That is my view, but considering that you so vocally support otherwise
As evidenced by what? I never thought it was a good idea to leave red trust over opinions. As has been explained to me, trust also shouldn't be left for situations that could be handled by moderators.
I figured you should at least explain yourself. After all the people you support demand people grovel before them and beg for negative ratings to be removed over inconsequential incidents, I don't think asking you to explain your position is too much.
... And what position is that? Your trusted member iCEBREAKER is clearly engaging in behavior that goes against your standards, which seems highly hypocritical coming from the guy who wants "objective standards" for ratings. Seems like he should be the one explaining himself, or else you should explain why you are keeping him on your list.
Our main disagreement stems from the fact that you think there should be a body that enforces "objective standards" for ratings while I think having a fluid system which attempts to regulate itself is more beneficial, as the regulators of the regulations are also only human and therefore prone to subjectivity.
As evidenced by your continual frothing mouthed attacks any time I try to argue for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Also your willingness to support people who do exactly what was done to you to others on a daily basis by the dozen. If you yourself do not endorse such principles I am not sure why you also get to demand protection by them as you continue to poo poo at the standard.
I don't know, you tell me, that is why I asked. I wanted you to explain to me exactly why his rating was invalid. You refuse, so I guess you don't care. If you don't care why am I obligated to care for you? It is not hypocritical at all to keep him on my list because while I advocate for that standard IT IS NOT YET THE STANDARD.
It would be like North Korea saying hey USA, we will disarm our nukes, but only if you do it first ok? Oh China and Russia, they are going to keep theirs for now don't worry about them. In essence you are demanding those I associate with all keep a standard that is not yet a standard, which is asinine. If I followed this logic there would be NO ONE on my trust list, it would just be exclusions.
Our main disagreement stems from your inability to understand that "a body that enforces" already exists, only they operate on completely arbitrary standards. I don't know where you get the idea some new body of people will need to be assembled. People are VERY prone to subjectivity. That is why we are badly in need of some structure from Theymos, such as issuing the notice he prefers we operate with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am advocating all the same people now present evidence to support their negative rating before doing so. That's pretty much it. The rest is your pure imagination.