Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.
Lol, where?
iCEBREAKERI 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.
in my view,
any movement whatsoever away from the current situation of rampant trust abuse and towards
any standards whatsoever for negative DT feedback would be an achievement. there is all sorts of room for middle ground between the status quo and the what is stated in the OP.
nobody needs to
fully accept the standards in the OP, nor include/exclude
any of the people listed. i think that's one of the primary misconceptions naysayers are trying to promote here with cherry picked examples and personal attacks.
i was involuntarily thrown into this discussion by virtue of my inclusion in the OP, but i do agree with the call for a general shift away from "no standards" and towards "some objective standards". i'm willing to stand behind that, and i hope there are other reasonable people out there who share that view.
it's impossible to fully remove human subjectivity, prevent all conflict, or account for every possible situation with these kind of standards. that doesn't mean we can't honestly work towards a more fair system that is not characterized by rampant "frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags". it's incumbent on anyone who wants to move away from that sort of a system to do their own research and customize their trust lists accordingly.