Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 20, 2020, 10:27:18 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 20, 2020, 09:39:24 PM

I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences.

Then let me once again ask for some evidence of the negative consequences you have previously spoken about.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 20, 2020, 07:54:32 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 20, 2020, 06:08:33 PM

Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors.

You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system.

It is irrefutable that as there is an increase in frivolous ratings the tagging metric is diluted and devalued. To speculate on the point where such a lack of accurate or useful ratings becomes critical is going to be inaccurate. I have no knowledge of any member saying I ignored a tag because I had read multiple other frivolous flags but that does not mean it has not happened. People generally don't like to admit they ignored warnings then got scammed.

However one could reason that a member has been harmed or deceived into loss finsncially, when they avoid a trade or miss out on a great deal due to a frivolous inaccurate tag and pay more to get it elsewhere or where a member is forced out business by a frivolous tag given for personal retribution. Or scammed out of their sig.

There are also these insoluble problems we must never forget

* members are treated equally and with consistency

* free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion

* high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals

* to make sure people are not afraid to bring to light scams where the scammer can ruin their account with red trust

* prevent all the infighting a contued contempt for the abused trust system

* prevent red tags destroying competing legit business or destroy legit completion for sig spots

* preventing dilution and devaluing legitimate direct example of financially motivated wrong doing with warnings about
lemonade, daring to whistle blow on scamming or swearing at someone

I would say for sure that the irrefutable threat to free speech is magnitudes more worrying than the loss of pre-emptive warnings because they will always carry an irrefutable risk of punishing the innocent or those lacking knowledge without being trying to internationally trying to scam.

However the type 1 flag will still allow you to give credible valuable and accurate warnings of setting up a scam out attempting to scam or requesting luring people into directly vulnerable postions in a strictly financial sense.

People trying to make this all about tecshare or any personal disputes are clearly not interested in find what is best for the forum. If they were they would be debating this in that context not speculating on tecshares motivation and trying to use it to criticize him.

The point regarding the suggested list was answered and their tags will be abolished with everyone else's and the system will ensure their future warnings are as responsible and accurate as any other members.

I say again, the includes list is possibly a stumbling block. Better to build a large group of members that support reducing greatly the subjectivity, by moving to the flagging system and sharpening the lever 1 flag to those that specifically pose a direct financial threat in terms of attempting to scam or setting up a scam.

There is no credible argument to retain tagging. It will be found net negative compared to the suggested transparent objective system in every scenario.