Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 17. (Read 5198 times)

Awesome, as its core members are all representing, the Clown Car is fully formed!

- MOB RULE
- STAZI POLICE
- GESTAPPO TACTICS
- CHILL EFFECT

GO!!!!

But I would really like to understand this seemingly crucial aspect, if TS could address it I would be most appreciative:


Seems that if are short of court-produced documentation, it could potentially be a highly subjective matter.

He is butthurt, that's why,


@TECSHARE are you going to remove BayAreaCoins and suggest others to do it the same way you suggested other inclusions/exclusions:



Unless you are suggesting that all forum members should follow "your standards" and whenever they tag someone who scammed someone, to write:
"scammer. This user reminds me of the user "TECSHARE". Just trowing that out there"  

Are you suggesting that users should include BayAreaCoins because:



THIS IS MODERATION ISSUE! NOT TRUST ISSUE! TRUST ABUSE!

This thread just beats all the crap you have been posting for the last 9 5 years!

I would be in complete agreement with this, but I don't think this is what TECSHARE is proposing. Without putting words in his mouth, he seems to be arguing for not tagging anyone until after a scam is committed:

What the hell is this?

Did you suggest users to include someone because of "your standards" and then you suggested them to not include them because someone told you that this isn't "by your standards"?

Does it mean iCEBREAKER should be excluded or simply not included?

Besides, you fail at number 1:


1) you included account iCEBREAKER who abused trust and tagged someone without bringing any evidence of theft, contract violation...

1 a) as Icebreaker was/is in your trust network, there is no chance that you didn't notice that negative on nutildah's trust page therefore you don't care about anything you want others to care about, only thing you care about is your ass, that's why this thread

I don't even want to read the rest of thread.

---

It just shows very poor judgement and this is what should be in topic of this thread:

~TECSHARE

That would safety come under directly financially dangerous behaviors. Those would be type 1 flag.  So long as the behavior is directly opening people up to being scammed or they look to be setting up other members to be directly financially vulnerable then they would get a type 1 flag.

It is the completely frivolous red tags that are for drinking lemonade or having a different opinion, or anything that results from a personality clash.

There would still exist a sensible credible and valuable warning for people that directly and clearly look to be attempting or setting up a scam.

We have to weigh that against the problems such a move will resolve.

Cliques are obviously going to develop anywhere and people make friends just as they do enemies. There's nothing wrong with that but people are becoming biased to certain things especially if they're pally with people and the reporting of users posts as off topic when it was one of their buddies that took it off topic in the first place is a perfect example of that and people need to knock it off. If people don't like each other they should either just ignore them or keep their beefs out of every other thread and keep it confined to Reputation or something because threads going off topic is out of hand.


Some will leave, but what about all those users that are given negative that don't deserve it? If you haven't got a thick enough skin or feel like the forum has betrayed you in some way you would have every right to think fuck it and leave and this probably happens more to newer members than older ones. Neither shouldn't have to accept it or just grin and bear it. You might not get along with certain people and not like their behaviour but obviously users like tecshare and timelord don't deserve negative feedback as much as you might dislike them. If you're not a scammer or there's no very strong suspicion that you are one then people shouldn't be leaving negative feedback. The only exception I would possibly make is for the full time trolls who are only here to be disruptive, but again and as I've said before, I think people are stretching the definition of a troll and tagging people who they just don't agree with.


It's helpful, especially to newbies, or at least it was more so before the flags, but people should be responsible for their own money I guess. I honestly don't know whether it would be worth just getting rid of negative feedback for all the drama that's involved with it, but it would lead to a lot more people getting scammed but that's the compromise.


Unless you can somehow make all mods part of a hive mind then there's always going to be difference of opinion in enforcing the rules, all you can do is enforce them to the best of your ability, but one person may think someone is trolling whereas the other doesn't. Some people think their posts are on topic when they're clearly not and when there's humans involved in either scenario you're going to get differences of opinion.

On one hand I agree that there are far too many frivolous ratings being sent. Ratings based on opinions or because of arguments, because of a clash of personalities, because of differing idea or views, trolling, and so forth, are both inappropriate and counter productive. They cheapen the entire point of the trust system, and serve more as a punishment against the person rather than a useful indicator of trustworthiness.

However, as Loyce has pointed out above, there are plenty of examples of accounts being correctly red tagged without yet having stolen anything or violated any contracts. If your entire ICO is plagiarized, then you are not a legitimate project. If you are advertising impossible ROIs, then you are not a legitimate project. If you are asking for users to enter their seed, enter their private keys, deposit before they are allowed to withdraw, and so on, then you are a scammer. I disagree that we should be letting these users freely peddle their scams when we have the ability to pre-emptively tag them.

Nutidah you need not make the debate hinge upon your perception of Tecshare and his possible motives.

Theymos you would think would realise you design based on the assumption people will act and behave in a manner that is optimally selfish. He seems to have created a system that relies upon members selflessly considering the best interests of others.

The points that you make again here are debunked as solid points.

The point that DT members wish to retain the subjective power than enables them to create the insoluble problems we have established ( nobody has presented any credible way to attempt to solve them) is actually a negative and entirely predictable view that raises the need for change to a higher urgency. I mean stating a group of people favoring the retention of power they leverage for their own personal gain,  is supporting the argument to move to a set of transparent standards that will prevent such gaming and abuse, and solve the serious currently insoluble problems mentioned.

People can and have freely admitted tagging people for presenting observable events and facts regarding peoples post histories. If that has happened to techshare or not is impossible to prove, but looks highly probably from the timing of the tags.  The fact that it is possible currently to apply tags for giving opinions demonstrates that a strong threat to free speech exists. This is a very serious issue on a forum like this or any forum.


I see no need for this thread to be detailed and the focus shifted entirely to individual or specific personal experiences other than to provide an example of a point is refuted.

All members opposing the requirement of strong objective evidence that demonstrates scamming, or direct attempts to scam, or strong evidence to suggest setting up a future  scam, or any direct financially motivated wrongdoing without being able to demonstrate a clear net positive case for doing so should be treated with extreme caution.

Present the scenario where subjective tagging is net positive for the forum over moving to an objective standards based flagging system with quality warnings grounded in objective strong evidence of scamming attempting to scam or setting up a future scam. Or else admit your opinions are based only upon your desires to retain the power you derive from the broken, abused subjective tagging system.

The time for personal disputes is done. They can not be solved with temp measures and pushing certain included excludes. The transparent objective standards that will ensure fair treatment of all members will remove the need to make that such a huge problem and end a huge proportion of endless infighting among a group of people that largely pose no threat in terms of scamming.

Seems like its an appropriate time to share one of your favorite memes.




Its easy to claim you are speaking for the silent masses when nobody knows what they are actually thinking, which is just as hard to disprove as it is to prove. Regardless, when I say you are in the minority, I mean DT-wise. This is an objective reality. Don't believe it? Take a look at your overall DT score.


Obviously nobody's trying to silence you. Either speak, or don't; frankly I don't think many people give a shit.


Thanks for another sanctimonious lecture driven by nothing but your inability to restrain your personal feelings.

What if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck?
I've tagged many accounts like this one. They spam their scam because people keep falling for it. Do you agree on tagging those before a victim complains about this particular user and website? One could argue it's an innocent new account that truely "provides a unique opportunity", but I've been around long enough to go with the duck approach.

This is the issue people that may agree with the move to a transparent objective standard will not perfectly align with the inclusions exclusions in the OP which may prevent then joining the greater cause.

Why the inclusion of BitcoinEXpress there?
He has barely been active in the last few years. And even before that, I doubt he'd ever said anything outside of trolling.

1. Quoting theymos should be avoided. If you create a system full of holes that enable, reward, entrench abuse and manipulation. Leading to the insoluble problems I have just listed that no member can refute and have not been able to when challenges multiple times. Then however well intentioned that 'advice' is, it is best ignored. Rather best engage in debate based upon the strengths of points being made and scrutinized upon their own merit.

2. The proactive part is the prime weskeness to this system. All of the insoluble problems originate from the subjectivity that resides there. Whether it's drinking lemonade that makes you likely to scam or presenting observable evidence of DT prior scamming that makes you a scammer. The list of traits that mean you are obviously about to scam someone opens the entire board up to being a scammer. That is not helpful.

3. The clear and proven fact no member has been able to provide 1 real scenario where tagging is net postive to the forum over moving to the flagging system it is strange and telling as to why the same people keep voicing debunked arguments to retain the entirely subjective mess of tagging.

The " in the minority" claim is again quite amusing. The very tiny Meta board is dominated by those that are prime beneficiaries of the broken merit and trust systems.  Therefore claiming change to a transparent and objective set of standards is unpopular to this micro fragment of the board is some how a clear indication of the entire forums opinion is hilarious.

 The entire pathetic defence to retain tags is

Proactive scamming behaviors, the hilarious thing is that type 1 flags could be given to those that have not yet scammed but are clearly directly engaging in behaviors that strongly suggest they are setting up a scam or attempting to scam.  

Sorry but if you don't have any kind of evidence to suggest direct financial threat then you have no case. Sorry but the lemonade drinkers, the whistle blowers, those that have opinions you don't like, those with genuine competing businesses here to your own, or are more deserving to the sig spots you are hogging. Then sorry they will not be punished and incorrectly tagged as potential scammers.

I see a lot of posts as usual from a lot of people that pump out large passages of text that just crumble into nothing once mild scrutiny is placed upon it.  

Theymos said, I believe, you're in the minority on meta board,  you're a troll, I will avoid your inviolable truths...Is not working.

It boils down to : we want the power to give people scam tags for liking lemonade and we certainly want the power to tag people for whistle blowing on our past indiscretions and pointing out our arguments are full of gaping holes.

This union will not be efficient because many will disagree on the specific inclusions exclusions. The only union should be a move to transparent objective standards. Once that is taken care of the minor petty squabbles and who includes / excludes who becomes largely irrelevant. Objective standards do not bend to the will of corrupt members.

Forget personal previous squabbles and do what Is undeniably best for the forum. All past pathetic rivalries and largely trivial ego battles should be dropped.

Making it personal is not the way forward If you really want what is Best for the forum going forward.


Read understand accept support.

Yeah, shame on me for tagging people who are trying to scam others by running fake ICOs. Such power trip.

I think people like you depend on convincing people like us we are in the minority, because the fact is YOU are in the vast minority. The only difference is your minority props each other up to enable this abuse while the majority is intimidated into staying silent. If it wasn't true all of you Bozonians wouldn't be trying so desperately hard to convince us otherwise and trying to silence us with retaliation for speaking about it.

The only places with preemptive policing are totalitarian governments where individuals have little to no freedoms. This isn't something we should be emulating no matter how much you jerk yourself off about how great you are and convince yourself you are stopping so many scams. You aren't stopping shit and this behavior is self serving.

This has always been the case. You quoted and re-quoted the word "proactive" -- this means taking action before people have actually been scammed. As such, you can't have "proof" of an event that hasn't yet happened.

Tags and Level 1 flags are good for this sort of thing. You and TS don't have to approve of it, but you are in the vast minority here.

There has been a problem of cliques becoming tribes that rival one another and I think this is something that needs to be addressed.

In the past there has been a problem of people being associated with or has supported certain people previously get away with outright fraud without suffering any kind of consequences. I am not even talking about the most ‘famous’ people who give out a lot of ratings. I think this is not a good thing and will lead to the community shrinking over the long term. This is in addition to the ethics of basically admitting to committing fraud and suffering no consequences.

There does need to remain in place a mechanism to warn others of behavior consistent with future scam attempts (red flags). I won’t comment on the specifics of the trust list proposed in the OP, there are some that I don’t really know.

Ah yes, more projection and another lame attempt at managing the narrative by an obvious alt. Not "harassment", trust system abuse. I want an objective standard for leaving negative ratings. I by far don't include anyone who includes me back, and of course this is the same refrain used when accusing me of "manipulating the trust system".

Any mutual inclusions I have are proof of malfeasance, and any mutual inclusions the ones accusing me of this have are justified, and they need not explain because it is their right to include who they like. If I include some one and they later include me I was "fishing for mutual inclusions". If some one adds me and I later add them I am "just adding anyone who includes me". This same nebulous standard can be applied to LITERALLY anyone on the default trust list, but of course when I make choices the clown car doesn't like, it is a crime that must be punished.

Like I said, manipulate deez.

indeed, people are even getting DT2 negative trust just for adding/excluding people from their trust list. the standards on the reputation board are completely out of control. a recent example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487377;dt

at this point, a "scam buster" need only make an unproven or arbitrary accusation, point to the accusation in a trust page reference, and get a few of his buddies to agree---that's the standard for red trust now. proof of wrongdoing is never a requirement.


full quote, emphasis mine:

>Complains about harassment
>Aggressive and insulting in every post

>Complains about drama
>Opens a new topic every time he has a post deleted

>Wants an objective standard for inclusion on trust lists
>Includes anyone on DT1 if they include him back

---

Imma just leave this here