To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.
Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.
I like how you lecture me about rational thinking as you make broad generalizations in the same breath.
How does A exclude B? Its possible to do both simultaneously.
Type 1 flags are meant to be "more subjective". More subjective does not mean totally subjective. Additionally the language Theymos used EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED the flag being used to object to people's opinions, making your subjectivity argument moot.
No, he did not. Please share with us where you read that.
Again, the situation is no different than you thinking Vod's "mental instability" is a red flag when it comes to trust related issues. Vod has never failed one trade yet you decided to negative trust him on the basis of your opinions.
Nobody would make a flag about somebody if they said they hated chocolate ice cream, even though that is also an opinion. Its more than just roach's words being an "opinion" we're talking about here. Its about a user's words suggesting that they should not be trusted based on the content of those words. There is a logical case for this given the content across the breadth of roach's posts.
You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean that everybody else shouldn't.
Because broad generalizations are a logical fallacy, hence not based in logic.
"Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with,
and it is not based on the user's opinions."
Again, for literally the 4th time the rating was left for his abusive and doxing behavior, something Theymos himself said was reasonable. You know this, but what is important is you dig up any tiny morsel of a fault possible to project on my part to justify your abuse. Judging ones opinions also falls firmly under the description of "judging the content of those words". All you are doing is semantic gymnastics to try to make this ok when everyone knows damn well what your motivation is, and it is not protecting the user base or the integrity of the trust system. We have a chance here to form new standards different than the previous clusterfuck of abuse under the old system, and people such as yourselves rush immediately to turn the new system into the old system so you can get your little control freak red tinged dopamine click hit.