I'm willing to retract some ratings that are circumstantial but I believe there are at least some that seem pretty absolute.
There is a commonplace misconception that “circumstantial evidence” means weak evidence. Even in a criminal court which requires the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” (also known as “moral certainty”), it is indeed possible to obtain a conviction based exclusively on circumstantial evidence. As a practical matter, this is very difficult, and should rarely happen. But it does happen; and there’s nothing wrong with that in principle.
Of course, this is neither a law court nor a criminal proceeding. I am only pointing out that “circumstantial evidence” can meet even the most demanding standards. The question is not whether the evidence be “circumstantial”, but rather, whether it be strong enough to meet whatever standard you are applying.
(Also
n.b. that even the most demanding standards do not demand
absolute certainty—only “moral certainty”. If the only possible way the accused didn’t do it is that space aliens did it instead, then you can’t be
absolutely certain of his guilt. You can’t be
absolutely certain that space aliens didn’t do it! You can’t even prove that aliens don’t exist! But you can be “morally certain”, beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Reasonable people understand that. Absolute certainty does not exist in this world.)
If I were in your position, I would aim somewhere between the standard of “clear and convincing evidence“, and that of “the preponderance of the evidence”. The latter seems relatively weak to me; but it’s good enough for winning a big-money lawsuit most places in the Anglo/American influenced parts of the world. That seems it ought suffice for distrust-tagging people accused of abuse on an Internet forum. I’d want to aim a bit higher, because I would also desire to be highly careful about not stomping on innocent users. I don’t like hurting innocent people. I would also have a zero-tolerance policy for anybody who was even a little bit guilty. This forum now has a great opportunity to recover from having been buried in garbage. It is not enhanced by the presence of people who believe in being halfway honest, and just try to cheat the new system a little bit—the same way they just cheated a little bit on school tests, when they wished to merit a passing grade.
As food for thought, and
not to suggest any sort of legal proceeding or legal implications, here is an intentionally cute layout of a spectrum of standards of proof; treat this as if I made it all up on the spot:
- Reasonable (articulable) suspicion: You have a suspicion which can be clearly explained in reasonable terms. More than a mere hunch; much more than a guess. But still no more than a suspicion.
- Probable cause: On the face of things (at first sight, “prima facie”), the accused probably did it.
- Preponderance of the evidence: Evidence of guilt outweighs evidence of innocence. Implemented via those balance scales you see carved into statues of blindfolded ladies. Note: This requires reasonable thoroughness in loading both sides of the scale, not just stuffing one side and jumping to a conclusion.
- Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence of guilt is strong. Evidence of innocence is weak or nonexistent.
- Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt: The only way he didn’t do it is if space aliens did it instead.
I hope that helps provide materials for a mental framework to support tagging decisions (past or future) which will gain not only your own confidence, but also theymos’. For your work has been important for the forum’s well-being as a community at a critical moment. Based on the timing, I have a
reasonable suspicion that the
DDoS attack expressed displeasure over the merit system. Thank you for your efforts to protect it, actmyname.
He pwned you there, revealing THE TRUTH that you are not theymos.
Sorry, the truth can be painful sometimes.
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings, Lauda. My heart bleeds negative-trust red.
