Quote from: suchmoon on February 19, 2019, 07:03:14 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 19, 2019, 07:00:28 PM

It sure does doesn't it. That is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws so this ability to abuse this potential conflict is severely limited.

Is this where you finally tell us how you'll enforce that standard?

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 19, 2019, 07:00:28 PM

Considering however there is financial interest in the act of being a "scam buster" itself

Good to know that's how you see it.

How I see it is scam busters get a reputation off the backs of others risking nothing. Then once they have power then the financial interest comes in to play. This is a big difference from the risk a trader takes getting involved.

Oh finally ran out of arguments? Time to shift those goal posts eh? Back to pretending I have not answered this question for like what the 8th time now?

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

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.