Topic: Calling for SENSIBLE DEBATE on this use of the trust system ( not regarding us) - page 2. (Read 768 times)

The negative feedback for me was more retaliatory rather than something appropriately done. There where no scams that took place, no transactions happened and there are just only words that maybe Lauda didn't accept well. I don't know but basing it from his negative feedback Lauda might have built a tick that he had enough of eddie that's why he have sent that feedback but even though it's because of that reason I don't see why this negative feedback for eddie is deserving.

Out of all the things in this thread, I'll simply rag on this one thing. Whether a slip of the tongue (or rather, fingers) or a miscommunication, it doesn't matter, but this is something that I want to address.

Words may be defined as many different things and thus if I attempt to state, "this is not X," it is possible for both my statement to be honest and align with my truths (i.e. I see it as genuinely true) while being false in other people's languages.

I define language as the collection of semantic and syntactical rules that one uses to communicate, by the way.

---

Stating "I completely am against freedom of speech when" puts a restriction upon freedom of speech. If this is suited in your rigorous definition thereof, then that's fine.

But, I disagree with restricting communication. Restricting what one may/may not communicate leads to a slippery slope. But wait: isn't that fallacious? Yes, yes it is. And what of it? Humans are not infallible creatures, are they? Legislation is not rooted in rationality.

And I fear that restrictions upon freedom of speech will lead to compounding restrictions, closing us off into an echochamber of madness.

---

Feel free to interject with any opposing thoughts.

When you open a topic and you see this :



you know it has to be good.

So let me rewind this a bit
- we have a crappy exchange that has been accused of scams and of fake volume a thousand times
- they start a signature campaign
- everyone jumps and starts throwing red bolded flaming poo at them
- Lauda is chosen as an escrow
- everyone: Pikachu face!

Oi.. watch out , next itll be people calling you TOAA/Cryptocunter..

come on - change the record. Everyone knows lauda is a law to themselves. but... Plus/Minus - the net gain to this place is many multiples more for all the good the cuntycat has done over the years.  Seriously Twatshare, man up - change the tampon/maxipad and move on.

Lauda has a long history of disregarding rules around the trust system, even when Theymos himself is the one handing them down. Clearly Lauda believes they can set their own rules and do whatever they like abusing the trust system. Lauda doesn't belong anywhere near any level of trust. Unfortunately this community has a habit of excusing this kind of behavior from their special children until they get too big for their britches and it becomes a huge problem that creates other issues much like a certain other 3 letter user name here.

Your misunderstanding stems from the fallacy that you believe it matters who posts about whether it's "valid" or not, or what their justification is.  Expressing an opinion in one of your inane topics doesn't actually change anything.  We're not playing by your totally imaginary rules here.  That's not how it works.  What matters is who each of us does or doesn't include in our trust list.  Perhaps I need to be more patronising if you can't grasp that.  

Maybe you feel the need to question everyone's intelligence by assuming they don't factor incidents like this into their decision as to whether or not to include someone in their trusted list.  I'm personally content to assume that people on DT aren't stupid and have enough attention span to notice these things sooner or later (without making a massive song and dance about it) and will continually evaluate whether those ratings are still worthy of inclusion or not.  But please keep crying about people not dancing to your tune.  It doesn't look pathetic at all.  

I have like 54 responses to that, but I’m doing my best to withold my inner child.

As for Eddie, I could be totally wrong and if I am I apologise in advance, but I thibk there is something off with his posts.

We can agree to disagree like we have on many other topics. And guess what no walls of text TOAA....

Well, I didn't expect this, but it lit my PM notifications up pretty good so here I am..

So far, other than mentioning it a couple times, I have basically chosen...
Because I think..
Which may be coming true..
I haven't really dug to prepare references much yet but I think I could make it clear that Lauda has a long history of attacking me over my opinions going back a long time..
I think this one of many instances of Lauda attacking, in this case for supporting freedom of speech, threatening to flag me, and I called their bluff on it, is what really pissed Lauda off this time..

Out of that came this pretty interesting quote..
Which I find abhorrent..

I agree that I am a Cunt in the eyes of some as you suggest..

To those authoritarians who hope to shut down freedom of speech, who engage in hypocritical sketchy actions, who try to twist the truth, who abuse the trust system in attempt to silence users like me, I hope I am a HUGE "sandy asscrack hangover headache type pain in the scrotum" just as you describe..

If my postings in support of maintaining libertarian culture and high standards for DT, who I believe should be good role models for the masses to look up to, is a "pain" or damaging to anyone, good..


In the case of the reference in my negative trust from Lauda I was posting about this inconsistency..


First off I don't think it is correct to "force"..
Secondly, if you yourself think it is a scam, why would you attempt to facilitate their advertisement in any way? Escrow or not..
mosprognoz seems misguided here to me..

It seems me mentioning this made me a "sandy asscrack hangover headache type pain in the scrotum" to Lauda, and they abusively negative trusted me for pointing it out..

So here we are..



Edit: BTW I did not buy this account, I haven't worn a paid signature in probably years, I have been DT2 at all times that I know of since the new implementation of the trust system, I am now on DT1 and have never abused these positions, and I have been trusted with over $2,000 worth of BTC in a single trade and did not scam.. (I know it's not really that much)

So if you think I am untrustworthy I'd like to know your definition of "untrustworthy"..

I'd say no but to each their own. If you want to make an informed decision take a few minutes to read the related discussion. Not the OP's wall of text but starting from eddie13's feedback and the link in his signature. I'm pretty sure he's still up for the 0.25 BTC bet too, if you want to take advantage of that.

Bottom line: he's not a megatroll, he's not abusing the trust system, he's not a sleazebag trust farming escrow scammer, his biggest crime is that he disagreed with Lauda.


I don't think he bought an account or plagiarized anything but maybe you know something I don't. You're a dick too but I wouldn't hold that against you

ok to stick to the rules...

I agree Eddie is a dick - like billgator. but should he be tagged? I think not.. seriously I disagree with the cat fiddler on this.

now back to the TOAA guessing game..

CLEARLY
DT
TMAN
TRANSPARANT

can someone mark me please

" do nothing" No this is not really how DT is designed to work as The Pharmacist explained to you above. DT can not self regulate if people do nothing when they feel something is clearly wrong. If you are not willing to take action when you see things are clearly wrong. DT is not a place for you.

If you feel that there has been a CLEARLY inappropriate use of tags of flags. Then really you act upon this by resisting those inappropriate tags and flags or DT simply will not work. Theymos has designed the system to function on FRICTION / RESISTANCE and AGREEMENT if everyone just sits there when they notice CLEARLY inappropriate use of the trust system. The trust system can not self regulate.

Let's try to keep this thread civil.

Anyway, since you are here now why not give your opinion on the red trust. I mean if you believe it is a valid use of red trust then just relax do your best to form a transparent and clear account of your reasoning for that. This is a civil debate concerning a 3rd party to us.  . This is simply a good example we believe of the red trust being misused in a very net negative way when you consider the entire context surrounding the project he was referring to in his post and the potential motivation for applying red trust to silence his correct and undeniable criticisms.

Anyway, if you think this is a valid or invalid use of red trust, then just go ahead and give your opinion/reasoning or leave it to others that want to have a civil debate.

An interesting and in some ways very surprising thread so far though. Some objectivity, and sensible well reasoned answers. There is a modicum of hope for the future of decentralized trust, although of course we believe a central point of authority with both ultimate power and sole accountability would work best, but the responsibility, workload (even at only a final say level) and future possible legal blowback is too much to expect from any one person. Still regardless of recent events one must never forget the opportunities and benefits this forum has given us all. For that we must be grateful.

Anyway on with the debate.

@thenewanon - It would be good if you can keep the the appropriate use of the red trust in this instance. Another thread concerning these " behaviors" you claim could make him worthy of an exclusion should be debated in the full context of other comparable behaviors that you are NOT going to exclude for IN A DIFFERENT THREAD if possible thanks.

This will derail from the specific use of red trust here. Lauda likely has excluded him anyway. We have not looked into that part, because although it could be viewed as a form of punishment, is not something that is used currently as such a massive threat as destroying his reputation score and leaving red marks on his account that can be jumped upon as leverage for FURTHER discrimination in terms of campaigns and other opportunities. Red marks currently (by a design flaw we believe) hold huge influence over nearly all rev streams and trading.

So please make a thread about these "apparent behaviors" YOU feel COULD be worthy of trust exclusions. if you like.

Since you are here, and have decided to go with the potential for exclusions suggestion as an alternative, CAN WE ASSUME that you feel red trust in NOT VALID in this instance? Yes?

Tman seems to be intent on making accusations and insults about eddie but provides zero evidence or corroborating events to substantiate them. Best to probably do your own research before accepting anything at face value.

Edit - tman seems to have given a semi reasonable opinion now,  and is saying the red trust in this instance does not seem valid. I am going to give him 10/10. I'm sure he will start to warm to us now.

So that means so far we have pretty much 100% agreement that the red trust is NOT valid.  That was rather surprising in a good way.











 

Eddie is a cunt, reminds me of billcuntygator

not a cunt in a nice way like me..

more like sand in your arse crack/vagina type pain..

i am headache pain from drinking 12 hours... eddie is pain in scrotum

I agree. His behaviour could be a reason to distrust (~) him though.

This is totally wrong and harsh use of trust system, eddie13 was just expressing his opinion about the exchange and that was the sole reason for that thread creation he was commenting in.



I would probably go with this most of the times.

Like OP Logic does not work with me sir...

but if I dont like your feedback I can do a few things.

1) PM you
2) ignore it
3) counter it
4) start a thread
5) call your mum
7) do nothing
69) ask TOAA to post about it
420) smoke a J and chill winston !

1) OP is a massive douche canoe.
2) That doesn't change the fact that negative feedback on eddie13 for his opinion ("virtue signaling") is massively inappropriate.

This is true, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of your feedbacks left for other members, and I'm sure it goes both ways.  If you see that I've left a neg for someone and you didn't think they deserved it, I would expect either of you or anyone else to challenge me on it.  That's part of the way DT members police themselves.

That may be the case, but if you're leaving negative trust for members you ought to realize that when you're on DT it carries much more weight and that DT members should be held to a higher standard because of that.  That's the reason why I don't tag shitposters anymore or spammers or even members who are being dishonest unless they're actually trying to scam someone. 

Account sellers are a personal crusade for me, because I genuinely believe they're doing a disservice to the forum and shouldn't be trusted, but I'm aware that there are people who disagree with feedbacks I've left because of that.  I welcome dissention, as it makes me reevaluate my position (though I haven't yet changed it).

I assume whatever device you're writing posts on has a calendar app, so maybe that might help you....?  Lol.

Lauda is a cunt, I am a cunt - you trust us both! if anyone (TOAA) doesn't trust our ratings - then that user can go trust their own mother (I believe TOAA's mother didn't trust him and dropped him on purpose) FUK YOUR MOTHER IF YOU WANT TO FUK

anyway - the system is working, those of us in the DT rotation couldn't give a flying fuck if we are on DT-1 or DT-2, I mean really? I don't even know what day it is half the time, the only users who care about this shit are the gimps like TOAA who prove OBSERVABLE instances of FANNY ITCH against the whole DEFAULT TRUST system of MERIT CYCLING.

Pleases either engage in the debate and give your reasoning on yes it is  valid or no it is not valid. OR ELSE just stop derailing.

This is not a thread to discuss my motives for asking is it?. They are irrelevant. since I am only asking for other peoples opinions on AN OBSERVABLE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE INSTANCE.

I am genuinely interested in the DT's reasoning here on this forum.

Let's continue.

@The Pharmacist

Yes, we agree with the points in general that you have made there. We simply want to try to understand how any person DT or otherwise can consider an observably true statement and a hmmmmmm to someone elses post reason for giving them red trust.

Let's await what other DT members offer up as their view on this use of the trust system.

Good to see that so far there we can keep it civil and stay on topic.

Based on what Lauda's feedback states, I think it was pretty harsh.  Lauda might not trust eddie13 based upon his words, but that's a judgement call on Lauda's part that seems to be questionable.  Myself, I wouldn't have left eddie13 a neg for that but that's just me.  Lauda is free to distrust whoever he/she wants, and if any DT or non-DT members disagree with the feedback enough, they can counter it.

Is Lauda still on DT1/2?  I've got them on my trust list so eddie13's neg shows up as trusted, but as DT members keep getting rotated in and out, I have a hard time following whether certain members are even on DT2.  I'm assuming Lauda is on some level of DT, which makes that feedback suck for the recipient even more.  In any case, there's no much that can be done about it unless Lauda is removed from DT entirely, and I tend to think he/she does more good than harm--but at the same time I hate to see feedbacks like this one and flags like the one Lauda created against a member that I felt obligated to oppose. 

The trust system shouldn't be used to neg members based on a difference of opinion or an interpretation of someone's words that seems kind of a stretch.  Excluding them from your trust list might be a better option, but a red trust doesn't seem appropriate IMO.