Quote from: TECSHARE on February 16, 2019, 06:49:27 AM

Well that's a surprising assessment from you. I thought you regarded me as a patronizing asshat.
I'm still not certain who you propose is going to regulate this "mob." If the administration somehow puts them all on a DT blacklist, how do we know that their replacements will be any better once they gain power? As the trite saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the end, it's probably going to be another clique. Like it or not, people form alliances here with like-minded individuals. This clique will likely seek to exclude those that disagree with their particular point of view. You'd be surprised what a group of people can do to twist simple guidelines like you propose and have it work to their advantage.

I actually pegged you for a pretty well rounded individual in spite of our disagreement about some topics. You know how logic and debate work unlike most people here. I found it sad you felt the need to feel like part of the in crowd over supporting my statements you already demonstrated agreement with meriting. I am not sure how a completely dry post about the trust system is entertaining... but whatever excuse you need to make so you are sure you don't find yourself out of the "cool kids" club by admitting you agreed with me once publicly on this topic.

The VERY POINT is they will not have absolute power. They have that now because the rules are COMPLETELY arbitrary because they are all subjective standards open to so much interpretation to be meaningless. These standards are not, they are objective, and everyone can look and decide for themselves based on objective things, not what some one suspects, feels, or guesses arbitrarily. In effect they can abuse and then just pretend they don't via wide interpretation. This narrows that ability for interpretation significantly, and reduces the ability for arbitrary and abusive use of the system.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 16, 2019, 12:29:09 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 16, 2019, 03:58:11 AM

It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or facetious here, but I would like some clarification on this.

Scam accusations are currently enforced in the following manner:
1) The accuser posts a thread outlining their accusation and supporting evidence in the Scam Accusations board
2) Users discuss the issue, and frequently more supporting or refuting evidence is found
3) One or several users (which may include DT members) may tag the accused provided the evidence is sufficient

Now let's say I find an ICO who is advertising with a fake team - using made up names, stock photos, and fictitious LinkedIn profiles with fake qualifications, job histories and business links. In my opinion, they are breaking the covenant of good faith by being dishonest with their potential customers/victims. I tag them as such. You disagree with my judgement and make a post saying as such, stating that we need evidence of theft to have occurred before a negative tag can be left. (This is just an example - we could substitute in 100 difference scenarios here.)

Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?

Edit: Spelling

Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it. If you have none of those things you either leave a neutral rating as a warning and or create threads warning about them in the reputation or scam accusation areas. I already said the system would be no different than it is now, EXCEPT we would be operating on a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. That's it.

All Theymos has to do is declare that his preferred standard, then the community then bases their trust list off of who follows it. He doesn't need to officiate over every fucking case, or really any, and I think you know that is not what I meant, but any opportunity to discredit you gotta take right? Or they can rate how they like and find themselves with no power in the trust system via community exclusion. All this other stuff is garbage designed to confuse the fact that this is a simply implemented solution to many problems.