Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 102. (Read 86349 times)

One of the greatest life lessons I learned around grade 3 or 4 was that in order to be able to dish it out I should learn to take it as well. And I thought I was very late with that revelation. So it amuses me to no end how these days, on the intertubes of all places, there are presumably adult (sorry if I'm wrong here) individuals unable to grasp such a simple concept. Other than that, again - you're making very good points. Shame that you seem to be incapable of following your own rules or advice. Feel free to prove me wrong. One week to go. Tick tock.

IMO it is not a "pointing fingers and threat in PM thing" or I can assure you I would have been the first one to know as by the nature of my business over this forum I'm mostly in contact with all the "gangs" you are talking about. In this thread I have seen, instead, attempts to address trust ratings of people that didnt even know they got in DT after the new rules and experienced DT members tried to give suggestions over some disputable feedbacks that have been left in the past and now became obsolete/uncalled/dangerous (hence some members have been ~tilded by some DT1 and advised in PM of the inconsistency of some of their past ratings.

Example:
this user  has been tagged by Lesbian Cow without reference
The same user posted here and then prolly to avoid the red paint, he posted here

I'm assuming Lesbian Cow being or being not in DT would make no difference: they should have posted a reference for that "Skamaroo" tag, now we dont know why that's a Skamaroo or we would be immediately able to tag even the second account that Skamaroo created. This is just an example in this case the Skamaroo just attempted to void the neg rep and he shouldn't have done that: new red paint coming.
But in case of more serious scam accusations or frauds, it is very important to provide DT members and the entire community a solid reference (or most of DT wont even bother to tag)

Some experienced DT tho have PMd cases like this kindly asking them to revise their feedback and ~tilded them until solved

Where is the #gang in yoru opinion?

Except everything I brought up was about the topic at hand. You call it "personal attacks", I call it calling out their abusive behavior in direct relation to the topic at hand. If you will notice as well it was not myself that engaged in hostilities in spite of the hostile reaction to my points.

Frankly I think this argument is nonsense and just a lame attempt at putting the onus on me for causing a disruption for simply engaging these people like I just should have expected them to act in such a hostile way for suggesting things be done differently. I have been very consistent with my principals, and I find it fairly amusing that again there is always some kind of false equivalency any time any one dares question one of the forum grand inquisitors.

We should be able to be critical of them without it being labeled "a personal attack", and what they were doing was in no way the same thing. It would make it much easier to argue against me if this could all be simply dismissed as yet another personal flame war now couldn't it? I find it interesting you are so set on this narrative, ready to put me on that same bus simply because I don't kowtow to this uncontrolled bullying behavior by submitting to it.

That sounds very reasonable if I quote it like this, separately from the rest of your "personal attacks", which you amazingly engage in AND accuse others of engaging in, all within the same post. So unfortunately I have to keep excluding you because of your inconsistency but I would definitely be watching how you would apply all this in practice should you get into DT next week.

What kind of things am I doing? Tell me what are my crimes? I am dying to know.

The thing you call a distraction is exactly my point. The same people who want to essentially have the most authority on the forum can not even engage in a very simple critical discussion about protocol without IMMEDIATELY going directly to personal attacks, accusations of wrongdoing, or other petty intimidation or mobbing tactics.

You are complicit because you enable this behavior by joining ranks with these people and covering for them when they are clearly out of line. Maybe you are a follower type not a leader type, I don't know why you do this, but you have a different mentality towards these issues at least and are capable of engaging in a discussion.

Tell me, what is things "going my way" exactly? What do I get out of this other than a gang of stalkers digging through my personal effects? I get penalized for raising these issues, and that is the point, yet we all pretend that in an environment like this there will ever be fair redress of grievances from abuse by these members?

What I was and still am advocating for is a protocol for negative ratings that requires a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I have in detail described why this is needed here, and in other posts.

Quickseller and I both exclude and don't like each other, and I can't say OgNasty and I are best buds either. I think we are all just tired of this horse shit after so many years of it.

This is your second post on this thread so you're obviously not included. To understand who I mean, you can just scroll backwards past the pages of this thread to see a complete mess of micro-adjustments and judgements, not just from Lauda, but from another handful of users.

You explained who and why you include/exclude in your list, that's great, but a lot of other people here got fingers pointed on, contacted through PM and quoted, in a never-ending spam of "why did you include this and why did you exclude that". I almost regret commenting on this thread in the first place, which I did in an attempt to further understand, improve and help the new trust system; but this thread now just turned into a never-ending spam of a few users judging another handful of users based on who they included in their lists.

My last comments were not strictly directed to Lauda, but he/she just so happens to get their nose into the trust list of every other user, judge it, and actively push them to change it through PMs or public shaming. That is something I feel goes completely against the point of this new system.

In my opinion I just would love to see this thread discuss the trust system itself, and its implementation, maybe propose further suggestions, rather than this mindless witch hunt, which will obviously never end. Even theymos who was actively commenting in the first few pages; when people were actually trying to brainstorm improvements to the system; stopped commenting here for almost 2 weeks now.

They make it look like there's nothing to say anymore on this thread. It became just pointless spam of list judgements that go nowhere, and benefit only the centralized people handing out those judgements, be it Lauda, or anyone else. For all I care go make your own thread and start judging and calling people out on it based on your subjective opinions, because for me, you've totally missed AND ruined the point of this one.

Speaking for myself here I sincerely have 2 things to say about this, I hope you will agree with me:
1.- i am not Lauda proxy and still I am in Lauda list. I dont change my opinion on you or others based on Lauda opinion: this is your assumption and I invite you to honestly review the way you think about it. Read my trust list and read Lauda list, you will find people in my trust list (like OG) that are excluded in Lauda list. You will find people excluded in my trust list that are excluded in Lauda list (like QS). Both examples above come from my personal interaction with mentioned users and I (as I'm sure 100% of DT members do) compile this list based on our personal opinions, thoughts and experience. I have Lauda on my list because I'm 100% sure if I let him handle my personal money, It would be cared like it was myself doing it. I have OG in my list because I am 100% sure I can do the same with him, based on my past and present interaction with him. Still Lauda tildes OG and viceversa. This is what you call "Each one opinion counts" and it is real buddy, I'm not anyone proxy, there ain't any inferiority complex here, think again!
2.- Why people that have something to say to Lauda keep hijacking this post instead to get a motel room with him?

~Gun

I'm simply pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in your diatribe where you accuse someone else (Lauda in this case) of doing things that you're doing. Kinda distracts from whatever point you're trying to make.

I'm not sure what games I'm complicit in. I disagree with Lauda on some stuff, just like with pretty much anyone on DT1 or the forum in general. You're one of the very few people here who seems to be completely unable to even acknowledge the right to exist for opposing opinions or anything that doesn't go your way, which combines nicely with your total lack of self-awareness, but it doesn't really make you a good judge of what is "logical".

You, Og, and Quicksy make a good team so perhaps you can push through to DT and show us how the... whatever it is you're advocating can actually work in practice. I'm rooting for you.

You are one to talk my friend, you are complicit in all of these same games, which frankly confuses me because you seem to be more sensible than that. The difference is I don't spend all day every day "policing" this forum, so no, I don't think a mirror is required in this particular instance thank you. If anyone had some basic logical arguments to refute mine with I would be happy to hear them. So far I have seen little but a bunch of two-bit intimidation tactics, personal attacks, and accusations against anyone who dares point out this dynamic.

May I suggest to invest in a mirror?

If only that were the sole example perhaps you would have a point. I wonder what a compilation thread of all the threats you have made to users would look like. Perhaps some one can put one together.

So, you are claiming to be some kind of arbiter for what is right around here but you are proud of "how much butthurt" you cause? Like OgNasty said, this behavior is an embarrassment for this forum at best if these are the kind of people in charge around here. Yeah, you "ignore" me like everyone else around here who "ignores" me and then has something to say to me 30 seconds later. I suspect you will resort to your usual backdoor shadowy games since you know you have no ground to stand on in a public discussion of your behavior.

I would frankly rather be in Politics & Society, and I have no interest in your power struggle games except for the fact that the results are getting seriously destructive. I would really rather be spending my time doing something else. You wouldn't. That is the problem. The only reason this has gone on so long is no one wants to be the one to have to deal with you and risk their years of actual hard earned reputation when you retaliate, and anyone without a reputation is easily dismissed.

That is incorrect as what you claim is my behavior is not my behavior. In other words, you are intentionally making up lies about me. Not that this matters much as it happens daily given the amount of butthurt I cause. Go back to Politics & Society; no need for me to repost the 'murica meme again.

---

How do you find the time to be a psychologist when you are already a psychic infallible judge jury and executioner all day? No one said anything about being a victim except you. Does it look like your intimidation tactics are effecting me? I am simply pointing out your behavior so others can recognize this pattern that you exhibit literally any time some one tells you some thing you don't like or don't agree with, especially when it comes to questioning your judgement. And noobs are supposed to defend themselves against this? Please.

If you see that as a threat, then I suggest you visit a shrink as soon as possible as there is something very wrong with you. Stop playing the delusional victim card, it won't work.

Oh look, more veiled threats. I wonder how long it is until you start making straight up threats or trying to dig into my personal affairs? Is everyone watching this dynamic?

You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is.

Sure, you can do lots of things. That doesn't maker them a good idea.

I see so it is not at all possible you are incorrect in this judgement? Still you wonder why I criticize your behavior when you operate as if your decisions are infallible and every interaction is one focused on an attempt at intimidation. Too bad your sad little jedi mind tricks don't work on me isn't it? It would make things a lot easier for you to push people around without any criticism if I just bought your horse shit that nothing I say matters, and everything you say does, wouldn't it? People like you don't belong in positions of authority.

And I'm allowed to tell you and everyone else that what you said is objectively bullshit.

Good luck with that. Maybe thermos will kick me out, who knows.

I would ask you to refrain from posting lies about me. Thank you.

Do you even read what you write? You're accusing me of the exact thing you do.

Look, like you said, you're free to say whatever you want. Just as I am.

I'm trying to explain to people how wrong it is for them to listen to every opinion you (and others) write here. You also need to know that you could always be one iteration away from being off the list, in case they all agree that you're more of a nuisance rather than a helpful trust node.

I honestly can't see how you think what you're doing is okay. Just imagine you're a single node of 20 bitcoin nodes and one of them chooses to include or orphan a block, it doesn't matter right? Because the majority won't.

But now look at you forcing 3 more nodes to exclude it, and 2 other nodes doing the same, the whole network basically consists of 2 opinions then. That's exactly how this whole ordeal looks to me. Is it really hard to mind your own business and fix your own list? There's a HUGE difference between "I excluded x user because I think xxxx", and "You can't include x user in your list. Change it."

Not to even mention the pointless spam and post count that "include this and exclude that" creates.

Yes, you should wait for 30 people to contact you before correcting something that is objectively wrong and trivially corrected.

You really need to re-asses your "I can't be wrong" and "5 people can't agree with an opinion that is right, they must be proxies" bullshit.