Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 15. (Read 5198 times)

This topic is so damn confusing. For example:



All these users tagged account hashman, here is reference link for tags: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hacked-or-sold-profiles-tagged-by-veleor-5190670 (account is in in tecshare's trust network btw)

I don't see them in topic so it is either:

1) they have good evidence of theft, contract violation and/or violation of applicable laws and tecshare included potentially hacked account to his trust network (according to tecshare's standards)
2) they are abusing trust and they should be in list number 2 (according to tecshare's standards)

Which one is it? 

"Care" is a strong word. I'm merely enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of the "standards" gang being so reckless with their facts. Relax, you're in good company. TECSHARE is also refusing to substantiate his wild claims.

It is irrefutable that as there is an increase in frivolous ratings the tagging metric is diluted and devalued. To speculate on the point where such a lack of accurate or useful ratings becomes critical is going to be inaccurate. I have no knowledge of any member saying I ignored a tag because I had read multiple other frivolous flags but that does not mean it has not happened. People generally don't like to admit they ignored warnings then got scammed.

However one could reason that a member has been harmed or deceived into loss finsncially, when they avoid a trade or miss out on a great deal due to a frivolous inaccurate tag and pay more to get it elsewhere or where a member is forced out business by a frivolous tag given for personal retribution. Or scammed out of their sig.

There are also these insoluble problems we must never forget

* 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


I would say for sure that the irrefutable threat to free speech is magnitudes more worrying than the loss of pre-emptive warnings because they will always carry an irrefutable risk of punishing the innocent or those lacking knowledge without being trying to internationally trying to scam.  

However the type 1 flag will still allow you to give credible valuable and accurate warnings of setting up a scam out attempting to scam or requesting luring people into directly vulnerable postions in a strictly financial sense.

People trying to make this all about tecshare or any personal disputes are clearly not interested in find what is best for the forum. If they were they would be debating this in that context not speculating on tecshares motivation and trying to use it to criticize him.

The point regarding the suggested list was answered and their tags will be abolished with everyone else's and the system will ensure their future warnings are as responsible and accurate as any other members.

 I say again, the includes list is possibly a stumbling block. Better to build a large group of members that support reducing greatly the subjectivity, by moving to the flagging system and sharpening the lever 1 flag to those that specifically pose a direct financial threat in terms of attempting to scam or setting up a scam.

There is no credible argument to retain tagging. It will be found net negative compared to the suggested transparent objective system in every scenario.

the contention is around what constitutes "shady behavior". for example, i posted a link earlier ITT of a case of DT2 negative trust where the only evidence provided was the victim's trust list. that seems like outright trust abuse, but it's become acceptable now.

nobody seems to be able to say what standards even exist for the trust system at all. really, there are none. it's a "might makes right" system where combating trust abuse is incredibly difficult due to the forces of inertia.

my theory: nobody on DT wants to "rock the boat" and step out of line because they know how commonplace retaliatory tags and retaliatory trust exclusions are, and they don't want to lose their status/reputation. it's much easier to brush the issue under the rug and act like trust abuse doesn't exist. nobody wants to directly antagonize trust abusers either, for obvious reasons.

it's a shitty situation but one we find ourselves in nonetheless. this is why i encourage anyone and everyone to begin using customized trust lists, so we can perhaps establish a new consensus that might better represent public opinion.


indeed, i used "established" as a verb and then you mischaracterized it to mean an "established fact".

still a mischaracterization: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish

and who the fuck cares about this? you've yet to address why you are continuing to distract from the discussion with this completely unimportant tangent.


+1

Kind of reminds me whenever I leave trust, remove trust, include, exclude, etc.  You are always there with your same old boring claim.   :/

Why did you ignore The Pharmacist?

Please, tell everyone your opinion and reasoning.

You used "established" as a verb but linked to a dictionary definition of an adjective. "we've already established" is a clear statement of fact and lacks any signal words of an opinion. I can throw dictionaries around with the best of them. Your hyperbolic bullshit has been duly noted but I'm not buying it.

It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust. This is another example of the drooling gibbering excuses for arguments you people present in an attempt to confirm your bias rather than presenting a logical argument. It reminds me a lot about the accusations Nutilduhhh made of "manipulating the trust system" that other users used as a pretext to negative rate me over.

If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me. You are all free to include and exclude people you choose to, no explanations needed because it is your right to do it as you please. When I include and exclude people it is proof of trust system manipulation. Whatever serves your preferred narrative best is what you go with, reality be damned. What is important is you just keep throwing shit at a trust page until something sticks. You take the target and arrange the facts around the goal, you don't examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on it.



Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments?

No, I don't think I will. I could, but all it is going to do is give the usual clowns fodder to argue over and distract from the point of this thread. It isn't hard to find examples. Furthermore, the very act of asking me to document what allowed a scam to happen is rather asinine on its face, and simply bait for you to try to get me to attempt to document things that by their very nature are not conclusively documented. All of this is just yet another sad attempt to avoid addressing my point yet again. Maybe if we slash a few more tires we will all end up safer.

Then let me once again ask for some evidence of the negative consequences you have previously spoken about.

what a fucking straw man. i never said it was a fact. it was an opinion.

"established" means "accepted and recognized or followed by many people". it doesn't mean fact.

why the fuck are you creating these useless tangents, if not to distract? to convey what i mean, this is the post you responded to:


why did you take the third sentence, completely mischaracterize it as an "accusation", twist my words to imply i presented something as "fact" (when i didn't), and then proceed to ignore the entire post?

i already know why---because straw man arguments are the only thing you know.

Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

Let's see if anyone can guess which is which.

I don't know what box I fit into, but my understanding has always been that red trust is for shady behavior/scams, and inclusions/exclusions are to be used to express confidence in another member's judgement as far as their leaving feedback.  That might not be others' understanding, of course.

Yeah, of course.  And the trust system here is a bit....complex, to say the least.  We've got green/black/red trust, we've got flags, and we've got inclusions/exclusions to trust lists.  It's no wonder it's a free-for-all.

Stop bringing it up all the time then.   Get a girlfriend.  :/


Or OGNasty.  

^ I like the way how you ignore me when I post something you don't like


Why is this account in "suggested inclusions" list? Why is this account in TECSHARE's trust network? This is not by "techare's standards"!

Observable instances:




Where is evidence of theft?

OH!



Let's work together! Adding request for "suggested exclusions" list:

BayAreaCoins
HostFat
bill gator

You seem to be rather obsessed with me masturbating. A bit weird, but ok.



If you don't like me advocating for your removal from the default trust list, maybe don't abuse your authority under it. Your years long pattern of abusing it are well documented in the quoted thread. I don't know how you find the time to post here frankly, I figured you would be busy trying to extort OGNasty into apologizing to you, for something you do regularly I might add. I guess felonies are ok here though, as long as your name is Vod.



I don't think the gun control analogy is useful honestly, as there are a lot of other factors here far beyond self defense vs "public safety".

Ideally, in a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately as the trust system stands, it doesn't take into account these avenues of abuse very well. Since people can't be trusted to not abuse this system, and clearly are not willing to hold people accountable when they abuse it, then the system itself is broken and needs to be changed. Requiring a base standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws I think is the most efficient and realistic way to modify the system for the best results.



Now all you are doing is ignoring the point I made, yet again, and opting to repeat your point, as if that some how makes it less of a straw man argument. You aren't making a retort to my point, you are simply repeating your point, again, without addressing mine.

Once again, the people who are most likely to fall for the cons you think you might protect them from, are the same people that will in fact be robbed regardless of how many people you tag. No one said anything about the entire system being useless. This is just yet another straw man argument on your part. I am saying the minimal positive impact, if any that results from the form of tagging you are advocating for, has far more negative consequences than positive consequences.

As far as your car analogy, it is not an honest one. You compare your position to putting on a seat belt vs not because some people drive recklessly. A more appropriate analogy would be people running around and slashing the tires of anyone they think is driving recklessly. Sure, maybe it might keep some reckless drivers off the road temporarily, but they can quickly just get new tires, and now we have to live in a culture where it is ok for people to run around slashing tires as long as they can make up some lofty pretext to justify it. What could go wrong there?

One of accounts in TECSHARE's trust network, HostFat, sent this feedback:



Why is this person adding accounts who are tagging users because they speak and advocating others to exclude users he doesn't like?

I agree, lets work together! TECSHARE I am suggesting you to place 2 accounts to "~ list":

BayAreaCoins
HostFat

More observable instances are yet to come.

This whole debate looks very much like the "Pro-Guns vs Anti-Guns" debate...

Guns have legitimate uses
Guns can be used for non-legitimate purposes

Trust Ratings have legitimate uses
Trust Ratings can be used for "non-legitimate" purposes

From where I sit, the issue is NOT the Trust Rating system... The real issue is the way some people are using it... People misuse/abuse things in life all the time, but it doesn't make the thing "bad" per se.

Are there not methods to deal with users who are misusing trust? That is to say, exclusions/DT 'voting' etc? Perhaps it is these methods of "checks and balances" that need to be examined and/or modified if they are not proving effective.

Uhm... "literally" doesn't mean what you think it means.

"we've already established" - who's "we", where did "we" establish that, and how did "we" do it?

"self-styled scam busters" - who exactly are they?

"have voted each other into DT positions" - impossible to verify without listing out the "self-styled scam busters" and showing the math to prove it that their mutual inclusions made them DT members. I doubt you could do that, particularly given the fact that some parts of said math are not quite public.

"by virtue of the fact that hardly anybody customizes their trust lists" - even assuming that you can actually prove the "fact" (might be possible with some creative definition of "hardly anybody"), you would have a really hard time proving that if more people customized their trust lists then the result would be different.

I'd call it a hypothesis at best. Not cool to state it as an "established" fact.


Have you read the OP? I recommend, it's a doozy.

And my point is that just because some people will eventually be robbed doesn't mean the entire system is useless. Some people will drive recklessly and eventually kill themselves in a car accident. Doesn't mean we should all stop wearing seat belts.

I would still like you to provide some examples of this:

Techy tries to remove me from DT for five years.
but also
Techy says my posts are the best thing on this forum.

I guess when masturbating, when you get that special feeling you tend to lose logic.  :/