Is the Fall From Grace fatal to the Good Guy Certs?

I originally posted this in another thread and just realized it. I think this will help explain what I mean.

Originally Posted by wilomn

I have good guy for several people I have not done business with.

My word has value. It has value to me but, it seems that it also has value to others. IF I go out on a limb and say that I think someone is a good guy when I have NOT done business with them, I am in essense saying that I am SO sure of them that I will put MY personal reputation on the line and say so publickly, I will back their reputation by putting mine on the line for them as well.

That is the gage I used to determine who I would and would not vote for. I never voted either way for Bill because I don't know him well enough to vouch for him. I've got nothing for nor anything against him. Or should say HAD nothing against him.

I still want to know why or why you won't tell me why, Bill.

Each of us has to make that decision individually.

Well then we're right back where we started... there are people out there who think that NERD should lose their Cert because of what happened. Is that fair? I'm not sure - but it's a damn important issue don't you think?

Originally Posted by CaptainSlackass

Well then we're right back where we started... there are people out there who think that NERD should lose their Cert because of what happened. Is that fair? I'm not sure - but it's a damn important issue don't you think?

Let them vote. You vote. Once the votes are sufficient to tilt the scale one way or the other then you have your answer. Until then, you don't.

Ok Wes let me put this into terms you can understand very well. Say some really big name breeder decides Neil is a great guy and ads to his good guy certification without doing business with him. You mean to tell me that would be ok? And you also mean to tell me you wouldn't go nuts because of it and run around whining to anyone who would listen?

And I only use this example because I know you to don't see eye to eye. What would your gut reaction be if this happened? honestly Wes..

And isn't it a form of fraud misleading the public by just giving someone good guy points just because you feel they won't do something fishy? Doesn't that in and upon itself render this whole thing useless?

That's your opinion. I respect that. But think about it... say a few people have a genuine problem with what happened and the vote negative. And then a whole avalanche of people who feel like they got a bad rap vote positive... it's no different than a company wide reputation system and it's completely watered down what it was intended to be.

The answer isn't simple, but it has to address grey area's. That's why I say that a vote of no confidence should be held only under certain circumstances that would allow an occasional mass voting.

So Wes, If Joe Dipthong were a bad guy, and he had some sort of issue with you, the best thing he could do to hurt you is to give you a good guy vote?Then when people checked his background they would see what kind of people support you?
I don't think most people are going to consider the source, if it means they have to look up the reasons for 75 bad guy votes, or 75 good guy votes. The numbers alone are going to sway most people.
If you had 3 votes total, it might be worth checking the background of each voter before making a decision, but sheer numbers are going to have more of an impact that a name in fine print in a list of 50+ votes.
I think that for the cert to work, only people who have had transactions with the delaer should be able to vote. That way, it keeps voters to a minimum, which requires less research, and isn't that what the good guy cert is about? BOI Lite, remember?

Such a system would allow an obvious bad guy like Bill to be taken down in the light of inscrutable evidence. A situation like NERDS could also be voted on, because there is also inscrutable evidence. Bill is a no-brainer. NERD probably would emerge from a vote like that - but maybe not. Think about it.

I was reffering to the occasional vote of no confidence there...

Only people who have actually had a transaction with the person should be able to vote. Otherwise we're back to the point where someone can have all their friends log on and vote for them and it would be totally bogus and have nothing at all to do with business.

Also NERD had this show at their Zoo Creatures Pet Store so it was business related. Letting little kids pet cobras probably drummed up a lot of business for them both days they did it.

Basicly you really can't have a system wherein people without business history can vote on this sort of thing whenever they feel like it. It'll be pure anarchy.