Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 12. (Read 5198 times)

I am definitely unsatisfied with the current amount of frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags which are handed out, but I completely disagree that we should be waiting for scams to be successful before tagging them, and I disagree with the unproven implication that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers is counter-productive. The problem is that TECSHARE is entirely unwilling to even consider a compromise. It's either his way or you are wrong.

Completely agree. This thread was initially created in response to the "gang" thread, which was initially created because of comments regarding people growing thicker skin. No one should be trying to police what other people say. You disagree? Fine. You are offended? Also fine. Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon.

It depends where you draw the line of "high level scammers". There are some scammers who I agree should never have their red trust removed, but there are more than a handful of DT "feuds" consisting of red tags which are either entirely frivolous or blown way out of proportion. Even scammer flags expire after 3 years or 10 years for type 2 and 3 respectively.


Your other bullet points I more-or-less agree with. All the infighting and ever more frequent retaliatory ratings achieve nothing useful and simply cheapen the entire system. Similarly, people shouldn't be afraid of red trust when it comes to raising points of contention.

As have you. I don't know if you are or are not an alt of CH/TOAA as many users suspect, but this more reasoned approach is much appreciated.

The supposition that there is a huge net negative to the forum does not logically follow from the proposition of pre-emptively tagging scammers, regardless of how many times you repeat it. I know you want it to be true, because such a thing would support your already reached conclusions, but if you can't provide some evidence to support your opinions, then there really is little point in arguing. You have already made up your mind, and there is nothing I can say which will make you even consider alternative points of view.

We just think that you're being hypocritical. Like I've said to you in the past and DooMAD is saying now, you've got to lead by example if you want others to follow. We're not the ones trying to re-invent the wheel here, you are. So if you want it re-invented, show us you are capable of making a new shape. Otherwise it just sounds like you are complaining about the same 'ol same 'ol: you think the wheel sucks, we get it.

You have to manifest change in yourself instead of expecting the world to change around you.

So rise above it.  The alternative, if you don't amend the prior tags, is that people might assume you still feel those tags were justified despite not being objective.  Meaning that sometimes subjective tags are appropriate.  This would sadly undermine the argument you are trying to present.

From the way you describe "them", I suspect overhauling the tagging system will not change their attitude or behaviour towards you.  Is that what you're hoping to achieve?  They'd stop persecuting you if they had to tag objectively?  I think you're going to be left disappointed on that front however the tags might be used going forwards.  Same goes for CH/TOAA/etc.

Thanks for this, people above abuse trust. So no guild?

I am objectively and observably being persecuted. You aren't reading what I am saying. It doesn't matter if I cave to EVERY SINGLE ONE of their demands, they will INVENT new things to accuse me of, they have already done it before, and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed.

This is just like show me the man I will show you the crime attitude. Come on it's reflecting dude. Above people atleast doesn't abuse it at the level many of the people's on the exclusion list in the OP do so at an huge amount at daily basis hence they still suit to be the member of the OSG !

And one more thing, I am sure they would even respect someone's apology if the user is willing to change so that's more humanitarian too.

---

BTW, I would like to suggest removing @tmtp from the exclusion list if it could be considered. I think he is a very knowledgeable person overall and some of his judgements have saved thousands of dollars from many users around which is traceable through his post history. I rather agree with rest of the exclusion list.

How is on topic reply distraction from topic
Please provide objective number of how many accounts is allowed to tag. Sure, why not, lets work together. I am all for this objective standardz guild.

---

Small reminder about proofs and other thingies...

Edit:


https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/hippie-tech-31553

Who did they scam

Okay, so you're feeling a little persecuted here, but, objectively, whatever you think their motives might be in pointing it out, those older tags could be amended.  Then, you leave them with nothing legitimate to pick at.  People will be able to tell if they are inventing new and untrue things to accuse you of.  When in doubt, try to be beyond reproach, even if human nature sometimes makes that impossible.  Then you can hold your head up high, knowing you're in the right.

Is it wrong for a mass murderer to lecture people about not being vegan? The point is they are picking nits in order to distract form their long and regular pattern of abusive behavior. They want to accuse me of everything they do at a much more massive scale. This is all just a pathetic game of control where they want to dictate every detail to me in order to distract from their own behavior.

The truth is I could be the perfect human being and there would be no path to redemption with these people, they would still invent things to accuse me of. I have been here for 8 years and have left no more than a handful of negative ratings. I have shown incredible and exceptional restraint in my use of the trust system. These people leave more negative ratings in an hour some times than I have done during those entire 8 years, but yeah, you are right, I am the hypocrite, not them.

Techshare does not deflect! He criticize!  

---

Errr...small reminder:


Why you don't want to work together with me now? Here you go:

Please do.

Are these accounts by standards of this guild?

Is it wrong for them to point out the double-standard, though?  You're the one professing tags have to be objective.  If you really want to do this thing, maybe consider leading by example and update or remove any old tags you've left that don't conform to the standards you'd now prefer everyone else follow?  Just a thought.

marlboroza, I was going to send you 10 merits if Techy didn't deflect from your questions.  I guess he's busy going through eight years of my poop looking for something to use against me.  Oh yeah, clown music.

Sorry, but I didn't think I'd have to pay out...  

I hope you all are having fun picking peanuts out of my turds. Just a reminder, a handful of peanuts does not equal a pattern. What is a pattern is obvious with one look at any of the left ratings from any of the clown car riders here so vociferously protesting any changes.

I know they did, it is obvious what that user did, but you claim something completely different here.

You are talking about some objective standards in this topic.

Your feedback is on account comicguy79 and BAC's feedback is on account justbtcme. It clearly says "ALT ACCOUNT OF JUSTBTCME" and "JUSTBTCME USED SHILL ACCOUNT TO OUTBID HIMSELF"

Both reference are linking this post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14333933.

Can you please post proof that account justbtcme used account comicguy79 to do what you two claim they did?

If you can't link proof of connection then you both abused trust(according to you):


I have time to go trough every questionable feedback (according to this topic and you), so we shall discuss it. When we reach end of discussion about "suggested inclusions" we shall make comparison between trust feedback of "suggested inclusions" and "suggested exclusions".

Please, don't just talk, lets walk. For start post proofs of connection between justbtcme and comicguy79.

You completely ignored his request for evidence that proactive scammer tagging without absolute proof is a net negative.

Here's one example of a proactive tagging of a scam exchange that was not "objectively" a scam until today:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=902367

We drove them off the forum months ago -- they left not because we are meanies, but because they are scammers.

Feel free to find a counter-example of a negative feedback I left on an account that was undeserved. Don't just say, "but others do" -- I can't control what they do, and that's besides the point. The argument you are making is that tagging accounts with objective proof that they are scammers is inherently bad, and we are arguing otherwise.

Yeah, we noticed. Good for you, you can make a denial. Now try arguing the logic of the other points I made. As usual you aren't willing to have an intellectually honest debate. You zero in on the two words you can hyperfocus on to disregard the entirety of the rest of the argument in order to totally avoid addressing the rest of the content. I am going to just start quoting myself if this is how you insist on engaging with me. You insist that if I can't some how document causality of what happens in the minds of other people, then I must be wrong. You are totally disingenuous. Don't you have some more tires to slash?

The lists are not an insurmountable problem for me, I can use those lists but don't consider them important once tagging is abolished and we are moved on to the objective flagging system. I'm onboard with the guild.

Do you marlboroza support moving entirely over to a flagging system where warnings are created according to an objective standard, which increases the credibility, accuracy and value of warnings in relation too scammers, those attempting to scam or are setting up a scam? or where there is objective independently verifiable evidence of members being placed in direct financial danger ?
Whilst of course removing the list of damaging insoluble problems that the subjective tagging system generates.

Or have you a credible and robust argument that demonstrates retaining the subjective tagging system is net positive for this forum?

I wonder if malboroza can provide a sensible answer? I'm sure if you want to support the core principles of providing warnings based on objective standards you would be given an opportunity to redeem any previous trust abuse that you "have" engaged in.

o_e_l_e_o I don't think tecshare realized that you are open to adopting an objective standard so long as it affords the opportunity to produce an objective warning that members are being placed or are being requested to place themselves in direct financial danger.

These insoluble problems or lack thereof

* members are treated equally and with consistency

* free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion

* high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals

* to make sure people are not afraid to bring to light scams where the scammer can ruin their account with red trust

* prevent all the infighting a contued contempt for the abused trust system

* prevent red tags destroying competing legit business or destroy legit completion for sig spots


* preventing dilution and devaluing legitimate direct example of financially motivated wrong doing with warnings about
lemonade, daring to whistle blow on scamming or swearing at someone


are undeniable. I don't expect that anyone could present an argument to refute any single one of them is not a insoluble problem with an entirely subjective tagging system such as it is. Proving that red tagging for voicing 0

So far I have noticed that you have been prepared to debate the positives and negatives and have been reasonable. This is how each member should be willing to engage.

I would agree that if it there is strong or even undeniable evidence ( such as priv keys being requested ) then a warning saying this member has engaged in behaviors that placing others in direct financial danger an could be an attempted scam attempt is sensible. If that kind of warning can be given without generating all of the insoluble problems a totally subjective tagging system does then why not provide such a warning.

No point creating a huge chasm between two goals that are closely aligned at the core.

I would include o_e_l_e_o based on his stated view on how the trust system should be used. I mean he may not wish to join this guild anyway, but based on what he is saying then I would see him as a suitable include

Long term for every member actions will be loaded than words.

I would recommend that every member that has been tagged for behaviors that are nothing to do with scamming, attempting to scam nor strongly appear to be setting up a scam should be directed to this guild.  

Because I deny the very implication that the net detriment is larger than the net gain, because of the points I have made above. As you have been arguing for this whole time, the burden of proof is on you, as the one making the claims, to prove that your claims are factual and not just your opinions. If red tagging scammers is indeed causing such overwhelming amounts of harm to the forum, then it should be trivial for you to "document it in an objective and observable way". I wonder why you refuse.

That user failed to honor a bid he made. An auction is a contract, which that user violated. Thank you all for the wonderful demonstration of what happens any time anyone suggests changes to the broken system here.

It seems you don't, lists are very important because they are in conflict with this guild.