You never specified, which has been one of my more significant points our entire exchange; you must be precise with your language or nobody is going to know what you are trying to say. Most of your frustration with me seems to be about me trying to more precisely nail down what we're talking about and figuring out what you mean by your words.
You did not originally say "sometimes" and you did not originally say "potential victims", which changes the entire statement as I'm sure you can acknowledge. Obviously I can agree to this, but this isn't what you originally said. I'd also like to move past this semantically driven ad-hominem parade, but if you are truly sick of trying to figure this out I would encourage you to tap the ignore button.
My opening topic always had "new users" on #4. I apologize that #3 did not include it initially. I figured you were at least intelligent enough to know we were not talking about the experienced users that know how to use the systems that are already in place.
Again you are just an asshole. Hanging your arguments on words like "sometimes". Did you think I meant no one on the entire forum ever looks at scam accusations/trust?
Why don't you just leave the thread? ..or will the ignore stop you from viewing it? What we are doing now is the spam you hate so much.
It certainly means that if the cost is tyranny, unfair regulation and treatment as though we are all criminals of this crime you are trying to solve. You cannot put the price of negligence on the rest of us. It sounds like the answer to this problem would be optional education for uninformed users (already there), not privilege revocation from those abiding by fine principals. If someone signs a bad contract, because they skipped Section 4 Paragraph 6, this is not the fault of the judge for enforcing the contract, nor the townspeople for watching it happen; you are seemingly trying to blame the judge and the townspeople instead of the negligent participant.
Tyranny, funny..
Seeing as we already have solutions stated to keep self-mods for certain user groups, I am not sure who this "us" is. Right now we have something that is comparable to the current PM system limits, etc. Benefits the higher your rank is..
How many times are you going to say the same thing? Holy piss man..
This mentality is assuming that we are all malicious, rather than innocent until proven guilty. You are treating all of us as if we are guilty, punishing us by revoking the right that should only be taken away from the guilty. There is a better way to sort this out than removing self-moderation and punishing all for the crimes of a few. I disagree with this, and do not think you should hope for implementation on an idea that would be so divisive. By your logic, we could remove 98% of scams simply by removing the Goods and Currency Exchange section altogether and this should be worth it, too.
How many different ways and times are you going to say the same thing while ignoring solutions you yourself suggested to keep self mods for probably the only people that use them correctly.
I believe the entire world knows you are against this idea.
Right, but you are asking others to stop Self-moderation, because it conflicts with the personal choice you have made. You have made a personal choice to not use the trust system as intended and are trying to replace it with posting in their thread which is nullified by the ability to self-moderate. Your personal choice should not influence the way the form works, your personal choices on the forum should be influenced by how the forum works. In this manner, it certainly does matter in relation to the removal of self-moderation and I'm baffled that you do not see the connection. If you used the trust system as intended then there would be no need for this suggestion. You're free to make personal choices, so long as they don't interfere with the personal choices of others, which you are trying to do right now.
I FUCKING SAID: " I should not have even brought up my personal feelings about leaving negatives." IT HAD NO GOD DAMN BEARING ANYWAY. I MADE THIS BECAUSE I WAS TRIED OF MY POSTS BEING DELETED ON SCAMMERS THREADS, NOT BECAUSE I WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE TRUST SYSTEM.
PEOPLE OVER LOOK THE TRUST SYSTEM, DID NOT SAY DONT FUCKING USE IT, SAID THAT IT IN THE FIRST FUCKING POST. TRUST AND SELF-MOD REGULATIONS WILL BE USED SIDE BY SIDE.
YOU CANNOT LET ANYTHING GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM BAFFLED BY YOU, GO AWAY!
Then you are inconsistent with your logic at the very least; you continually talk about how we should use multiple ways of going after scammers and then choose to ignore the methods already in place that work perfectly well. This was not a smart decision, because now you gave no warning where most people look for red-flags before dealing with the user(s) and actively decided not to warn potential victims. You made this horrid decision in order to "save your reputation", based on your trust-settings that nobody else uses or sees and it was all at the expense of other users. This is selfish and cowardly, there just is no way around it and I already told you to stop bringing up the situation because it does not make you look good in any sense.
I MADE A POST! IT WAS THEN HANDLED BY MULTIPLE USERS! UNLESS I AM PROTECTED FROM FAKE TRUST, I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO LEAVE NEGATIVES. I AM NOT A FUCKING MOD.
THIS THREAD WAS MADE TO HELP PEOPLE, I GET ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM IT. SUCK IT.
Words have definitions and it is important to choose the right words. Otherwise you will get frustrated when nobody understands you and you have said something you never intended to. I don't care how you set-up my trust as long as you don't use it as an excuse to take away my privilege of self-moderation. Everything I have said is either related to the topic, brought up by you or specifically for clarification on something related to the topic. It is not my fault you are an emotional wreck when somebody disagrees with you.
Someone who repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over, pisses me off, yes. Emotional wreck..lol
I got something, maybe it might be helpful if we add the option to make a thread already in progress a self-moderated thread. For example, clicking the edit, additional options and then toggling self-moderation on or off for a thread already created. Also, the idea of DT members being able to negatively rate a user and remove their self-moderation abilities, is this something that might work as a compromise as well?
Sure make a change to edit the self-mod status, I don't give a shit, as long as the self-mod ability is a benefit of certain user groups. That is more of an upgrade, nothing to do with scam prevention.
Sure, ralle14 already suggested this, having negative trust removes your right to self-mod threads, sounds good for almost everything, but again self-mod needs to be a benefit for certain user groups starting out.