Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 20, 2020, 02:37:31 PM

Quote from: truth or dare on February 20, 2020, 01:17:14 PM

There would still exist a sensible credible and valuable warning for people that directly and clearly look to be attempting or setting up a scam.

I would be in complete agreement with this, but I don't think this is what TECSHARE is proposing. Without putting words in his mouth, he seems to be arguing for not tagging anyone until after a scam is committed:

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 20, 2020, 05:52:36 AM

The only places with preemptive policing are totalitarian governments where individuals have little to no freedoms. This isn't something we should be emulating no matter how much you jerk yourself off about how great you are and convince yourself you are stopping so many scams. You aren't stopping shit and this behavior is self serving.

Without Tecshare commenting I'm not sure.

But where people or ico's are placing members in direct financial danger then It would be pre-emptive to call then scammers. However, it would not be pre-emptive to place a warning that says they are posing a direct financial danger. That is objective, if they are asking members to enter their private keys.

Removing all subjectivity as type 2 and 3 flags pretty much do, solve that huge list of insoluble problems that are hugely damaging to the forum. This is a huge positive.

However, they do not offer any protection against those that are attempting to scam or setting up for a scam. Type 1 flags offer the potential four an optimal solution to that. Behaviors that strongly and clearly are asking or instructing members to place themselves in a highly vulnerable position. Then that is a clearly definable and valid reason they should have type 1 flag.

We should view this as more of a huge reduction in subjectivity. Or rather a drastic increase in accuracy and credibility.

It is a win win. You solve all of the insoluble damaging problems and increase the quality, accuracy and credibility of the trust system.

It is imho not essential to bring it down to a personal level and that is long term not useful. If the system is not wide open to subjectivity and it is not possible to act irresponsibly or abuse it for personal disputes. Then most of the problems we have now vanish

TS suggesting moving to the flagging system is being detailed by speculations on his own personal motivations. This is irrelevant. Regardless of who you are and what your agenda is, you will be held accountable and held to the same standards as everyone else.

All this searching back through red trust histories to see if someone ever left a frivolous tag to debunk his core suggestion is bogus. If nobody has a perfect tagging record then you can only select those that are least frivolous. This is why I don't think you need to focus on that too much as again it will be contentious and consensus will not be possible.

Consensus only needs be reached that you want the most net positive or optimal solution for the forum going forward.

I support rhe aim of this thread and will join. I think just garnering support for a move to the flagging and greatly reduced subjectivity is better than trying to reach consensus on a precise trust list. The list is far less important if The system ensures responsible and reliable warnings.