LOL.  I made my comment about Lauda being untrustworthy and he retaliated instantly with negative trust.  This is actually great news for the forum, as I suspect the sooner theymos blacklists Lauda/TMAN for their trust abuse, the better off this forum will be.

Thank you for making clear or reiterating some of your stances on the use of these tools. I appreciate your goal here of trying to make this community largely self managing, but I would like to point something out.

Currently most of the standards you just iterated are enforced already to one degree or another by the community as it is. You and the staff almost never need to pick thru these ratings except in extreme cases. I think everyone agrees minimal overlap with the trust system and the staff is preferable for pretty much all involved.

The problem with this logic is your rubric is still extremely subjective, and this ambiguity is very exploitable. I would compare it to the US federal code. People commit felonies every day and they just don't know it because the laws are so obscure and countless. It creates an atmosphere of not only selective enforcement, but ambiguity in what the real rules are because penalties are applied arbitrarily. Stalin once said under his own rule "Show me the man I will show you the crime." While this is largely hyperbolic, it still demonstrates the notion that the forum exists under an atmosphere of constant fear of retaliation over any kind of dissent.

As the system is now it will likely just turn into a giant toxic tumor. I have pretty much said the same for a very long time, and here we are at golf ball size. There is still time to fix it before it is just a total fucking mess that needs to be brought out back and shot in the head. I suggest you ask people to observe a standard of evidence theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.

This could be enforced exactly as your above guidelines are, and people who don't follow them simply get removed from trust lists. The trust system mostly is self managing, and as it is now intervention is minimal from staff. All the scam hunters can still do everything they are doing, they just will not get the dopamine hit from dropping red ratings all day and lording over people with no evidence.

Just as we as a community decide if some one is guilty of a crime or scam of some kind will be exactly how it will continue, only the rating needs to be the penalty applied after some factual evidence is presented, not before. This change will fix a lot of the rift we currently have forming in this community, and help return us to having a more productive core community. As a result people will trust it more to invest resources into it as they will not fear that they will be the next one burnt at the stake for pissing off the wrong person.

Definitely Theymos sooner or later will blacklist people from  the list.I just disagree with what you have said if a newbie will create a thread like to exclude the gang from the list there will be a big difference if someone like OgNasty will create one remember cats has only 9 lives  

Theymos doesnt like lauda but he wants us users to sort it out for him
Theymos agrees with ognasty
Theymos trusts ognasty

I'll call you a candidate for the blacklist. Better?


I see this as an attempt to intimidate. Not going to work but feel free to waste your money.

It's perfectly allowed for untrustworthy users to have alts; that's why I only gave them negative trust instead of reporting the tell-tale PMs and getting them both banned.

Foxpup: Is put onto a system defined by the community to measure the accuracy of ratings

Thule: 'excuse me who put you in charge, mr?!?'

Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales.  Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted.  Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.

Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it.  Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on.  Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.

Yes. You are a person, not a community.