I don't want to derail the current topic; but now since you have questioned me on this topic; let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties.
To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity.
I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity.
Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective).
P.S. I do respect you for trying to start something better; but let's not turn vindictive for the sake of countering vindictiveness.
EDIT:
-
Some DT members behave such a way that it seems they feel satisfaction red painting an account. It's better to raise voice under an alt account.
Then it is the collective failure of BTCTalk DT members that they continue to accommodate Trust system Abusers within their ranks and if theymos has acknowledged the failure of the system implicitly, then it is better to do away with it altogether.
Exactly how is advocating for people presenting evidence before negative rating vindictive? Could you possibly project any more? You complain about the abuse of this user, but you make accusations against the only people resisting it, and have the person who abused you on your trust list. I can only conclude you are not the brightest bulb in the box.