The longer this thread goes on with out action, the closer it gets to becoming a safe haven for spam.
Is there really inaction? Surf any trust pages lately? Also, where’s the spam?
Yes, I think so, but I suppose this thread discussion is still young. It's post upon post of inquiries about questionable transactions. That's a great start, but is anyone doing anything about these inquiries?
Good question. I had assumed that some DT(s) must be watching it. Well, you know what they say about assumptions. A few entries I spot checked were
not tagged; though I have no way of knowing whether that’s due to inattention, lack of evidence in those cases, or me simply picking the wrong ones to spot-check. Somebody should check more thoroughly to see whether this thread has brought significant results. And to facilitate that, killyou* ought maintain a tabulated list in the second post as you suggest (see below).
Is this just a forum to call people out or does having your name on one of these posts put you in line for a formal review before the Admins or some other process? The lack of the latter is what I'm talking about when I say "without action".
On your quoted inquiry, I realize that
this thread really belongs in Reputation. Unless there be some admin-review intent I don’t know about.
For my part, I have not paid too much attention to this thread. It is not that I don’t care about merit abuse: To the contrary, I have done at least enough to fight merit abuse independently that the results caused me to inaugurate my
hate mail thread. Of course, I should do more—and some others have done
much more. Fighting any type of abuse is a time sink, for anybody who is meticulous about evidence.
It would be most helpful for a list, table format, on the original post (or second post if KillYou72/73 reserved it) so that anyone can scroll the through the names and see who is a suspected abuser. Doing so does at least two things,
This. killyou* did not reserve the second post for that purpose, but
did use the second post for allegations against two users (
neither of whom have been red-tagged—one of which had previously been neutral-tagged by actmyname on suspicion, apparently without sufficient evidence to meet actmyname’s standards). killyou* can and should edit that post, move its current content elsewhere, and use the post for a maintained table or list summarizing information from this thread.
(1) Allows people like me to see if anyone is on the list that I might have given merit to for some post, i don't want to contribute to another person's gaming of the system, and
(2) Allows the "public shaming" to occur - what's a better call out - putting a suspected abuser's name "in lights" on the first page or burying their name among 8+ pages of posts that hardly anyone is going to read?
(3) Facilitates the task of independently assessing evidence, and issuing negative trust feedback to any users independently deemed untrustworthy for reason of cheating the merit system.
(Closely analogous to cheating in school: Untrustworthy behaviour.)(4) Helps others check to see whether or not this thread is actually bringing results—and assess why. It would also help evaluate whether sufficient evidence is being offered for allegations.
(You did say, “
at least two things”. Both of yours, I concur with.)
If there is action - is it equal to all suspected offenders regardless of rank, register date, friends, purpose, etc.?
In cases where I see sufficient evidence of untrustworthiness (and have time to review that evidence!), I myself red-tag untrustworthy persons, regardless of the factors you state. My general reasoning is stated in my written
trust feedback policy. If warranted, I myself would red-tag a DT member, a Legendary, a <=5-digit uid, an account registered in 2010—it doesn’t matter to me; all that matters to me is substantial evidence of wrongdoing which shows untrustworthiness in my own judgment.
Naturally, as such, I speak only for myself. YMMV.
I haven't surfed the trust pages recently, what should I be looking for? And if it's looking for the names on this thread, I'll kindly ask why we have two versions of the same activity management review?
Look for negative feedback with comments calling out merit abuse. The sent feedback list on
my own trust feedback page reflects many examples of tags issued for various kinds of merit abuse (also trust system abuse). However, as said above, my existing tags were all issued without reference to this thread. Also, I have been slack lately.
(Note: I am not in DT,
whatever some trolls may think; however, there have been cases in which a merit abuser tagged by me was later tagged by a DT. This includes the case cited above which brought me hate mail: A “fuck you!” PM arrived in my inbox after a DT issued a tag. I guess that put a crimp in someone’s “free money now” spam scheme.)
