Quote from: OgNasty on February 06, 2019, 05:14:06 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 06, 2019, 04:51:41 PM

Quote from: Gunthar on February 06, 2019, 04:44:41 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 06, 2019, 04:32:17 PM

This discussion needs to happen here because less people read in reputation, and wouldn't you know it that also serves their goal of having even less people consider these arguments by moving the debate to reputation even thought it clearly applies here.

Fair enough, we might want then open Cats-vs-Dog thread in Meta, without hijacking every single post: I seriously expect to write/read about OP in here, nowhere OP wrote "hey let's do this change if you like Lauda, else let's do this other change if you like OG"

Hijacking at a certain point might be considered on the same level than spam/OT.

It is kind of hard to have a civil discussion when not having one serves one of the parties more than having one. This is again a fundamental flaw with this system. There is no real accountability for these people once they gain a certain amount of control, then we need a whole fucking blowout like this that ends up creating divisions to obtain redress when we could have just started with some simple universal guidelines to avoid all of this in the first place.

We did get some guidelines from theymos yesterday...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49600801#msg49600801

It took less than 24 hours for Lauda to spit in the face of those guidelines by leaving me negative trust with a ridiculous reason (spoiler alert: Lauda is guilty of the same trust abuse behavior I pointed out in the feedback reference link I was left. Also, don't let them bury the fact that Lauda is a confirmed liar about his feedback motivations.).

Indeed we did, and I did find that encouraging. However I am of the opinion that these very subjective guidelines are the source of much of this conflict as everyone interprets them differently leaving an environment of confusion, arbitrary enforcement, and abuse. The standard should be something that is more universally understood and factually based. We should use a standard that requires evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating. The community can be the arbiter of what specifically those words mean in detail, the staff need not be involved short of issuing the standard to operate from.

Largely what we have been getting is the illusion of decentralization. If this is going to continue to be the case there should be some firm and clear limits placed upon those in control of the trust systems. I go into more detail why we need this here.