Quote from: Lauda on January 24, 2019, 09:05:14 AM

You're starting to sound like you are part of the Quickseller clique with each new post. Wait, I guess this is also harassment. Roll Eyes

Quote from: Lauda on January 24, 2019, 09:21:32 AM

FTFY. TECSHARE has been butthurt about all of this for ages; the same goes for Quickseller. They can't handle their own bias. Everything would be fine and dandy if they were (still) in what they call "positions of power".

Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently. Cheesy

Quote from: Lauda on January 24, 2019, 09:42:10 AM

Outside of his own confirmation bias, he does not, no.

Quote from: Lauda on January 24, 2019, 09:21:32 AM

A new address has been staked, without any prior signed message. Quite convenient.

Notice the standard operating procedure of attacking the person, claims of alts, and making veiled accusations/threats of inquisition rather than addressing the subject matter.

Quote from: nutildah on January 24, 2019, 12:30:53 PM

It works both ways buddy.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 24, 2019, 08:04:01 AM

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't. If they aren't then it is just a meaningless joke of a popularity contest that will only serve as cover for con artists to use perpetually to rip people off because they can just keep buying/hacking accounts.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 24, 2019, 08:04:01 AM

Your ~~first~~ statement is neither a fact nor an argument. It is at best your opinion. Just more hypothetical waxing poetic about more sky falling rhetoric.

Not at all the same. The difference is I just explained in detail why this is the case, in addition to oh what, 5 years of history of this to reference since the trust system was implemented? You are pointing to a hypothetical. I am referencing current reality.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 24, 2019, 04:44:44 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 24, 2019, 08:04:01 AM

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't.

I mean, right from day one, the trust system was about more than just trading:

Quote from: theymos on May 21, 2013, 11:23:33 AM

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 24, 2019, 08:04:01 AM

Without trade there is no risk. Without risk there is no trust.

This just isn't true. This might be your opinion of trust, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. There are plenty of trolls/crazies/scammers/etc on this forum I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, and I don't need a failed trade to take place to know that. Similarly, there are a handful of users who I would trust enough to make a trade without escrow, despite not having positive feedbacks for trading. Trust is based on behavior, integrity, character, principles, etc, as well as a good trading history. If you only want to pay attention to feedback left for trades then that's your prerogative, but many other users find feedback left for other reasons useful, as is evidenced by the current list of DT1 members who were voted in by the community based on the perceived usefulness of their feedback.

Notice how they all close ranks around the talking point of "opinions" now that they feel there is a gap in my argument they can exploit to discredit my points.

This is not just an opinion. Either the trust system is for trade or it isn't. It is supposedly a guide for noobs to use as an easy reference. Now you argue that those noobs have the knowledge to determine the difference between some one who has never been trusted with funds and those who have under this ambiguity. Your own arguments are contradictory, not mine. Acting like a track record of handling funds well is equivalent to being popular on the internet in regards to noobs trusting people with funds is asinine and shows a fundamental ignorance of how con artists work.

There is no reason that neutral ratings can not be used for these unconfirmed issues, suspicions, etc, and plenty to lose in terms of harassment, mobs, intimidation, and just general steamrolling behavior because no one is willing to devote the time or resources to check their behavior. There is no one to watch the watchers so to speak, and Theymos has clearly indicated he is not interested in taking up this role. The most logical conclusion is to set up a protocol that minimizes the damages of this scenario by outlining a very strict rubric for acceptable negative ratings.