What do you think about splitting the scam rating, with a "warning" rating for scammed previously OR you strongly believe that they will scam in the future, and a "scammer" rating for scammed previously AND you strongly believe that they will scam in the future? And then if you only have warning ratings, the indication displayed next to posts will be softer.
I think that would be fair. Regardless, there will be people who people who abuse the highest "Scammer" rating in retaliation for their own negative reviews.
Like suchmoon, I'd be curious to see what you have in mind to define what constitutes a warning vs. a full on scammer tag. Or, would you leave this to the community to work out? And be prepared for cryptohunter's walls of text complaining about whatever resolution is conceived.
Sounds like a great idea from Theymos. Let's implement it at once.
Theymos just told you. For red then
Either..
1. you are a proven scammer
or lesser warning sign for...
2. you have done something that STRONGLY indicates they will scam.
That sounds like excellent news.
Anything other than that is not red trust worthy. So let's get removing all the fake red trust abuse (because nobody will stand for this abuse by these proven untrustworthy scum) and if they in future do not operate within these guidelines they get black listed from DT.
So lets then see how these system abusers give out red trust.
I told a proven liar that if he continued to accusing me of lying without evidence (there was none so he was actually lying again) I would then encourage others to explore his post history when I knew there was evidence of him clearly telling a lie. For that I will not have red trust.
I think this new proposal sounds excellent.
It should be accompanied by a RULE that those on DT1 that can NOT present a case to demonstrate a person is either a scammer or a case to demonstrate there is STRONG evidence to suggest they will scam in the future get black listed from DT and get their merit source taken away.
Clear abusers of the trust system need some punishment else they will just abuse it as they see fit and nothing will improve. No point Theymos saying it should be like this then not punishing those that do not do as he tells them. Treat the trust system as he tells you or else get black listed from it.
So next time you go to red paint someones account make sure you have a strong case or boom black listed. Just having that threat a real possibility will mean most persons (who want to stay on DT) will make sure they start only giving red where there is STRONG case for someone being a scammer or is going to scam.
Why would I complain about this new suggestion Theymos just made. I think it is an excellent idea.
No more petty arguments and bickering resulting in red trust and no more being able to use red trust to silence people from voicing their opinions that are based on observable events demonstrating your prior wrongdoing.
Being able to use the trust system to try to silence others reporting wrongdoing is a total perversion of how it is supposed to operate.
I like Theymos new proposal. Let us introduce it at once. No complaints from me.
1. you are a proven scammer
2. you have done things that build a strong case you will scam people.
If you give red trust but can not prove they have scammed or present evidence that provides a STRONG case they will scam someone then you are black listed and removed. No more abuse for personal gain.