What I was and still am advocating for is a protocol for negative ratings that requires a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I have in detail described why this is needed
here, and in other posts.
That sounds very reasonable if I quote it like this, separately from the rest of your "personal attacks", which you amazingly engage in AND accuse others of engaging in, all within the same post. So unfortunately I have to keep excluding you because of your inconsistency but I would definitely be watching how you would apply all this in practice should you get into DT next week.
Except everything I brought up was about the topic at hand. You call it "personal attacks", I call it calling out their abusive behavior in direct relation to the topic at hand. If you will notice as well it was not myself that engaged in hostilities in spite of the hostile reaction to my points.
Frankly I think this argument is nonsense and just a lame attempt at putting the onus on me for causing a disruption for simply engaging these people like I just should have expected them to act in such a hostile way for suggesting things be done differently. I have been very consistent with my principals, and I find it fairly amusing that again there is always some kind of false equivalency any time any one dares question one of the forum grand inquisitors.
We should be able to be critical of them without it being labeled "a personal attack", and what they were doing was in no way the same thing. It would make it much easier to argue against me if this could all be simply dismissed as yet another personal flame war now couldn't it? I find it interesting you are so set on this narrative, ready to put me on that same bus simply because I don't kowtow to this uncontrolled bullying behavior by submitting to it.