AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.
I am not claiming staff shouldn't have opinions, I am disputing the validity of his statement, and I provided an example of why it is not true. There are in fact rules on the default trust system and and they are often enforced from a centralized forum authority (when it isn't one of their buddys).
And I would refute your statement about my statement not being true, but honestly I don't especially care anymore. Any of the staff telling you there is no conspiracy going on behind the scenes to censor/modify trust isn't going to change your opinion, so why bother. I know your claim isn't valid, and you know my claim isn't valid, pretty sure there is no budging from here. It has been discussed to death, and no progress in either direction has been made.
That's kind of my point, that none of you really give a shit, until it is your personal problem. Also I love how you guys are all using this "conspiracy" buzzword to try to make it sound like I am claiming James Bond and Money Penny are there on the staff roles conspiring with alien reptoids to silence me. This is completely disingenous and just more slandering tactics.
The reality is there needs to be absolutely no collusion for you to carelessly deal with some one like me and enforce the most stringent standards with zero regard for me as a contributing member to this community while also just looking the other way when one of your pals is becoming extremely destructive to the same community. It is not conspiracy, just perfectly organic nepotism.
AFAIK staff are allowed to have opinions... There are no rules (except no spamming I guess) on the Trust system. They can do that if they want, it shouldn't have any effect on it whether they're staff or not.
I am not claiming staff shouldn't have opinions, I am disputing the validity of his statement, and I provided an example of why it is not true. There are in fact rules on the default trust system and and they are often enforced from a centralized forum authority (when it isn't one of their buddys).
TECSHARE, this is like the third or fourth thread in Meta you've made desperately trying to do what, I don't know... Kill the staff? Remove the admin(s)? Get yourself back on DefaultTrust?
Or is it just that you're sore and want an apology?
The staff are human beings and are part of the community. They are not special in any way except that they've been trusted with the ability to delete posts and tempban. (Forgot which rank in the staff hierarchy can permaban and whether you can edit posts; it's of no consequence to me.) Furthermore, your trust eating is still pretty speckless. All that has happened to you is that you have simply been removed from the default trust list. Is that such a big issue?
Let's say, for debating purposes only, that the trust system is everything you say. Just leave.
Actually it is my second thread, but why bother counting when you can make numbers up. I don't give a shit about the default trust, in fact I would like to see it removed completely because it is a failed system. Yep, they are human beings. Unfortunately they have been demonstrating a pattern of disregard for the same rules they gladly enforce upon others at the drop of a hat. This is destructive to the entire community, not just me personally. The staff feel like they have done nothing wrong, but I disagree, and I am not the only reputable member who thinks so. The staff/mods DO have special power, they have the trust of the community. When they speak people listen, and follow their directives, often blindly just based on their word. If the staff/mods stop honoring their word and stop observing rule of law that they gladly enforce upon others, then they automatically reduce their authority regardless of what I do.
Removing me from the trust is not the issue, it is how and why they did it, and their unwillingness to hold others to the same standards when they are within their clique. Removing me from the default trust wasn't such a big deal, but they did more than that. They also punitively punished me by adding trust exclusions effectively negating ACTUAL TRUST I HAD EARNED, not something that was GRANTED to me like the default trust. I got to be the very first test use of this new addition of trust exclusions (shocking I know). Now because of this, even though I have 3 people on level 2 trust who put me on their trust lists, I am now marked as -2 excluded on the default trust, effectively making it impossible for me to ever recover my trust because they sit on top of that list. Regardless of how many people add me to their trust in the future, that will not change because no one can ever out rank them.
Because of this I will never have sufficient pull within the trust system to balance this punitive punishment for not obeying their dictates to modify my trust rating. Trust exclusions used by higher ranking members are a convenient new way for them to take quiet retribution upon users by destroying their hard earned reputations for not obeying their dictates, in my case for refusing to allow them to intimidate me into changing my trust rating after they had already removed me from the default trust.
I think they figured that once they removed me from the default trust, that the red rating I left for Armis would go away, but I have so many positive ratings from people from trading impeccably here for over 3 years, that even after they removed me from default trust, he was still left in the red. Because of this theymos decided to invent a new way to moderate the trust ratings quietly through the new back door of trust exclusions to make sure I couldn't "get away with it". Meanwhile they repeat to everyone that they don't moderate trust ratings, and they don't do so from a centralized position of authority either. This is a lie.
What is "trust eating" and "speckless"?
So... basically you are saying to me, "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT WELL YOU CAN JUST GIT OUT!"
That's great, except... what about the 3 years I invested in building up my reputation in this community? I don't see any reason I should tolerate this, especially considering that if I leave I have nothing more to lose than if I stay anyway, except for a little effort used speaking up about this abuse, which I am happy to do regardless of their attempts to marginalize and intimidate me. In short, they saw to it that the only reason I didn't speak up against them before was removed, so maybe they shouldn't be so quick to burn honest users trying to operate legitimately on the forum. After all, I am a human too.