Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 6. (Read 5196 times)

Stop crying out in desperation that TS has mental illness.
It only clearly demonstrated that you are unable to mount a rebuttal to the central points he is making.

* you and every other member have failed to present an argument that would stand up to scrutiny not to adopt the guilds objective standards

That is a huge fail right there for you all.

* you are claiming or rather speculating that there are ulterior motives behind the lists other than the best possible selections TS was initially aware of. It could be there is no ulterior motive at all. If there were it would really not make any difference because their behavior would be the same as any other members in those lists of they wished to remain there.

You Jolly Good have been exposed for double standards a free times. You're simply a virtue signaling weasel.  You are often punishing scams and their facilitators / supporters when they pose no threat to you.

I have noticed you shrink away from DT members or popular members who support / facilitate the same scams.

That is untrustworthy and you should probably not be permitted to join the guild unless you state categorically that you intend on changing your cowardly behavior.

Transparent objective standards will demand consistency not just punishing those you feel pose no threat to you.

Doomad is speculating on TS motives for the lists. I don't think he's correct, but he is correct about the other part, because he is now repeating what I have been saying here. That it would be better to let people's actions and initial verbal support for the move to transparent objective standards, be sufficient to make the inclusions.

The lists are only suggestions, and will need to be dynamic,  I have little faith that all those that would try to keep to the objective standards could resist going running to red tags, as soon as you upset them. Either by debunking their feeble arguments or pointing out  with credible corroborating evidence that they are not real enthusiasts,  and just here to take what they can get.

The lists are suggestions they are a starting point it will only be possible to form solid lists as members abuse the guilds principles or refuse to rectify red tags that are not credible, accurate warnings of scamming, attempting to scam or setting up a scam.

Sorry anything else generates the insoluble problems that are clearly dangerous and crush free speech

Read, understand, accept.  

Stop crying about the lists and the possible motives behind them. Those that are on the includes list will be moved to the excludes if they don't abide by the transparent objective standards and those on the excludes can be put on the includes once they state they will abide by the transparent objective standards and their actions demonstrate they are serious.

Those not wishing to join the guild but can not present any credible argument for retaining the subjective red tags are eating their time and looking very foolish.

* 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

@OP just to let you know that some Objective Standards Guild members don't agree with you nor this guild's standards at all:


At least that is what they said...

I mean... that's certainly one interpretation.  Another could be that users simply don't want to take your recommendations on who they should or shouldn't trust.  If you had simply left it at the part where you said anyone could opt in as long as they follow the tenets and stopped there, perhaps people may have been more receptive to the idea.  Each member could then form their own conclusions on who is and isn't following the guidelines and adjust their trust list accordingly.
 
But you had to go and "suggest" people exclude the users you don't personally trust.  Then you act surprised or indignant when people infer that it looks like you're trying to reshape the trust system in a way that just so happens to cut out all the people you don't like.  

I did ask:

And don't recall seeing it answered in your subsequent replies.  So I can only conclude you don't actually want those particular users to be more objective, you just want to reduce the impact of their tags by encouraging other users to distrust them.  I suppose you'll reply with more yet more indignation and claim that I'm being disingenuous for pointing out that funny little coincidence, but that's honestly how it looks.

Exclusion exposed? What exactly are you taking credit for? What did you expose?

You already have added me to your distrust list and likewise I have you on my distrust list. There is nothing retaliatory about it. 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. The fact is I saw your trash posting several times over several days beforehand but in the middle of that line of trash posting were the occasional post that was far sensible and relevant than you deserved credit for so was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately your conduct left me with no choice so I added you to my distrust list.

In that thread you allude to (where you became emotionally unstable because I added you to my distrust list) nobody cared about the trash you were spouting then and nobody is interested in this guild trash either.


There is nothing to address. There are no issues to address here. You have created a thread in the hope to revel in a fake sense of self-importance. Nobody cares about this guild trash you are trying to cook up except your friends from the local language board and a few others that post for the sake of it or to feel the need to stay relevant.

You know full and well that theymos will not be giving you the time of day regarding this thread which was created for your own self-indulgence and maybe if it was a set of guidelines from a user (or set of users) considered trustworthy and likeable by general consensus then users would have flocked to co-operate.





So this image shows the real reason you created all this pathetic little drama?

Nobody cares about your ridiculously overinflated sense of self-importance or your equally pathetic ego. You might find a few members of the local language board and a couple of wannabe that have a grudge against most DTs because they were tagged after their little games were exposed therefore they follow you around but they are almost mentally twisted as you, they will dump you the moment they feel they no longer have any use for you.

You still have time, kindly seek medical advice before your case is too far gone for medical experts to help address your narcissistic over-exuberance and fix your mental imbalance issues. Thank you.

The lists should be based upon a person's willingness and actions to operate with the objective standards that are clearly optimal for the whole forum. There is no requirement for stress and bickering.

Unless people have been harassing you via PM and threatening you ?

Being " right on the internet" is not what the guild stands for.

There is no bickering here. There has not been 1 single member that has presented any kind of credible argument to retain the subjective and dangerous tagging system. There is only attempted derailing and personal attacks.

If anyone says they are willing to operate and abide by transparent objective standards for creating warnings by default they are exactly the members the guild should be including.

There is really no need to participate outside of that.

If you have been threatened or intimidated ( may be you have not) then you should make that known.

The lists should not be a request to include or exclude, The guild membership should simply be : I will act and behave responsibly adhering to transparent objective standards that ensure freedom of speech is not crushed and that all members are treated equally. Or no I refuse to operate in that way.

That is essentially all that should be evaluated.

I mean if you are now saying that you prefer the subjective as abused red tagging system remains in its current form then yes I think you should be removed.

I don't think people should just say include me or leave me off the lists. They simply say they support objective standards and then their actions are observed to render them eligible or ineligible. Even those that fear open support of the guild will bring them unwanted troubles can be added based on their actions not their desires to specifically join the guild.

The stress, bickering, hounding, threats, trust abuse, merit starvation, ignoring, character assasination and screaming for your ban are sadly the price they are hoping all but a handful are unwilling to pay.

This is why they have been successful for so long.

Actions not requests and promises will be the determining factor, I'm sure the lists will be dynamic anyway. 3

Another good user falls victim to harassment and abuse for doing nothing more than speaking their mind. I understand your reasoning, but you didn't ask to be put on that list, and it is nothing more than a suggestion for inclusion on my part. I don't know how I feel about censoring my opinion about you being a reputable inclusion based on what is clearly a decision taken under duress.

I must say I am initially inclined to grant this request, but I am conflicted on the matter by what is essentially censorship by proxy. I don't see how anyone can make proper trust lists if anyone even making suggestions can be harassed into staying silent about them. You should also know, no matter what you do at this point they are never going to stop. That is just what they do. Submission is not a solution to your issues.

@TECSHARE

after thinking on this a bit, i'd prefer if you would omit my name from the list. i agree the trust system is a shitshow, but i don't want to be construed as fishing for inclusions, and i'd prefer to take a step back from all this meta/reputation drama anyway. the vitriolic bickering and the need to be right on the internet it brings out in me just stresses me out, and i really need to avoid that right now.

i'm just gonna low key stick to my guns re how i use the trust system, while also trying to distance myself from virtue signalling.

thanks, onward and upward.....

Is some one upset their little retaliatory exclusion was exposed? There seems to be a repeating theme of people who get called out attacking my person rather than addressing any of the issues. Could it be they have no argument to stand on, therefore personal attacks are the only remaining option?

Those are sensible suggestions thank you, and I'm pretty sure those are all accounts that would certainly support transparent objective standards that ensured the fair and equal treatment of all members.

Something suchmoon and direwolf don't seem to want to support.

That's a shame but very revealing.

SUGGESTED INCLUSIONS:

truth or dare
The-One-Above-All
cryptohunter

Relax. Don't become emotional. Just accept transparent objective standards are undeniably optimal and ask to join the guild nicely whilst stating you will behave in accordance with those standards. This continual misdiagnosis of other members mental well-being is getting silly. Let's debate the core points not detail a great thread.

So you want to join the guild Or not?

I actually used to pity you some times, feel sorry for you other times and laugh out loud when reading some of your nonsensical tripe other times. In some circumstances I occasionally gave you partial benefit of the doubt but no more.

You seem to thrive on the need for public attention. You are deluded, your bloated exaggerated belief in your self-importance is laughable as much as it is worthy of pity. Your delusion seems to be growing at an alarming rate thanks to the merits being thrown your way by the local language board conspirators trying to get back to DT who have been on the look out for a fool to come along who will play good doggy fetch with them. Good to see you and they are trusting, distrusting and meriting the same way - hence your misguided belief in your bloated self-importance is exacerbated thanks to their contributions to your mental unbalance

I cannot provide a professional opinion since it is not my forté nor my field but you should seriously get booked in to see a medical expert that specialises in treating those suffering from delusions of grandeur and those suffering from the most acutest of narcissistic tendencies. After they identify the exact cause and extent of your medical condition they might be able to treat and save you from slipping further in your own tiny little bubble world.

Hopefully if you get medical treatment in time you might be able to have a normal life in the real world instead of the rather ridiculous one you are living online here.

That is speculation and likely very misleading. Not to mention irrelevant. If any excluded stated they would abide by the objective standards the guild is being founded upon, then TS would likely move them to the includes list of they are serious.

Please be constructive, and not allow prior personal disputes to fuel this speculative, misleading and irrelevant nonsense to clutter the guilds important thread.

Funny you mention that considering I excluded JollyGood, then he replied with his own exclusion. Of course it is only retaliatory when I do it right?

The primary criteria for being on the TECSHARE shitlist is that they have TS excluded, mutual exclusions are bolded:


If you exclude TS, you have bad judgment, and therefore can't have objective standards.

Speak English much? I assume you mean your name on the list. Your name is on the list because you regularly leave negative ratings based on suspicion alone, as well as things like advertising a banner for organizations you suspect, I.E. guilt via association. What is your point exactly other than the fact that you object?

Why am I not surprised to see your name not on the suggested exclusions list? Was it not added purely because you are biased as you are the author of the thread and suggested lists?

I also did not see the names of those that merited the opening post on the thread.

Nor did I see the names of the local language board users that cheated their way to DT1 but thankfully kicked off it after DT users took action last month.

Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with?

Thank you for the open admission of your adversarial stance.

Well, it was you that put AIDS in the mix. Quite frankly I think it has done absolutely zero to help bolster your case. I much prefer the clown analogies. At least that analogy is good for a chuckle while still being rather insulting to your adversaries. Plus it has the bonus effect of  plaguing your adversaries with annoying earworms. 

Noted. Thanks for more pointless topic sliding about usless side issues intended to cause maximum distraction from the actual content of the OP.