Let me just touch on the last part first.
I guess at no point did Alice say that she would not still inform the police of the incident regardless of whether he gave it back. At which point fox pup can call her a scammer, con artist, untrustworthy and sneaky.
~grouping relevant portions~
More worrying is that a mod would ascribe to the idea that Alice is a blackmailer and that Bob is A victim too. He is apparently not THE victim, they are both A victim of each others actions. ~snip~
Nice in the first part we can see why she may be categorized that way. In reality though, not just foxpup, but anyone can make a judgement on Alice's actions and label her according to their views. This goes for a Mod as well. I wouldn't be worried, there's promise here. A minimum 3 people can see something valid in that claim, just by reviewing these quotes. Discussion around only the Analogy as presented has brought that out, in a claim that in the beginning seemed much more controversial.
Back to the other thing....
I think a TRUST system is valid for trading here and for financial dealings. So yes you could have a trust score that relies on feedback strictly for SCAMMING and STRONGLY likely to scam. Then just have a link called other feedback where you can read if people have just mentioned an observable event that a DT wanted to forget about in their post history.
Here we disagree only on maybe the semantics. I don't believe in having 2 systems, I do believe in using neutral feedback in place of negative for a lot of things would make the system healthier and less contentious. It would need to be displayed the same as negative and positive, with a "total of trusted feedback received" in the trust score of a profile to make them visible and just as relevant. It would have no effect on the calculated score, but would still show that there is a noted feedback left. 1 system with all the inputs, visible for people to check.
There is always going to be the other persons view. Like the rapist who views the person putting up a struggle as an assault on him and his right to satiate his basic human desires. I mean those fighting back and getting all scratchy, noisy and over excited are not as bad as those that run off altogether I guess but still both should be ashamed of themselves. Wait until they try to report it to the cops because he taped their overreaction and cruelty ....they are fucked either way.
I mean I don't think any police force in the entire world except perhaps the meta board police would even consider Alice as a blackmailer, extortionist it would not even be mentioned. It is quite farcical that foxpoop is trying to say she would be charged with blackmail or extortion or that it makes her untrustworthy. This just serves to demonstrate what kind of imbeciles that we have to endure here the fact the admin makes them merit sources and DT is perhaps worse.
I mean how can people with such broken minds be expected to differentiate between a net negative post and a net positive post. The entire thing is ludicrous.
None of this is really relevant to the confines of the Analogy.
The rapist part is a stretch to make relevant here. You're right about a rapist having their own view of the situation. That's where social norms come into play as to whether or not those views are acceptable. The base example also calls in a "defence of property rights" a cell phone versus "self defense". Again social norms and a justice system will decide what's appropriate and where to draw the lines.
I'm not going to bother getting into that discussion any further, like I said it's not relevant.
The portion in blue though is really counterproductive compared to where you started - nearly spelling the name correct - and seeing a different point of view. I also went back and didn't see anywhere that Foxpup said Alice would be "charged", just that he labelled her as such. A bias can make us read further into something than is there.
The last parts, is dragging in merit allocation. Not relevant to what we are discussing.