Quote from: suchmoon on February 15, 2019, 07:33:52 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 15, 2019, 07:09:39 PM

More trust ratings does not equal more protection, it means LESS as I already explained.

I didn't say anything about "protection", only about due diligence. If people want to be reckless that's their right. And no, you haven't actually explained your theory that more ratings "provide cover for scammers". It would help to have some examples of scammers who are scamming in the current system and would be prevented from scamming in your proposed system.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 15, 2019, 07:09:39 PM

Just because it is supposed to work that way doesn't mean it does or that it ever will, and after years of this horse shit it is not looking good. This standard will only work if it is implemented top down. That is how standards work.

This implies that someone would need to moderate the trust ratings and either remove non-compliant ones or exclude the users who post non-compliant ratings, i.e. enforce the standard.

At that point might as well get rid of the trust system and ban scammers instead.

No you said this...

Quote from: suchmoon on February 15, 2019, 03:07:32 PM

What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence.

This statement makes a direct implication that more ratings is desirable and would offer more protection. It would not as I explained above. Furthermore your statement also implies that leaving arbitrary negative ratings will some how prevent scams. It will not. EVEN IF that was a valid argument, nothing is stopping anyone from leaving NEUTRAL ratings as a warning and making posts warning the forum in the appropriate "Reputation" or "Scam Accusation" subforums.

Your entire argument consists of "BUT THE SKY WILL FALL!", personal attacks, and thread derailing.

Yet I did explain it, above and and more detail elsewhere in threads I know you have red but for the sake of appearing like you don't understand you pretend you don't know..

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 15, 2019, 07:00:28 AM

Also what is preventing these scammers from just buying a new account and returning moments later? The question is not if the trust police are helpful, it is at what cost, and is it worth it? I would argue they are doing more to divide the community and provide cover for scammers because everywhere is a sea of red over the most petty disputes. This makes it EASIER for these con artists to blend in.

Lots of frivolous red ratings. People go hey we aren't scammers. People learn red ratings don't always mean scammer. Red ratings now no longer useful warning. You understand?

In summary if the ratings actually have an objective standard they will ACTUALLY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE not just be a constant source of conflict, confusion, and cover for even more theft. Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not going to entertain your hypothetical bait to try to turn this into more interpersonal petty bickering. If you can't bring an argument against the logic itself then you have none.