Quote from: Lauda on February 18, 2019, 11:07:40 PM

At some point this turned into petty envy; they are nobodies anymore especially in the crypto sphere outside of the forum. Gotta love delusional leftists. #Harassment, #Abuse, #Blacklist

And you are somebody? No delusional sense of grandiosity here... Also I can say fairly confidently most of the last people posting are no where near leftists, but whatever fits the meme you want to try to force go for it.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 18, 2019, 09:17:53 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 18, 2019, 08:31:35 PM

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best.

I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out the number of negative feedbacks being left which, under your system, would each require discussion.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 18, 2019, 08:31:35 PM

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.

I see your point, but we have no evidence that too many red ratings provide cover. I agree there are a minority of users who will robbed/scammed regardless, but that's not an argument to remove the ratings from the majority of users who find them helpful.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 18, 2019, 08:31:35 PM

Second you are assuming that every one of those ratings was valid, beneficial, and needed to be made.

Again, I never stated that. Those ratings could all be nonsense, but they would still all require discussion prior to reaching that conclusion under your system.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 18, 2019, 08:31:35 PM

Also the whole point is there are less negative ratings left.

I would like that too. I think there are too many negative ratings left (i.e. all of them) for differing opinions or points of view. I just don't think the system or methods you have outlined are going to get us there.

Yes, actually you did make the assumption, and you did it again by stating it as a given that there would again be the same number of ratings needing review. Not at all true. If you aren't suggesting they help prevent scams what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.

No evidence? How about simple logic. more signal noise = less reliable signal = more people ignoring signal. It is not a complicated concept. Again, you are assuming these ratings are some how helpful, but in a way you refuse to define or demonstrate. Ratings for petty subjective issues are not helpful. That is why we need an objective standard for leaving ratings.

The objective standard also conveniently gets rid of the majority of cases of disputes over what is an acceptable rating so, no they will not all require discussion. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

I see you criticizing, I don't see you offering solutions or even arguing my logic, just making repeated assumptions to justify your position.