we've already established that self-styled scam busters have voted each other into DT positions, by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists.
You forgot to attach "some form of documentation" to your accusation.
it's not an accusation.
it's literally how the trust system works. in fact, i'm actually
encouraging people to customize their trust lists so they can vote who they want onto DT1 the same way.
unlike some of the "scam busters", i don't view including/excluding people from one's trust list as a proper basis for public accusations or red tags.
Uhm... "literally" doesn't mean what you think it means.
"we've already established" - who's "we", where did "we" establish that, and how did "we" do it?
"self-styled scam busters" - who exactly are they?
"have voted each other into DT positions" - impossible to verify without listing out the "self-styled scam busters" and showing the math to prove it that their mutual inclusions made them DT members. I doubt you could do that, particularly given the fact that some parts of said math are not quite public.
"by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists" - even assuming that you can actually prove the "fact" (might be possible with some creative definition of "hardly anybody"), you would have a really hard time proving that if more people customized their trust lists then the result would be different.
I'd call it a hypothesis at best. Not cool to state it as an "established" fact.
As usual, you are working overtime to confuse these legitimate arguments to serve your own goals. He is not making a negative rating over this now is he? Good job pretending as if you don't understand the argument though. Gold star.
Have you read the OP? I recommend, it's a doozy.
Core tenets:
[...]
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.