Topic: RETALIATORY VINDICTIVE TRUST ABUSE by DT - page 2. (Read 1855 times)

Really guys!

I am not sure if TECSHARE's intention was to lie or he is not properly informed but I can assure that I have seen somewhere that Lauda requested her to be excluded from DT1.

If you want more negatives, or if you prefer 1 rating per instance then I am willing to comply. Every single time I see an outright defamatory lie from you now, I will document it. Thanks.

Just because you don't like my criticism and you perceive it as an attack doesn't justify you using the trust system this way. It couldn't possibly be made any more clear that you are leaving these ratings as punishment for criticizing your behavior.

There are no statements because it did not happen outside of the private engagement between theymos and me. This is the only truth:

mr. TECSHARE is a known liar, and once his defamatory attacks get dealt with he cries "silence of criticism". Quite unfortunate that trustworthy members fall for this gig.

LOL is this real  Can you show me more specific examples or evidence? I have never heard of this before, at least the amount of time I have been active on this forum, although there are times when I am absent, so I may not know. Can you quote any statements about it?

More clear attempts to silence criticism using the trust system as a tool of abuse from Lauda.

Lauda   2020-02-28   Reference   Continues to defame me out of spite. Will merge with other ratings later.

This is a proven lie. It was done because I had requested it. Quoted for reference.

The idea that Lauda's abusive ratings are not out of hand is nothing more than an illusion to sell yourself on justifying your excusing of this behavior by not excluding them. There is no shortage of forum cops, many with much better track records. The sky will not fall with Lauda gone. There is a long history of Lauda abusing the trust systems here to the point of Theymos blacklisting them from DT1. You know this, you are simply equivocating to justify inaction.

Libel / defamation / slander =/= "difference of opinion" or any "difference in interpretation of facts". We do not live in the forking UK, do we? It is harming innocent people out of envy, spite, and similar.

Silently removing after making a thread which I am not involved in and not notifying me is convenient. Removed that part and rating is on-point again. Is there anything else? I believe if you break down all the sentences each is trivially proven true.

OP removed his negative trust from FortuneJack, which renders the "trust abuse" portion of Lauda's negative trust no longer relevant. They are a decent quality poster and don't deserve to have this negative.

Fantastic post clearly demostrating further issues with red tags and the DT system.

Well done pharmacist.

Not that your inaction helps the OP very much.

I get your point, and that probably is one reason why Lauda hasn't been excluded from people's trust lists more than has already happened. 

I took a look at OP's trust page, and this looks like another example of leaving a neg for what essentially comes down to a difference of opinion or interpretation of facts.  I don't think anybody is at risk of anything based on what OP wrote in the reference thread, and I think neutral observers would probably agree with that.  So this is another one of Lauda's feedbacks I don't agree with--but I can't do anything about it that wouldn't be all out of proportion to the situation.  I'm not going to exclude Lauda from my trust list unless these kinds of feedbacks get out of hand, and even then an exclusion from me wouldn't do much of anything.

And I'm not into countering feedbacks.  It would be nice if more DT members weighed in on this.

The entire system is broken. The root cause is merit ( cycled and abused with each of these DT1 slathering each other's posts with merit as confirmed by their top 20 fans and recipients lists) they the all club together to include each other on dt1, since they are primarily the only ones meeting the 250 earned merit threshold DT1 requires to nominate. one another. These coincidentally are also mostly occupying the top paying dig spots run by their pals hhampuz and Yahoo.

Any threat to the status quo will be silenced or punished with merit and tagging. Merits for supporting their agenda / merit starvation for speaking against. Red tags are a threat or actually applied for unfavorable opinions

Sadly most people are too scared, or too stupid to notice how it all works here until they are given a real taste.

If you want to blame anyone then talk to theymos who either lacks understanding or intends it this way.

The system is broken.  You want a vast improvement then join the guild. Or just continue being abused and claiming it is impossible to objectively define 10 is a larger number than 3 because of prior life experiences.

Is is possible for anyone to objectively define your treatment as abusive? or retaliatory?  if not then let's not worry about it.

Don't let's get philosophical let's be practical and apply solutions that are optimal given what there is to work with.

Pleading for help may even result in your own " subjectivity" defined abuse being overturned case. That will not remove the merit and tagging jack boot from the throat of free speech here.

Presenting a valuable and credible case for defining this as abusive or clearly suboptimal behavior will result in nothing. Most DT1 benefit from the silencing of anyone that says anything that could call into question the status quo.

Pleading for change is not going to work.

Exactly how is advocating for people presenting evidence before negative rating vindictive? Could you possibly project any more? You complain about the abuse of this user, but you make accusations against the only people resisting it, and have the person who abused you on your trust list. I can only conclude you are not the brightest bulb in the box.

I do not think I understood it, assuming some kind of addressing? Pardon my ignorance.

Anyway, you are saying that DT system is to be blamed for this? I disagree.
Yes we do not have a perfect system but I do not see anything better than this too. Do you have any proposal?

This is a system where everyone is free to contribute with their inclusion and exclusion, everyone is aware that their wrong doing will cause them harm so they will be more willing to learn good things and practice good things.

I did not understand this part too. Are you saying if I am a campaign manager then I will refuse red trust users? This will be another subject to talk though.

Bhai
It's not about individually curating one's Trust List, but the DT system that is enabling this abuse, if anyone wants to engage in any economic activity; a new user wud definitely stay away from a red trust user. Infact even an experienced campaign handler like you will probably refuse admission on basis of DT Red trust.

Several times Lauda asked them to ~Lauda them if anyone do not agree with their feedback and it's pretty simple to do for anyone. If you see anyone is not using the trust system in an appropriate manner then just distrust them.

There's nothing wrong with posting from an alt, in fact theymos has encouraged users to create alt if they feel necessary.

Some DT members behave such a way that it seems they feel satisfaction red painting an account. It's better to raise voice under an alt account.

I don't want to derail the current topic; but now since you have questioned me on this topic; let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties.

To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity.

I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity.

Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective).


P.S. I do respect you for trying to start something better; but let's not turn vindictive for the sake of countering vindictiveness.



EDIT:
Then it is the collective failure of BTCTalk DT members that they continue to accommodate Trust system Abusers within their ranks and if theymos has acknowledged the failure of the system implicitly, then it is better to do away with it altogether.

One would assume you would be for objective standards for leaving negative ratings given your current circumstance, but apparently not.