Quote from: minifrij on June 07, 2019, 10:02:39 PM

Alright, but the issue with neutral ratings is in the name. They have no effect, and are practically invisible unless you specifically go looking for them. I understand (and agree, to an extent) with your point about users doing due diligence before trading, but you're assuming every user that would see the problematic post will:

1. Be logged in, so able to see the trust system. My example included that the potential scammer was not trading on the forum, but instead linking off the forum for their sales. Potential victims have no reason to even have an account here, as they could just as easily stumble upon the thread through other means.

2. Know what the trust system is, and know what to look for. As much as you may dislike the 'red and green flashy bits', it's one of the only sure-fire ways to get people to actually notice something. If the potential victim doesn't know what the trust system is, let alone what a neutral rating is, your plan to deal with these scenarios is useless for them. You could argue that someone shouldn't be trading if they don't understand the trust system, but given the massive variety in users here (in age, proficiency of language etc) that is somewhat unfair.

Whether you agree with the way the current trust system is used or not, an invisible-until-looked-for rating on a potential scammer is going to do diddly squat to help a good portion of potential victims.

The only staff intervention (as in use of staff powers) that happens within the trust system currently is deletion of spam. I can't imagine that would change.
I understand that you want accountability, but what exactly would that change? You say yourself that they may just continue to 'gang up', but now everyone can see what they're doing. Without intervention or forced removal of ratings by staff, which wouldn't work anyway, how exactly would this system be any different to the one we have currently? If there is always a big spooky mafia that neg rates everyone that disagrees with them, what difference would accountability make?

1. Nothing is stopping these users from looking thru the scam accusation and reputation areas as well as the user's post history to do due diligence. Why does the productive membership of the forum have to suffer for people who can't even be bothered to make an account or do any due dilligence?

2. Part of the effect of having people make a habit of reading the ratings is to breed the habit of doing due diligence. Reinforcing this culture in itself will help teach people to do so. Using negative ratings as a warning system is also a sure fire way to create lots of signal noise and send confusing signals to those same people, because it is over used it will not be seen as much of a big deal and will more often go ignored. It is also a sure fire way to hide lots and lots of abusive ratings.

I explained the answer to your last question here:

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 01, 2019, 10:17:55 AM

I never said the end user needs to know how the calculations are made, however this system is already too complicated and opaque to the point that hardly anyone understands it as it is. Adding more parts to a system creates more opportunities for the system to be broken. Furthermore every time one of these little patches are added it just gets worse and worse. We should be simplifying this cluster fuck, not just duct taping over it.

You are correct in pointing out that my proposal would not solve the issue of people including people in their clique regardless of how extreme their behavior is as well as selectively excluding their opponents. Regardless of this though, they would under my proposal still be required to substantiate using evidence any actual negative ratings and that tool of abuse would largely be removed from them as the barrier of entry of manufacturing false evidence is much higher. Furthermore this again returns accountability back upon an accuser that negative rates without substantiation. This mass shitting of negative ratings all over the user base with zero accountability is the primary tool of retribution and abuse used. As a result they can exclude and include away all day, but the ones leaving the negative rating will be required to substantiate their claims, unlike now where they can just say "I believe XYZ and I don't need to explain myself" regardless if they actually have any evidence or actually believe it.

This will build a clear trail of patterns of behavior people can reference that will be created each and every time they attempt to leave an abusive rating, as opposed to now where they just put on their little clown show and hide in the confusion because they have no obligation (accountability) to take any of it seriously. The difference is my metric is inherently objective in subject matter, whereas currently the metric is totally subjective leaving a 4 lane highway of a loophole for abuse. I want to use the objective metric to turn that highway into a narrow dirt road that leaves mud caked all over them when they take the abusive route. They will continue to abuse, yes, but now they will have to lie to the whole forum over and over and over again about objective facts, which is far more difficult.

There may be situations where people may want to label some one is a scammer when it does not fit firmly within the rubric of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, yes. However nothing is preventing people from simply creating a thread in the appropriate subforum and leaving a neutral rating with the thread referenced. If a user is doing due diligence, this is something they will see. If a user is not doing due diligence, no one is going to save them from themselves as a fool and his money will always be parted. We should be training new users to do due diligence and carefully review ratings, not just look at flashy red and green bits next to the avatar. Additionally the lack of due diligence combined with a squad of pretender police gives a false sense of security that scams are moderated, making users more open to cons when they should instead be doing their own due diligence.

I just wanted to make a quick side note as well. I know we haven't always agreed in the past, but I appreciate you having a legitimate discussion about this rather than the usual dismissive cuntery that is increasingly standard operating procedure around here. You can disagree with me all day, as long as you manage to not be a cunt about it its all cool with me. I would rather have this kind of conversation but a lot of people go out of their way to make sure it never goes down like that, usually because they are afraid I might make some good points they are incapable of arguing against.