suchmoon and other morons ( such as cycling ) continue colluding and abusing trust system
nothing changed
Topic: Is excluding people just because some one you don't like includes them valid? - page 3. (Read 1698 times)
May 30, 2020, 03:08:29 PM
May 30, 2020, 11:55:49 AM
I thought TECSHARE achieved his goal with this thread - presumably proving some sort of criminal clown cartel corruption (I just realized there is a "car" in "cartel" so that's solid proof right there) - so why is this still going on.
May 30, 2020, 10:32:11 AM
If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.
Quite honestly I was trying to avoid mixing myself up in another TS thread, but after he stated this:
That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them. You call me obsessive but Suchmoon is literally picking through my trust list canceling out additions for no other reason than the fact that I added them as if any inclusion needs Suchmoon's approval otherwise they get an exclusion automatically.
I couldn't help but think of this:
Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.
He's doing the exact same thing with his inclusions that he is accusing suchmoon of doing with exclusions. The main difference is including people to the trust system out of spite is potentially much more damaging than excluding them.
They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum
That's fine -- then you should leave them a positive trust. AFAICT nobody disagrees with the ratings you left for them (well, except for leaving a trust for someone based on your assessment of their ability to "preserve Americas Constitutional rights"
)Including them in your trust list means you trust not only their ability to leave correct trust ratings but that you trust their ability to use the trust system as well. You've added 2 of the 3 to your trust list for no discernible reason when a simple positive trust would suffice.
May 30, 2020, 07:55:11 AM
That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them.
That's the whole point. If someone's ratings start showing up as "trusted" in default trust or my own trust list, and I have no information whatsoever to judge them upon, then I can place exactly zero trust in those ratings. Therefore, I don't want to see them.They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum, but I guess unless I get Suchmoon's approval first, I don't get to vote on people I trust.
They haven't earned anyone else's trust and they have had no interaction with anyone else on the forum, so why shouldn't other people be allowed to distrust them without you opening a thread complaining about it?If you are free to add users who have left no ratings whatsoever except a single positive rating to you to default trust, then other users are equally free to exclude such users.
May 30, 2020, 07:30:03 AM
The point was, if a relative stranger suddenly appears on DT, regardless of who put them there, people are going to check to see if there's a good reason for them to be there or not. If people arrive at the conclusion they shouldn't be there, it may be the right course of action to distrust an unknown quantity. Why do you immediately have to turn it into something sinister about who does or doesn't like you?
You claim the trust system should be about what's best for the community, but in order for you to see the trust system doing exactly that, you need to stop making it all about you. It's clearly affecting your judgement. You can't honestly sit there and claim that having random people turn up on DT without a strong history of references or feedback is a positive thing.
You claim the trust system should be about what's best for the community, but in order for you to see the trust system doing exactly that, you need to stop making it all about you. It's clearly affecting your judgement. You can't honestly sit there and claim that having random people turn up on DT without a strong history of references or feedback is a positive thing.
That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them. You call me obsessive but Suchmoon is literally picking through my trust list canceling out additions for no other reason than the fact that I added them as if any inclusion needs Suchmoon's approval otherwise they get an exclusion automatically.
This isn't about me to anyone except Suchmoon. This is sad collective punishment by guilt via association and it directly effects me in no way whatsoever other than having Suchmoon's nose lodged firmly up my ass sniffing for peanuts about to come out. They aren't random people to me. They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum, but I guess unless I get Suchmoon's approval first, I don't get to vote on people I trust. This is the definition of gate keeping.
May 30, 2020, 06:37:18 AM
I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil.
Trust is earned. I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me. Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?
No one has to trust some one just because I do, but excluding some one just because I trusted them? You are calling me obsessive? That is pretty pathetic to punish other people for no other reason than you don't like me.
The point was, if a relative stranger suddenly appears on DT, regardless of who put them there, people are going to check to see if there's a good reason for them to be there or not. If people arrive at the conclusion they shouldn't be there, it may be the right course of action to distrust an unknown quantity. Why do you immediately have to turn it into something sinister about who does or doesn't like you?
You claim the trust system should be about what's best for the community, but in order for you to see the trust system doing exactly that, you need to stop making it all about you. It's clearly affecting your judgement. You can't honestly sit there and claim that having random people turn up on DT without a strong history of references or feedback is a positive thing.
May 29, 2020, 03:00:21 PM
I am taking firm steps towards becoming the most unreliable member of forum history.
http://loyce.club/trust/2020-05-23_Sat_05.03h/1003533.html
http://loyce.club/trust/2020-05-23_Sat_05.03h/1003533.html
May 29, 2020, 02:53:24 PM
personal vendettas
That's a funny phrase to use, considering you're the one who's constantly stirring the pot when it comes to the trust system. You only come out of this looking a tiny bit obsessive.
I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil.
Trust is earned. I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me. Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?
There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.
With the levels of gamesmanship you appear to be engaged in, I wouldn't be surprised if you were adding totally random names to your inclusion list just so you can cry foul when someone inevitably excludes them.
"Oh, the persecution!"
Weird how it is always the same people over an over again saying things like I am being obsessive as if these complaints happen in a vacuum. No one has to trust some one just because I do, but excluding some one just because I trusted them? You are calling me obsessive? That is pretty pathetic to punish other people for no other reason than you don't like me. Gamesmanship? If I was trying to game the system why would I spend so much time pissing in the faces of the people most able to rank me up within it if I just kissed their asses? Nothing you said makes any sense, good attempt though. I look forward to you working up the nuts to try again soon.
May 29, 2020, 08:06:32 AM
personal vendettas
That's a funny phrase to use, considering you're the one who's constantly stirring the pot when it comes to the trust system. You only come out of this looking a tiny bit obsessive.
I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil.
Trust is earned. I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me. Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?
There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.
With the levels of gamesmanship you appear to be engaged in, I wouldn't be surprised if you were adding totally random names to your inclusion list just so you can cry foul when someone inevitably excludes them.
"Oh, the persecution!"
May 28, 2020, 09:49:50 PM
I exclude a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons.
I include a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons.
Seems clear enough of a summary of my stance
I include a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons.
Seems clear enough of a summary of my stance
That is not the same thing, nor the question I posed.
legendary
Activity: 1848
Merit: 1166
My AR-15 ID's itself as a toaster. Want breakfast?
May 28, 2020, 09:13:44 PM
I exclude a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons.
I include a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons.
Seems clear enough of a summary of my stance
I include a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons.
Seems clear enough of a summary of my stance
May 28, 2020, 01:29:14 AM
What you said was false so I thought you'd want to weasel out of it with some other theory but I'm fine with you being simply wrong.
Anyway, what's your expected outcome here?
Anyway, what's your expected outcome here?
I said a lot of things, you have to be more specific. I have already achieved my desired outcome, thanks for asking.
May 27, 2020, 06:51:37 PM
I said what I meant, you just want to pretend like it wasn't said because it saves you the embarassment of trying to craft a failure of a lie to cover for it.
What you said was false so I thought you'd want to weasel out of it with some other theory but I'm fine with you being simply wrong.
Anyway, what's your expected outcome here?
May 27, 2020, 04:40:30 PM
You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.
Are we playing this game again where I'll never guess what you actually meant and you'll refuse to say what you actually meant?
I can't be bothered to care if you believe my explanation or not. We clearly have different opinions of whose judgement can be trusted.
I said what I meant, you just want to pretend like it wasn't said because it saves you the embarassment of trying to craft a failure of a lie to cover for it.
May 27, 2020, 03:56:38 PM
You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.
Are we playing this game again where I'll never guess what you actually meant and you'll refuse to say what you actually meant?
I can't be bothered to care if you believe my explanation or not. We clearly have different opinions of whose judgement can be trusted.
May 27, 2020, 02:08:11 PM
You must be really desperate to lie about something so blatant that anybody who cares to look at those trust lists can see right through. There are users included by both of us and there are users included by you that I neither include nor exclude so it's quite obvious that I don't exclude "people because of who includes them". Cherrypicking three users out of 80+ doesn't prove any of the bullshit you're making up about me, at most it shows your bizarre need to be a victim and your poor judgement.
You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.
but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here
And why would anyone except you want to see the trust ratings of users whom, but your own admission, have had zero interaction with anyone except you?You need to learn to read.
...
So, you're saying you "distrust me" not "dislike me"?
Really?
How so?
I think very little of you as a person one way or the other. Your spastic overzealous use of the trust system is why I distrust you.
May 27, 2020, 04:06:54 AM
but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here
And why would anyone except you want to see the trust ratings of users whom, but your own admission, have had zero interaction with anyone except you? 
May 26, 2020, 11:31:37 PM
...
So, you're saying you "distrust me" not "dislike me"?
Really?
How so?
May 26, 2020, 07:16:56 PM
The point of the trust system is to serve the community, not to be a tool to perpetrate your vendettas. I am not making anything up. There is absolutely no explanation for those users to be excluded by you except for the fact that I included them. Other people who don't deserve to be excluded being excluded by you doesn't victimize me, it victimizes them, and only because of your petty vindictive attitude treating the trust system like your personal plaything. There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.
You must be really desperate to lie about something so blatant that anybody who cares to look at those trust lists can see right through. There are users included by both of us and there are users included by you that I neither include nor exclude so it's quite obvious that I don't exclude "people because of who includes them". Cherrypicking three users out of 80+ doesn't prove any of the bullshit you're making up about me, at most it shows your bizarre need to be a victim and your poor judgement.
May 26, 2020, 06:59:29 PM
I think you're missing a key element of the trust system and that might explain why you're having such a hard time understanding it and keep blaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. I don't claim to be serving the community or whatever straw people you're making up. It's other users who decide whether my trust list, my actions, my opinions are valuable to them or not. Whether those decisions collectively result in a default trust position is completely out of my control unless you believe in some cockamamie conspiracy of a secret cabal controlling DT.
You asked a question, I answered, no need to keep making shit up if you don't like the answer. ~suchmoon and move on (same goes for everyone who thinks TECSHARE is a victim here and not a bitter deluded troll trying to stir shit up).
You asked a question, I answered, no need to keep making shit up if you don't like the answer. ~suchmoon and move on (same goes for everyone who thinks TECSHARE is a victim here and not a bitter deluded troll trying to stir shit up).
The point of the trust system is to serve the community, not to be a tool to perpetrate your vendettas. I am not making anything up. There is absolutely no explanation for those users to be excluded by you except for the fact that I included them. Other people who don't deserve to be excluded being excluded by you doesn't victimize me, it victimizes them, and only because of your petty vindictive attitude treating the trust system like your personal plaything. There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.
Jump to: