What I am arguing for is inherently SIMPLIFYING the trust system, not complicating it. We don't need more staff intervention. I am telling you the alternatives right now as you do your best to ignore and dismiss them.
Yes, I agree with you, the trust system is not perfect and subject to improvement. And yes, we don't need more staff intervention.
I hear your alternatives, but these are my questions about your alternatives, and would like to know how you would address them.
When you say :
implement a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative rating, and make trust ratings little more than a comment on the profile once again.
How do you see that implemented ? Who would apply this tag to scammers ?
Is it the staff ? Or the tag appears when the trust score would have been -16 ?
How do you verify the violation of applicable laws ?
I am not trying to annoy you, but rather trying to picture how it would work.
To be honest, I think that the trust system has flaws, but I also think it is something very difficult to manage and Theymos will always try to do his best to make things better.
Your questions seem perfectly reasonable and intellectually honest. I would again however refer you to the linked posts from my last statement above for review, but in brief....
Q: "How do you see that implemented ? Who would apply this tag to scammers ?"
A: The same people who do it now, only they would need to provide substantiation to their claims rather than it being a subjective free for all as it is currently.
Q: "How do you verify the violation of applicable laws ?"
A: The same way the forum currently addresses scams and fraudulent activity (other than getting out the red paint bucket), via threads in "Scam Accusations" and "Reputation" to submit the evidence for public discussion and review.
IMO the problem is Theymos is simply hesitant to put his ego aside and admit his little social experiment he has been subjecting us all to has been a total failure, and some of the people he has been most critical of are providing legitimate solutions. That is a difficult thing to admit when you are wrong some times, especially when you went out of your way to punish those that tried to warn you for the act of pointing those issues out. I am sure he feels it would degrade his authority, but of course if this place is a giant shit show he is not going to have any authority or respect from anyone anyway. I think he is underestimating the positive impact of meaningful reform, and the resulting support that will come of it and just hoping he will never have to make that hard choice and go through that process.