Topic: Is excluding people just because some one you don't like includes them valid? - page 2. (Read 1721 times)

That's a slightly longer excerpt of the post he quoted.

No, What I said was...



Technically this is what you said. I guess that means it was what you meant right?

You actually did say exactly what he quoted.

Except that is what you selectively edited my quote to say, not what I actually said.


Weird you would choose to edit that part out, almost as if you know it clarifies my statement and you want to turn it into something other than what I actually said.

"A long history" ...k. Once again, you claim to know my internal thoughts, motivations, and intents, and act as if your assumptions are evidence. I am under a microscope because I make a habit of calling out your little clown mafia when they assemble their three ring circus to attack anyone who dares to criticize them, exactly like is happening here. It is always the same people. I am not "telling" people to do anything. I am asking.




They are not sock puppets. They are all real individuals, deserving of respect and trust. Now, even if you were to make the ASSUMPTION they are sock puppets, wouldn't a sock puppet need to you know, engage in some kind of activity to make it a worthwhile sock puppet? As far as I know neither of them include me either, but I haven't checked. I find it interesting your reasons are shifting now after you feel like your previous justifications are not holding up. Perhaps you are just a sock puppet of Nutilduhh?

You know what got me into the default trust list? Being a reliable trader here that people can trust with large amounts of value for almost a decade. You tell me some more about sleazy uses of the DT while you use it as your personal toy for playing out your vendettas and lie about it as you accuse me of the same out of the other side of your mouth.

Agreed;  but I myself am willing to take any flack that those inclusions or exclusions may entail...

deserved or not... it happens =/
I do see merit in things said on both sides;  its why I speak.  No flack meant.

False. If you're including sockpuppets who prop each other into the trust system - the problem is more than just not agreeing with somebody.


False again. If you exclude somebody included by me - is that retribution too, or does this apply only in one direction?

I get what you're doing. You're repeating this nonsense as if it's a fact to support your victimhood and that's been a fairly successful strategy for you with this new trust system, since most DT1 members can't be bothered to look beyond your lies. That doesn't really make you not a liar and it only highlights the sleazy way you got yourself into DT. Well, not anymore, but good luck in the lottery next month.

He often cries about being abused by a 'mob'. He's trying to create one.

Seems like that's really what all these threads are.

I still find it bizarre that you would complain about it after having stated that you do the same thing.


You have a long history of adding users to your trust list simply because other people have excluded them. This has led to you including alts of people that you had excluded. Perhaps you are "under a microscope" because you are supposedly championing "objective standards" when it comes use of the trust system but refuse to employ them yourself. This is a pretty humorous example of said hypocrisy:



Here you are telling people to change their profile pic and signature to advertise your "guild" but for some reason you aren't doing the same. It appears you just enjoy telling people what they should do with no desire to actually do it yourself. Try leading by example if you want to be taken seriously.

They're alleging that you include people for no other reason than to give them a reason to include you in return, putting you one step closer to your coveted spot on a list. 

That is not under dispute, and I agree. However my inclusions and exclusions are constantly under a microscope by these same individuals, and accusations of trust abuse are levied against me for noting more than adding people they do not agree with, followed by demands I explain myself.

My post here about Suchmoon is simply demonstrating their motives are not about building a positive trust system, but about using it as a tool of personal retribution, regardless of what is allowed.

People can add and remove from their lists as they see fit.   And its up to the rest of us to see what that means to each of us individually and act accordingly.....

the question posed was very much addressed in my opinion;  very clearly and in its simplest form.... as each person:  makes their own choices.


If you did not derive:  I do not see any wrongdoing prima facie.

Again, you need to learn to read.



I have at no point ever had any alternate accounts here as I have said many times. Even if it was an alt, it would essentially be useless.

By the way, I noticed you joined in with your usual hive mind mob mentality and excluded these users too.

6/1/2020 10:27:17 PM    DT2 selection    TwitchySeal DT1 distrusts c1010010 DT2
6/1/2020 10:27:17 PM    DT2 selection    TwitchySeal DT1 distrusts RidleyReport DT2

Way to prove you all don't operate as a klan and meter out collective punishment and use guilt via association.

Seems TwitchySeal is up to something.
Probably because almost everyone knows how you include people to your trust network lately, it is either out of spite and/or because someone become DT1, hopping they will return favor and add you to their trust networks.

Anyway, suchmoon explained why he excluded some users (read post #2), so why don't you lock this topic as it is resolved?

Was c1010010 your alt account at any point?

Were either c1010010 and/or RidleyReport your alt accounts at any point?

That's literally exactly what you are doing here against suchmoon.

You are stretching pretty hard to justify this vindictive behavior. They have left no ratings, what is the problem? Are you suggesting people should exclude users preemptively just in case they leave bad ratings?

No, I haven't forgotten. The point is all of the people here justifying Suchmoon's actions have all demanded I explain my inclusions, and have used the simple fact that I use a custom trust list as "evidence" of trust system abuse. The very point is there is one standard for the clown klan, and another for everyone else.

Exactly. So how do I know I can trust their ratings? I can't, therefore it is sensible for me to exclude them so I do not see any ratings they may leave.

Wait, what? Did you forget that you are the one who opened this thread, called suchmoon a trust abuser, and demanded they account for it? At no point since these users were excluded over a year ago did anyone start a thread and demand that you account for their inclusion.

That might make sense if they had actually left any ratings, but they haven't (except for one, which Suchmoon removed the exclusion for anyway). Again, I never claimed anyone had to trust them because I do, but distrusting them simply because I trust them is not only petty but counterproductive, and is a form of guilt via association and collective punishment. I also never said it wasn't allowed, simply that it demonstrates the petty vindictive motives of Suchmoon.




I put the operative term "considering for inclusion" in bold. Considering is not the same thing as automatically doing it. Furthermore trusting people is not the same as distrusting people. Inclusions are for people you trust. Trust ratings are for positive exchanges. Funny how you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser.




I don't know, ask your clown friends.




Again, you ignore the operative term "considering for inclusion". Furthermore, again, inclusions are not the same as exclusions. One more time, you all consistently claim you are all to include and exclude whoever you like, but when I do it it is always evidence of malfeasance and I am required to account for it or be called a liar/ trust abuser. This is the clown clan way.

He is actually so full of shit. Look at him turning into the ethical preacher at his convenience.
Such a glaring hypocrite. LOL@ attempt to show ethics. Stuff like "Trust system is to serve the community" doesn't suit him after abusing it to no end with his mutual inclusions AND being a tool in perpetuating conspiracy theories about everything from DT, this forum and to even bitcoin.