I'm conflicted and need a reality check. I believe I'm more reserved in my approach with feedback than say Lauda or The Pharmacist, and I don't really believe theymos had intended DT to act as a cleanup crew for sig spammers on the forum, but that seems to be where this is heading, and I can't say I'm entirely against it because mods and admins have shown they do not, or cannot, get involved on a large scale with the shitposting/sig spamming.
Whilst I don't really do it, I have no problem with it.
However, the potential for abusing this and/or the DT system turning into a sort of "good ol' boys club" would be my fear.
That would be true if the user leaving the rating had something to gain from it. E.g., I don't see how The Pharmacist would benefit from tagging random shitposters. Therefore, I find it unlikely that your fear would become true unless he/she went on a ego rampage but that wouldn't last long (easily noticed, easily fixed).
I'll assume Blazed is included in the comment above but I'm curious which other members may be supporting this, or at least how many support the leaving of feedback based on just the quality of a users post(s)?
I wouldn't label people who are neutral to it and support it in the same group. I, e.g., support it whilst I believe Blazed and hilariousandco (if I've read his recent post correctly) just *don't mind it given the current situation*.
I'm interested in hearing other opinions & thoughts on this.
This is somewhat pointless if all you're going to get is: a) Mostly positives from people who are fed up with the shitposting. b) Mostly negatives from the users that are shitposting and/or have been tagged for other peoples. c) A few, rare, libertarian bs negatives.
Meanwhile I truly support the 'fights against the spammers' but forming a group of DT accounts to attack particular 'type' of members is not encouraging.
That's generally a bad idea due to bias and prejudice that would build up over time.