As expected the usual red nose, red assed clan shows up in force to try to manage any independent thought into a narrative in their favor. Let the butt hurt flow through you Bozonians.
If those are his standards then I'd love to hear why I need to be on his distrust list. I have never left negative feedback based someone's opinions or unproven accusations. If TECSHARE thinks I have I would love to see him point out which negative feedback/flag support is wrong and I'd happily correct it. The list in the OP is just his personal witch hunt, nothing more.
AHHH I seee! I AM the one on a witch hunt now! That is a blatant lie. You are another two bit power tripping antagonistic forum cop. One quick scan over just the first page of your left ratings explains why you are on the suggested exclusion list. You are firmly within the clown car.
I do think those tenets a bit too stringent, however. There are shady things that go on here that won't be represented by documented theft or any violation of a contract, so there are going to be negs left which won't (and can't) necessarily be kept to a minimum.
Only if you refuse to let go of the delusion that mass tagging is going to change anything. The compulsion to tag absolutely everyone for any infraction is not only self serving and creating unnecessary conflict, it is counter productive. Con artists return in seconds with a bought account, legitimate users caught up in the dragnet leave and never come back.
It takes a lot of time and effort to build a reputation here just to have obsessive compulsive control freaks shit all over it for nothing more than to make themselves feel useful. It accomplishes NOTHING for the community, and in fact is destructive and not constructive. Past observable evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, the returns on negative rating users is quite diminished, and worse serves as cover for abuse. Additionally all the drama over petty bullshit allows ACTUAL con artists that fall under those objective standards to hide in the drama and signal noise created by tagging users for petty bullshit.
The question is not if every scammer is going to be caught and tagged, because it is absolutely a fact that is not going to happen regardless. The question is, is it worth constantly creating drama, conflict, covering up abuse, and driving away good users in exchange for getting those that fall out side of these standards? I think it is clear, it is not worth it. Of course for obsessive compulsive control freaks mass tagging people, it was never about serving the community, it was always about serving their own ulterior motives, egos and compulsions.
and an additional method of gatekeeping.
I think that's intentional: you can't have a public forum with equal voting power for all 2.7 million accounts, without KYC. And even with KYC, it makes sense that new members don't instantly get voting power (after all, if you move to another country, you can't just go and vote in the next election).
From what I've seen, I expect theymos to be all in for a better system, but unfortunately I haven't seen a better system yet.
Absolutely, just as negative ratings were intended to mark scammers and not as a tool to serve ulterior motives and petty vendettas. Unfortunately, like negative ratings, merit has become not just a filter to keep out spammers and shit posters, but a method for those in control of the current system to use it to reinforce their own control, just for the sake of being in charge of it to serve their own ulterior motives.
Core tenets:
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
I guess it's a step up from calls to remove the tagging system altogether, but I still don't see how this attempt at a "one-size-fits-all" system can encompass all the things people can currently be tagged for. As an example, tags for trolls and disinformation agents would not be able to co-exist with your criteria. If someone is deliberately spreading disinformation, such actions are dishonest, unacceptable behaviour. Accounts responsible should be tagged as such.
It doesn't. The point is there are diminishing returns on tagging people past a certain point. The real question is it worth it to subject everyone to this potential abuse in order to get those grey area cases? I don't think so. I think it is counterproductive.
"I don't care to make this about me..." [immediately begins making it about himself and projects this upon me]
Do you even know what the word "objective" means? And then, do you know the trust system is
meant to be a subjective system?
Just because a subjective collection of viewpoints exists by multiple people, and conflicts with your viewpoint, doesn't make them a "mob" out to get you. It's bound to happen in a forum this large, which accommodates people from
around the world, they're going to have multiple subjective viewpoints among many groups of members, and it doesn't instantly make them a "mob".
Subjectively, you're a
tool. That's just my opinion though.
Objectively, you're a hypocrite, because you routinely preach about objectivity, but then you consistently act from subjectivity... which is fine, but if multiple people don't agree with your subjective opinion and hypocritical nature, you can't claim "mob". Suck it up and move on, you've lost no freedoms.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Am I a hypocrite? How many negative ratings have I left for people out side of these standards? You seem to be confusing speech with action, but what is new? The clown car riders are big fans of projecting their flaws on to others. Last I checked I have several ratings on my page based in nothing more than butt hurt story time, and those that left them refuse to substantiate them. The trust system is designed to be a penalty for fraudulent behavior, claiming that having this penalty used against me is "losing no freedoms" is asinine, not that I expect a logical argument from you.