Quote from: nutildah on February 20, 2020, 04:22:55 AM

You quoted and re-quoted the word "proactive" -- this means taking action before people have actually been scammed.

you're conveniently ignoring the part where "scam busting" should require the overwhelming consensus of the community.

there is obviously no overwhelming consensus behind you, hence the never-ending and vitriolic fighting on the reputation board. you guys are very clearly "creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth." (-theymos)

Quote from: nutildah on February 20, 2020, 04:22:55 AM

You and TS don't have to approve of it, but you are in the vast minority here.

good luck proving that, lol. a handful of self-proclaimed "scam busters" on the reputation board does not represent the vast majority of board members. Roll Eyes

the vast majority of board members neglect to use their trust list (perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps because they think it's pointless when there is already an existing power structure, perhaps out of fear of retribution). that doesn't give you the right to speak for all those people! this situation is just a holdover from the original DT system since hardly anyone utilizes trust lists. i'm hoping we can encourage others to speak up. (if only with their trust lists)

i've been around a lot longer than many of these "scam busters". i have avoided doing business on bitcointalk all these years for 2 reasons:

1. going back to 2013, i've seen countless people run off the forum by unjustified trust abuse and public attacks
2. the forum's general tolerance of doxxing

i've ignored the reputation board and neglected my trust list until very recently for those reasons too. countless other people (like me) have opinions on these matters but do not share them, for obvious reasons.

props to TECSHARE for consistent willingness to speak out against rampant abuse. most people in his position would just disappear from the forum in the face of such concerted attacks by abusive DT members. if not for him, i wouldn't be here---i'd be staying silent for fear of retribution from DT. (unsurprisingly, i've already had multiple of you self-styled DT "scam busters" arbitrarily publicly attack me (unprovoked) after starting to share my opinions in "reputation" last month. i have no doubt this will continue)

yet if i weren't in this thread today (or on the reputation board last month) arguing my views, nutildah & co would be claiming that i was part of the "vast majority" supporting his scam busting. obviously nothing could be further from the truth!

see how you wrongfully take ownership of millions of board members' opinions by claiming you have their support? you don't. a handful of people who are active in meta/reputation trading trust inclusions does not translate to overwhelming support of the community!

Quote from: nutildah on February 20, 2020, 04:21:25 PM

Seems that if are short of court-produced documentation, it could potentially be a highly subjective matter.

it is impossible to entirely remove subjectivity from human matters. we aren't gods. stop using that as a basis to argue that we shouldn't have any standards at all.

TECSHARE is simply encouraging us to move away from a system with zero standards, towards one with more objective standards.

will it achieve perfection? no. will there still be drama as long as red tags exist? yes. these aren't good reasons to stifle progress towards a better system with less trust abuse.