Quote from: marlboroza on February 20, 2020, 11:36:10 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on February 20, 2020, 11:29:40 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 20, 2020, 11:08:57 PM

and who the fuck cares about this?

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

This topic is so damn confusing. For example:

All these users tagged account hashman, here is reference link for tags: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190670#post_hashman (account is in in tecshare's trust network btw)

I don't see them in topic so it is either:

1) they have good evidence of theft, contract violation and/or violation of applicable laws and tecshare included potentially hacked account to his trust network (according to tecshare's standards)
2) they are abusing trust and they should be in list number 2 (according to tecshare's standards)

Which one is it? Huh

This should be a separate discussion.

Moving to objective accurate flagging system.

Optional trust list exclusions / inclusions.

The latter far less crucial under greatly reduced subjectivity and far more complex to gain absolute consensus.

Currently if you have accurate personal tagging history but are enabling and supporting the inclusion of members that have masses of frivolous tags or tags not directly related to scamming, attempted scamming or setting up a scam then that could be the reasoning behind their optional exclusions.

Since this is optional and of a way lower importance to moving to a transparent and objective system then it seems strange to try to discredit the move on largely irrelevant bickering and speculation.

Regardless of the suitability or perceived suitability of the optional lists. I would like to hear each member address the move to a transparent and objective flagging system. Some members seem to be avoiding tackling or debating the core and most important point. Preferring to perhaps discredit the as yet entirely robust and net positive move to the flags entirely.

If you are unable to present a supporting argument that stands up to scrutiny for retaining the subjective tagging system, then you should support the move to flagging entirely. If you will not then at the very least you should not attempt to prevent it.

Marlboroza do you wish to present an argument to retain the subjective tagging system? or is your objection here to the optional lists and who is on them? these are not the same thing.