If you read my reply
here with an open mind, you would have deleted your feedback by now.
I left you feedback before the allegation you make that it was one account managed by many people, which sounds to me rather like an argument made against the way my brain works recently,
which turned out to be false.PP, can you delete your feedback now?
I am going to think it over.
Interesting that you complain about negative feedback losing it's meaning, yet you are among those who are so eager to dish it out without concrete, hard evidence. Don't you see how your actions are contributing to the lack of value given to red-tags these days?
As I see it, the trust system is useless if you have to have
irrefutable evidence, because by then it will be too late. We are not talking about murder cases.
Instead, consider how you would want to be treated by a jury of peers when and if an allegation is made against you. Do you want people's opinions of you to the final judgement, or would you rather be treated as innocent unless proven guilty without a reasonable doubt? If the trust system is to be trusted, red-tags have to be irrefutable.
It seems to me that you are unclear about the difference in the weight of evidence to be had between criminal cases and civil cases. For criminal cases, the evidence asked for is much higher than for civil cases, and to me the cases we deal with here are more like civil cases.
What is the Standard of Guilt in Civil Cases?Civil Court – Civil cases have a much lower standard of guilt and only requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant acted negligently with a 51 percent degree of certainty.
When I red tag someone, I assign a probability (which I recognize is subjective) of at least 90%, higher than in civil cases.