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.
So in my example, in which I have presented evidence I deem is sufficient, but you disagree and state my evidence is insufficient, then you agree it would left up to the community to decide who is correct, and by extension, who to place on their trust lists and who to exclude, which is what we have now. Right. We have some common ground from which to start.
So now you want theymos to enact a set of standards which he wishes people to follow, but he won't actually enforce them. I'm afraid I fail to see how that will work. If you want a set of standards to be enforced, then someone has to enforce them. If you want the community to decide for themselves, then that's exactly what's happening at the moment. You can't have both. This is what I don't understand in your argument.
If you want people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then theymos
has to officiate over every disagreement. If you don't want the people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then what's the point in having the standards in the first place?
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?
I was perfectly civil in my reply to you, and I would expect the same in return. I'm genuinely trying to understand your system, because I (and most others) currently don't see how it would work. Being aggressive with someone who is simply asking for clarification isn't going to win anyone to your cause.
Exactly. Common ground. Instead of suspicion and guesses, you don't act to harm some ones ratings without a review of evidence. I would say the best way to do it frankly would be to present any evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to the community in the scam accusation area, then allow others to review it. If the evidence presented is sufficient naturally people will want to negative rate them. The standard should be evidence, review, then penalty of negative rating. It is not just a warning system it is also a penalty and this can not be glossed over. I genuinely effects people's ability to trade here and that should be accounted for. You know, the due process everyone in free countries enjoy so much?
Your assertion that Theymos will be required to officiate over every dispute is false, and provably so. Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both. The only difference is the standard becomes more exclusive, and less open to interpretation leading to less disputes and selective enforcement.
We need a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.