Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 13. (Read 5198 times)

I agree with the core points and a support his efforts to push for transparent objective standards which Will remove the damaging list of insoluble problems

In general tecshare is an honest and reputable member, who has demonstrated he Will risk his own neck to speak up and defend others and continue pushing for objective transparent standards. It is a shame to see the ruthless attempt to bully him into submission.

I support the guild. I support transparent objective standards. The lists are of secondary importance.

So you agree with TECSHARE's guild but you don't agree with TECSHARE's guild Seems you missed this again:

It would seem that failure to present any kind of compelling argument to retain the subject tagging system that generates multiple insoluble problems that seriously damaged this forum. Those members seeking to retain this abusive, dangerous and destructive advantage over others have shifted the debate to a highly personal character assassination of tecshare.

They have made no effort to debate the advantages of moving to a system that would simultaneously solve many of those damaging insoluble problems,
whilst providing a more accurate, credible and valuable warning that would focus on scammers, those attempting or setting up a scam.

Clearly understanding that no conceivable argument to retain this subjective and destructive mess exists, their only option is to derail this important and productive thread into an opportunity to collude together to attack the messenger rather than the message.

This tactic is all too common here on bitcointalk.

Even if a member had previously conducted themselves in a manner that could reasonably be construed as failing to meet clear objective standards. That does not preclude them from producing a robust argument for adopting objective standards now.


The lists are of secondary or minor importance. Being on either one of Those lists is irrelevant to your membership to the guild. Your willingness to use the flagging system in a responsible manner based on The objective independently verifiable standards discussed would demonstrate whether you are a member of the guild or not. Actions not words and lists.

Did you just point something from 2016. while complaining that someone is pointing something you did in 2016.?

Speaking of 2016...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=812074



Here is reference link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14333933

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=148389

Reference link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14333933

Do you and BAC have solid proof that comicguy79 is alt account of user justbtcme? What if I tag OGNasty and I say that he didn't like that no one wanted to bid higher than 0.59btc so he outbid that only one bid? How that circumstantial evidence sound?

This is not by your standards! Why are you tagging users based on circumstantial evidence???

I (again) suggest to update OP with suggested exclusion:
~TECSHARE
~Bayareacoins

Um, didn't you ask for this?... to prove you were not a hypocrite?


To answer the question, yes..

Based on the standards in your guild, you should already be excluded from your own trust list!!

This seems impressively hypocritical.

Hilarious?  Personally, I find it disturbing when you do that to me, but whatever...

Most account sales are off-forum, perhaps it was elsewhere.


Doubling down on the whole false equivalence thing, that was to be expected.


That's not what that proves, and it certainly doesn't prove my account was sold. It just occurred to me that this is all very off-topic, but whatever...


How can I cover it up when there is an archived version of that thread referenced in my feedback? I edited the post to make fun of revenge-seeking detectives like you.


You also have no way to prove your account wasn't sold. Prove that it wasn't. I dare you.


Well it certainly is evidence that it was up for sale at one point, there's no getting around that fact. Oh wait I'm supposed to be trying to cover it up. Forgot about that. Whoops.


You should really work in a movie theater as projecting seems to be quite a well-developed skill of yours.

Sorry, my fault, let's just focus on your words, not on what you do.

Please share your justification for including users who don't meet your own standards.

Also note that I never claimed to be compliant with your standards.

I never advertised my account for sale. You did. I am very sorry you made such a stupid mistake exposing your willingness to allow this forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars, and then furthermore run around punishing people for exactly what you yourself were guilty of, but that is not my responsibility.

You posted your account for sale, proving factually in your own words your intent to allow the forum to be defrauded for a few hundred dollars. You then tried to cover it up by editing the post, also demonstrating you know you did something you shouldn't have. You have no way to prove your account wasn't sold, and this is significant evidence to suggest it was regardless of your protestations and refractory counter demands.

This would have been more than enough evidence to destroy anyone on the DT shitlist, but you get a pass because you are a full time ball washer of everyone who would be excluding you. You are a walking talking living example of trust system nepotism and selective enforcement allowing abuse.



Thanks for more proof of your intellectual dishonesty. No argument for your obsessive muck raking in a desperate search to find any morsel to impugn my character over, being forced to go back years to find examples, you are now resorting to defining people I didn't even put in the suggested inclusions list as "guild members". I guess that is the kind of thing you think qualifies for logic. You define what the guild is, then condemn me for what you defined it as. That doesn't sound anything at all like a straw man argument now does it?

The people you have in your inclusions I don't even have to go back months, I only need look back days and weeks. Shit some of your inclusions probably have abused the trust system within hours. Lets not focus on that though, you have proof I once ate a Payday bar back in 2014.

Oh, OK, that makes sense, thanks.





Okay, by that logic prove you never sold your account. Most account sales take place off forum so there's no record of it here. I heard it was sold. Prove it wasn't.


I tagged one full-time account seller, once. That was their business on the forum. They did nothing other than that.*


There's a big difference between me and Bill Gator in that this isn't a bought account. You have no proof that it was sold (objective standards, remember?), not that I agree that Bill Gator should have been tagged to shreds.


If I left a bunch of bullshit ratings, used my inclusions and exclusions to pad my trust or DT score, or included scammers in my trust list - thereby failing to demonstrate that I had an understanding of the DT system over a period of years - then I would absolutely be punished for it. You have no proof otherwise except for what you have imagined via your own projections.


*apparently they were also a scammer, so my warning not to trust that user was absolutely prescient in that regard:

So the good news seems to be that in ~5 years the clowns will be able to apply to the guild regardless of what they did in the past.

Could be less, maybe like 3 days actually, seeing how a member of the guild left non-standard feedback as recently as February 17, 2020.

It clearly does favor you. You were openly selling your account. For all we know you aren't actually Nutilduhh, and you have no way to prove the trade never happened. This also demonstrates you are willing to let this community be scammed for a few Satoshis. If it were me or anyone else the clown car has on their shit list, this would be the worst atrocity ever committed. You have tagged people for exactly the same. People have been excluded from the DT for doing nothing more than what you did here. Since you make a habit of being on your knees and washing the balls of the DT members, you get a pass. This system absolutely does favor you.



You have difficulty being intellectually honest. Again, rather than addressing my point that the net detriment is larger than the net gain, you attempt to shift the topic to your demands for proof of "signal noise". You aren't interested in a discussion, you are only interested in attempting to dictate the discussion and its topics without actually addressing anything I am presenting, instead choosing to only discuss the parts that you feel serve your argument in favor of drawing attention away from legitimate points I have made which you desperately want to distract from. In order for the status quo system to work, open discussion is required. Your actions prove why that system is a failure.





As for the rest of you digging through shits I took years ago to find peanuts, I find it hilarious you need to go years back in my activities to find something even remotely objectionable, meanwhile your left trust ratings are page after page after page of negative trust ratings spammed out with little to no research or due diligence. Many of the people on high levels of the DT have never even conducted any trade here, and have raised their own reputation doing nothing more than impugning the character of others.

Who is even checking that those accusations are accurate? If anyone complains they are summarily dismissed as a scammer bitching because they got their come comeuppance. Of course, that is not important, what is important is you found a peanut and a cashew in my turd from 5 years ago. Thank you, all of you for working your hardest to prove that anyone who is critical of the current system has a whole team of people digging through their activities looking for excuses to punish them so they can be dismissed under your punitive evidence free system of just us.

At that time the DT1/DT2 "badges" used to show current status (not the status as of the time of the event). In other words, The Pharmacist was probably in DT1 at the time then this happened, so the event got captured, he later dropped out of DT1 (due to random selection I guess?) and his "badge" got updated to DT2.

Since the beginning of February we changed the logic a little bit so the "badges" now show the status as of the time of the event (i.e. you can see how the particular inclusion/exclusion affects the target user). It also "froze" old data so The Pharmacist's "badge" on that old record remains DT2 even though he's now DT1.

I have a plan to fix the historic data so that it makes more sense but that's a low priority, because that log is useful mostly in the current week before LoyceV's lists get updated.

Well, it appears that LoyceV has been drafted as a member of this guild. So I am certain that there must be other ways to become a member of this guild. From what I read in the OP, you can definitely try playing lip service to the tenets and just call yourself a member.

One more boring question: why does it show up for his activity with The Pharmacist tho?

No, because currently TECSHARE is not an active DT1 member so his inclusions/exclusions of non-DT1-members don't show up in real time. BPIP gets the near-real-time data from here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt;full

But it would show up in the weekly update tomorrow on LoyceV's site.

Just out of curiosity, is this the sort of thing that would show up on BPIP? Seems like it would.

Just like with any other user - it should move my sent trust ratings and flag supports into the "untrusted" category. It might get a bit murky with network level 1 and 2 though. If I'm excluding myself then I guess ratings of my inclusions should also be not visible to me if depth > 0.


It didn't work out for Quicksy. TECSHARE figured out his alt and removed it, allegedly.

How can an objective Guild have an non-objective application process that prevents members from even applying? Seems discriminatory, and therefore not objective. QED.

I was genuinely curious about this...

What is the logical outcome of excluding yourself in the trust system?

Well, it would mean that your own judgment is not to be trusted, which means that you don't recognize your own exclusion, which is probably why it disappeared...?