Quote from: DooMAD on February 22, 2020, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 22, 2020, 04:09:18 PM

I am objectively and observably being persecuted. You aren't reading what I am saying. It doesn't matter if I cave to EVERY SINGLE ONE of their demands, they will INVENT new things to accuse me of, they have already done it before, and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed.

So rise above it. The alternative, if you don't amend the prior tags, is that people might assume you still feel those tags were justified despite not being objective. Meaning that sometimes subjective tags are appropriate. This would sadly undermine the argument you are trying to present.

From the way you describe "them", I suspect overhauling the tagging system will not change their attitude or behaviour towards you. Is that what you're hoping to achieve? They'd stop persecuting you if they had to tag objectively? I think you're going to be left disappointed on that front however the tags might be used going forwards. Same goes for CH/TOAA/etc.

None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues.

Their goal is not a legitimate conversation. Their goal is to derail the legitimate discussion while they distract from the much worse abuse they are doing themselves or supporting. What will it acheive? It will make it much harder to leave abusive fake ratings under false pretenses. If they are required to provide evidence, they can't rely on subjective baseless accusations. Manufacturing evidence is much more difficult than simply making accusations without substance.

Quote from: tmfp on February 22, 2020, 08:40:39 PM

Quote

He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging.

I've never left a "frivolous" tag, but I appear to have ended up on his "Guild" hit list, presumably as a member of some conspiracy or other.
The fact that I decided (all on my own) to ~ him from my trust list and he immediately retaliated is obviously purely coincidence.

Like other posters here, I don't accept the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass assertion that trust tagging has a net negative effect on the forum, so yet another gang/conspiracy/whatever to include me in.
I leave feedback based on the mainly scam investigation stuff I post for one reason only: to help awareness levels among newbies.
I would like to stay on DT so that they see that, otherwise IDGAF.

No coincidence. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. Much like with Direwolfm14, it demonstrates to me you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. That is why I excluded you, and that is why I put you on that list.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on February 22, 2020, 04:46:46 PM

Quote from: truth or dare on February 22, 2020, 06:06:36 AM

o_e_l_e_o I don't think tecshare realized that you are open to adopting an objective standard so long as it affords the opportunity to produce an objective warning that members are being placed or are being requested to place themselves in direct financial danger.

I am definitely unsatisfied with the current amount of frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags which are handed out, but I completely disagree that we should be waiting for scams to be successful before tagging them, and I disagree with the unproven implication that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers is counter-productive. The problem is that TECSHARE is entirely unwilling to even consider a compromise. It's either his way or you are wrong.

Quote from: truth or dare on February 22, 2020, 06:06:36 AM

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

Completely agree. This thread was initially created in response to the "gang" thread, which was initially created because of comments regarding people growing thicker skin. No one should be trying to police what other people say. You disagree? Fine. You are offended? Also fine. Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon.

Quote from: truth or dare on February 22, 2020, 06:06:36 AM

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

It depends where you draw the line of "high level scammers". There are some scammers who I agree should never have their red trust removed, but there are more than a handful of DT "feuds" consisting of red tags which are either entirely frivolous or blown way out of proportion. Even scammer flags expire after 3 years or 10 years for type 2 and 3 respectively.

Quote from: theymos on February 05, 2019, 06:57:48 PM

You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

Quote from: theymos on May 04, 2019, 05:07:09 AM

- Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
- De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.

Your other bullet points I more-or-less agree with. All the infighting and ever more frequent retaliatory ratings achieve nothing useful and simply cheapen the entire system. Similarly, people shouldn't be afraid of red trust when it comes to raising points of contention.

Quote from: truth or dare on February 22, 2020, 06:06:36 AM

So far I have noticed that you have been prepared to debate the positives and negatives and have been reasonable. This is how each member should be willing to engage.

As have you. I don't know if you are or are not an alt of CH/TOAA as many users suspect, but this more reasoned approach is much appreciated.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 22, 2020, 10:45:16 AM

Now try arguing the logic of the other points I made.

The supposition that there is a huge net negative to the forum does not logically follow from the proposition of pre-emptively tagging scammers, regardless of how many times you repeat it. I know you want it to be true, because such a thing would support your already reached conclusions, but if you can't provide some evidence to support your opinions, then there really is little point in arguing. You have already made up your mind, and there is nothing I can say which will make you even consider alternative points of view.

Since you are so focused on your demands I prove my claims, how about you try. Prove to me mass tagging prevents fraud and is not a net deficit. This request is no more unreasonable than your demands that I some how document the internal mental motivations of others some how proving that negative rating spam creates signal noise allowing real cons to hide in it. You are after all advocating for more actions to be taken, I am advocating for less. Why is the default assumption that mass tagging prevents these people who don't do due diligence from fraud just a given? Clearly it is a fact frivolous ratings are used to abuse and result in massive amounts of conflict. You wouldn't argue this point would you?