Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 5. (Read 5196 times)

Cmon, let him act on this one to show he stands behind his words.

I do not see people lining up to join the so-called guild. Many can see this as another attempt at attention seeking from someone who just cannot help but seem to think they are centre of the universe. If there was any merit in this so-called guild all users would be lining up to sign up to it.

Topic seems quiet lately  


This is trust abuse according to rules of this guild, not to mention some ratings are real trust abuse (note: I didn't check references of unmarked negative trust ratings)






Do correct thing @TECSHARE and thank you for this topic.

i excluded these people a long time ago,anyone who supports lauda the gang period.

Yes Nuttillduuh, you certainly don't have your own history of suspect activity and making baseless accusations against me. I am sure you weren't suggesting I excluded him for retaliatory reasons at all.

"Pre-emptively" interesting choice of words... that implies he was going to exclude me... and that I did it before he could do it to me first, as opposed to simply not agreeing with his use of the trust system. You were just saying something about not accusing me of excluding him in retaliation?


"You basically feel that if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong, which is something I've known about you for quite some time. "

A lot to unpack in that statement.

-I disagree with you
-You think I must be wrong
-You have been assured of your conclusion for a long time

No projection here.

All I am advocating for is a standard of evidence of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws before leaving negative ratings. The coordinated attacks on me via the trust system for doing nothing more than advocating for this demonstrates why this change is needed very clearly.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53936512
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/more-trust-system-abuse-by-lauda-5210651
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53925898
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221450.0;all


Resolved:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trust-system-abuse-by-tman-5225907

What has changed all of a sudden that all of these users known for their abuse of the trust system feel the need to tag me in a very short period of time? Right, me being vocal about their abuse of the trust system. How exactly is this system supposed to operate if criticism of abuse is allowed to be met with more abuse? It won't, and it will eventually become a tool for con artists to suppress reporting of their crimes, if it isn't already.

This gets even more strange. Now to avoid debating the core principles in relation to transparent objective standards creating the optimal forum environment, we will claim analogies using certain virus or disease are not allowed.

The analogy is rather an okay one, aids or hiv, it does not really matter.

If we imagine the trust system is "supposed" to be the forums immunity against scammers. It ensures the safety of healthy honest members.

It is quite simple to understand how this immunity has been broken down and compromised so that the immune system is attacking non scamming members whilst being leveraged to protect at times multiple viruses and diseases from impacting negatively on one another and preventing any part of the healthy immune system to recover and protect healthy members.

"double standards scam hunters" " scheming cunning merit sources " and " self elected default trust " " dirty Sig campaign managers" and crazy self destruction " governance designs"

That's like AIDS, cancer, leprosy, ebola, bubonic plague, and more. I don't think AIDS is sufficiently dangerous if we want an accurate analogy.

Sorry,  I do support the core principles and going with transparent objective standards. I don't fully support this AIDS analogy. It shows that TS has underestimated the seriousness of the onslaught bitcoin talk is under.

That design would be an excellent t-shirt for that imbecile. What an absolutely disgusting thing for anybody with any morals to say. Only those with a disgusting take on life would say anything so nasty such as what he said about AIDS.

At least those sock-puppets and deluded alt-accounts that continue to follow him know what their antithesis of a leader stands for yet they continue to feed his already overinflated ego

I have no interest in your diversions from the core points denoted by the *

Of course you missed those.

Anyone can investigate for themselves, how you only sought to punish juniors and those you reasoned could not damage your sig opportunities for being involved with yobit. That is clear and I note was mentioned to you at the time.

Also what went down as detailed here in this post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/member-jollygood-of-bitcointalk-trust-abuser-and-general-imbecile-5229023

Demonstrates even those working to facilitate scama and scammers yourself bust and are sure about. You will not seek to punish them if they happen to be fellow DT like mosprognoz and lauda.

I have no idea what you are trying to express about local boards Mr cowardly double standards Sig spammer.

Now seek those* and answer them. Stop avoiding them like a coward.

 

Judging by the way a particular member of the local language board spat his dummy out and threw a huge tantrum as he was tagged by many DT, it makes no surprise to see you spout trash like his

No, that's not what I said. You are trying to shoehorn my words into a point you deem favorable to yourself (which is not really, anyway). Besides, pre-emptively excluding 2 users out 21 who excluded you doesn't seem like something to brag about.

This whole thing is a laughable exercise proving just how self-centered and non-objective your judgment actually is. You basically feel that if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong, which is something I've known about you for quite some time.

Have fun developing your anti-gang. Don't count on recruitment to pick up until you can figure out a way to stop being objectively full of shit, though.

Try to focus on these key points


* say you will join the guild

* present a credible argument that stands up to scrutiny which demonstrates transparent objective standards that ensure credible, accurate, and useful warnings regarding scammers, those trying to scam or setting up a scam. Whilst protecting free speech and ensuring the fair and equal treatment of all members and solving all of the other insoluble problems subjective tagging generates... is all net negative

* just admit you don't want to lose you clear advantages which happen to be most of the insoluble problems that subjective tagging generates. You have no interest in ensuring free speech and fair and equal treatment of all members do you


Stop being such a coward and double standards weasel.

Pretend scamHunter and pretent bitcoin enthusiast.
Chipmixer quick let him on. Perfect candidate to sponsor just like the other shit posting fake scam hunters that look the other way when DT members facilitate and work with scams.

let me post those points again so you don't miss them


* say you will join the guild

* present a credible argument that stands up to scrutiny which demonstrates transparent objective standards that ensure credible, accurate, and useful warnings regarding scammers, those trying to scam or setting up a scam. Whilst protecting free speech and ensuring the fair and equal treatment of all members and solving all of the other insoluble problems subjective tagging generates... is all net negative

* just admit you don't want to lose you clear advantages which happen to be most of the insoluble problems that subjective tagging generates. You have no interest in ensuring free speech and fair and equal treatment of all members do you

Well, you should! If interested, have a look at LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system, then make your own Trust list.
For the Trust system to decentralize, it's especially important that the users who "don't bother with them" create their own Trust list too.

I'm not certain that would be a good strategy because there are some people on Tecshare's list that I actually agree with.


There may be others on the list that I would agree should be on my list, but I don't know enough about them.

Techy saved me the trouble of making these trust thingy lists albeit I don't bother with them.
But if I did, I'd just use his suggested exclusion list land make them my inclusions, and his suggested inclusion list, vice versa  .

easy peasy

Maybe bottling the whiff and selling it for its medicinal purposes and special powers would have been far more conducive so far as pocketing money and maximising user benefit was concerned.

I am sure many members would happily endure the headache induced by the whiff if it gave them 24 hours worth of infallibility but count me out please   

I am sorry if 2 small paragraphs addressed to you is a difficult read for you. It is about half as long as what I was replying to, perhaps you are seeing your own quote and adding it to "the wall". It is a rather convenient excuse for you to avoid any retort though isn't it?

Having a say in the trust system does not equal "the universe revolving around me", but a good demonstration of more character attacks while you avoid addressing any of the topics at hand as usual on your part.

You are just upset because you missed being able to buy his sole. A true relic. However, maybe you can figure out who the buyer was and obtain it from them for a bazoogle BTC. I heard that it has special powers. If you take a huge whiff, you will be granted infallibility for 24 hours.

@TECSHARE - you posted a wall of illegible tripe. Make your trash post wall smaller other I will continue to skip past them

@truth or dare - you posted a wall of illegible tripe. Make your trash post wall smaller other I will continue to skip past them






Exactly. He has to be centre of the universe and everybody must bow down to him or else.....

Only a complete and utter imbecile would try to make himself centre of the universe where everything revolves around him. In his petty little mind what he says must happen and what he states must be adhered to.

Well, it appears that you have been drafted by Tecshare. However, if you want to take a mental health break from this bickering, I totally understand. I recently took a break for quite a few months. However, I'm now back and revitalized. Fortunately for you, your main patron, Tecshare, is currently on the shit list of the powers that be. Sentiment can change, however. We shall see.

Nutilduhh was trying to cast my exclusion of you as retaliatory, but they didn't realize I was the first to exclude you, then you excluded me very shortly after. Of course when I do this it is "retaliation" and is a violation, when anyone else does it it was for "reasons" and is perfectly acceptable. I exposed the fact that you in fact were the one to reciprocate the exclusion. My conduct? You mean the fact that I excluded you right?

For something that no one cares about, you seem to be trying pretty hard to convince me of this.

"In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list."

Begging? You mean this?


I am pretty sure that is the only time I brought up your exclusion of me, feel free to prove me wrong with a quote. I don't see any begging or "emotional instability" there, just pointing out more double standards.




Who said people had to follow my suggestions? So what is your point here? That I shouldn't be free to make suggestions for inclusions and exclusions based on my judgement of how the users are using the trust system? Isn't that exactly what custom trust lists are for, and something literally every person who uses them does? This is what I am talking about, the simple fact that I use these systems or have any voice in them whatsoever is presented as some kind of illicit behavior. I am not doing anything different than anyone else using the system, you people are just terrified that some one has opinions that don't align with your own, and others might agree, so you need to characterize me as having some kind of ulterior motives.





It doesn't necessarily, at least not directly anyway. It does however expose their abuse of the trust system, promotes awareness of their behavior, and is a countering force to their abuse by building a coalition of people to remove the authority under the system they are abusing by excluding abusive users. The end goal being that their behavior results in exclusions which either diminishes their ability to use this force within the system, or motivates them to leave more accurate ratings. Is that not the whole point of everyone being able to "vote" using their own custom trust lists, or is this another example of me being up to no good any time I use the trust system as it was designed to be used?

This sounds a lot like your previous circular logic, only rephrased: