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:
It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced
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?
2. Again you are repeating your argument from before only from another perspective. The community already follows Theymos's guidelines to a large degree as I already demonstrated. At the end of the day all this talk of decentralization is meaningless because this is a centralized site, and he is the ultimate authority here. So yes a simple post from him making this the standard would change things.
Fair enough. I think it would result in some change, yes, but not the radical change you are looking for. Agree to disagree.