Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 18, 2019, 01:49:45 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 18, 2019, 12:15:33 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 18, 2019, 10:18:20 AM

1) Under your system, starting a new thread to discuss every suspected scammer is a non-viable solution - the workload for DT1 would be insurmountable. How would you address this?

1. You make a conclusion which you assume to be true then expect me to operate from that assumption as a given. No. You don't just get to declare it a non-viable solution. I already explained the use of neutral ratings and warning threads. The ratings are overused and therefore ignored and meaningless anyway. Restricting their use to objective standards returns the standard back to quality not quantity so when you see a negative rating it means something.

Except it is true.

You have previously stated multiple times that for each negative rating you want users to first present their evidence in a Scam Accusations thread:

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

It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 16, 2019, 09:03:39 PM

Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it.

In the last 7 days, DT1 members left 273 negative ratings. That's 273 new threads in Scam Accusations which you want DT1 members to read, review, reach a conclusion, and act upon. And that's only ratings from the 54 DT1 members. There are 372 DT2 members I did not bother to pull data for.

It is impossible to expect DT1 members to reach a conclusion on literally hundreds, if not a thousand or so, new Scam Accusations threads every week. How would you address this?

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best. If people aren't even going to read the person's ratings having a red mark in a sea of red marks is not going to signal much and actually ends up providing cover for them. Furthermore that level of complete lack of due diligence guarantees a user will eventually be robbed regardless of what anyone else does.

Second you are assuming that every one of those ratings was valid, beneficial, and needed to be made. That I highly doubt. Also the whole point is there are less negative ratings left. Now only instead of any crime they can imagine happening being justification for a rating, they will have to document it first. The result is then higher regularity and quality of ratings and oh suddenly those red and green numbers have meaning again don't they? After all they are practically meaningless as quick indicators as they are currently used.

Last you are arguing from a point of view that the forum can even be actively protected from these scams, and attempting to do so pre-emptively is desirable. The fact is even if these people spend all day running accounts through the meat grinder negging them, at best it slows down these people. The question is at what cost to the contributing user base?