. the question then becomes, what are their standards per their sent feedback? if their standards are inconsistent, can we at least form some community standards instead of just perpetual hand-waving? to outsiders, the message is "only those get tagged need to answer for anything; those who who do the tagging are always in the right." this is why i talk about authority. that's the same logic that people apply to cops who beat up, rape and murder people, then protect each other from prosecution. you apparently prefer to give cops, DT members and other authorities the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time. i don't.
for example, if account selling was perfectly trustworthy on date x and scam tag-worthy on date y, can we establish a standard? how about trust farming---how far back is long enough to let bygones be bygones? if there is a time aspect, can users who got tagged get rehabilitated or let off for "rookie mistakes" after a certain period of time, or does this logic only get applied to a limited group of people (who might also now happen to occupy DT)? what about "lying" and "slander?" when does "lying" warrant negative trust?
if you don't hold anyone to any standards, then these threads won't go away. and more bandwidth will be wasted yet.
The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women.
conflicts of interest don't require collusion. they just confer personal benefit.
and there should be a general expectation that people in positions of authority are supposed to self-police. this is why government agencies have ethical codes that lay out precise standards and define what is and isn't a conflict of interest, with emphasis on preventing them. this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. you're using that as a basis to say DT members don't use their position for personal benefit. i just disagree.
Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%?
nobody is saying everyone is in cahoots. that's another a straw man:
Quote
i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders.
you point out how few DT members there are. yet a comparison to "all speeding drivers in the world" is applicable? you're conflating well-known DT members with newbie throwaway accounts to bolster the idea that all conflicts of interest are just based on ignorance or nonchalance, because there's oh so many people in the world, can't tag them all! but actually, we're talking about a pretty small group of people.
anyway, just talking about how social authority works in general. i've already said too much here---already got that bootlicking toady digaran lobbing ad hominem attacks and claiming merit abuse because i expressed a general opinion about the trust system. pfff and you guys wonder why people post in meta/reputation from alt accounts? lesson learned: i'll use an alt next time i post an opinion that isn't just parroting groupthink. already half-expecting my opinions to be construed as "lying" or generic "untrustworthy" behavior or "slander" and red tagged anyway.