Quote from: DireWolfM14 on October 30, 2019, 08:30:43 PM

Quote from: minime0105 on October 30, 2019, 08:15:51 PM

The point is not that. The point is why would I get kicked out of a campaign where I was following every rule? I did come out of the wood but I did not spam. I even earn merit from suchmoon when I come back. So why should everyone else get a chance to earn from that campaign and I kicked out because of one bully?

I dont expect the community to stick out their neck for me. Not many people know me here. But I hope at least the man that is managing a large campaign like this, would be fair. Am I wrong to assume that?

My first post in this thread is expressing my opinion that he's wrong in this case, and I don't feel like expressing my honest opinion is "sticking my neck out." It's just my opinion, like Timelord's review is his own.

But I think you're missing the point of the forum. By your own admission you only came here to earn a few sats, rather than to be a participant in the community and discussion of bitcoin. It's my opinion that alone makes you a spammer, regardless how many merit you earn and from whom.

Quote from: Vispilio on October 30, 2019, 08:16:50 PM

I thought the philosophies of a libertarian forum like this would be more in line with famous jurist William Blackstone's ratio:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

I like that, and although I don't describe myself as a libertarian I tend to agree with the sentiment. But the trust system isn't a court of law. No one is going to jail because Timelord leaves a negative review on his trust wall. We are all adults, and we are all entitled to take every review any way we choose.

I have my reasons for valuing Timelords efforts. I run a business here that leaves me very vulnerable to those who abuse alt accounts. So, yeah I find "his efforts are a tremendous contribution." I may have my selfish reasons, but I also expressed that "I may not always agree with his findings." If you're going to quote me, please be thorough, not selective.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on November 02, 2019, 08:52:18 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 02, 2019, 08:13:56 PM

You clarify his findings are not always accurate, but you value them for selfish reasons anyway. I am not selectively focusing on anything.

Wrong. I value his efforts, not his findings. Words matter, you understand them, stop pretending you don't.

Yes, you value his efforts personally and for profit. Of course it costs you nothing if he is wrong. That is an externalized cost that is paid in the form of driving away good users, which as a result ironically ends up with more people buying accounts. Think of it like a criminal robbing a gas station. If the penalty is the same for being armed or not being armed, most criminals would choose to go further and be armed anyway knowing the penalty is equally as high either way. The same logic is true with excessive and arbitrary trust ratings and flags. People get wrapped up in relatively minor things and are more willing to just burn what they have and or go for the bigger con since they all all treated the same anyway. Basically the cons are Joker and the BitCops are Batman. They are literally creating more Jokers. Jokers will always be there but this system of frivolous shotgun ratings is literally incentivizing it.

Again, a non-intentioned con man user will usually do one of two things if they are falsely accused. They will either say fuck this place and rob whatever they can, or say fuck this place and never come back. Unfortunately the real cons are back again in seconds on a new bought account. The trust system should not be used like a sledge hammer, it should be treated like a ballpene hammer pinning down a con with a bunch of tack nails. This gives legitimate users breathing room, and will not give any realistic advantages to cons that they couldn't easily bypass. At absolute best you are burning accounts, creating value for them by reducing supply, and again incentivizing people to buy accounts and thus for others to sell them. Its like the war on drugs. Eventually the enforcement action literally becomes the mechanism by which illicit drugs have value, because the value is determined by risk, and risk is directly correlated with levels of enforcement. In short this methodology is the BitCop's, cutting the community's nose off to spite its face.