Most of us here are not lawyers. What lawyer is bitcointalk going to hire to write out a detailed explanation of standards of evidence for idiots? (It would probably be preferable to write it in multiple languages too.)After all, I see in another thread you chiming in on negative trust given by someone not even on DT1 or DT2. Therefore, all members would need the standards explained to them. Also, what measure are we going to take for those members that leave inappropriate trust feedback? In my case, I have three comments claiming that I spread doomsday virus, suck ass the best, and am an alt of yogg.
I am aware, and I don't expect the user base to be lawyers. However these laws didn't just fall out of the sky. They were put into place for a reason. People witnessed the horrible flaws and abuses that happened without these protections and created a system to fix it. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel perhaps we should examine existing functional systems and at least attempt to follow them where it is beneficial to the forum overall. Regardless, even if we don't implement it, it still serves as a template of what we should be striving for if we really want to run a just system here, as well as a map of the common pitfalls.
No, you didn't explicitly accuse him, you also provided no evidence that he should be subject to suspicion at all either (other than what you imagine may be true).
I was just gathering community feedback. Stop seeing battles everywhere.
I enjoy how what I actually said is invisible to you, you reject reality, and substitute your own. Also this is an interesting comment from some one who was only forced to stop stalking me after staff intervention.
I would argue that it depends. Perhaps they've just been lurking for a few weeks/months and now decided that they wanted to launch a project and get reviews on it. There's a lot of attention towards DT lately, and it's members so naturally they'd want high profile users. If it would be reworded to "Top Users according to Bpip.org", would that be better? I'm just saying I get where they are coming from and it doesn't necessarily have to be shady although I see your point as well.
Exactly. They are essentially soliciting to pay known trusted people for their time. This is not at all new, but usually they phrase it as "legendary" members or something along those lines. I don't think this user even had any idea the implication of using that language and simply thought it would be a good way to distinguish trustworthy users who would be acceptable for his goals of having trusted users review his service. Nothing happened, he didn't explicitly ask for trust ratings, this is a non-event.
This is a perfect example of the constant struggle around here between people who REALLY want and need to find crimes to justify their existence at the expense of the entire community, and those who are genuinely attempting to stop abuse. You give people enough power suddenly everyone is suspect and subject to summary judgement.