Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 7. (Read 5196 times)

Just FYI, A.I.D.S does not cause your immune system to go into overdrive. It is the exact opposite. You may want to consult the Wikipedia page listing autoimmune diseases to find a disease that better fits your analogy. There are multitudes of them.
For example, I think Rheumatoid arthritis probably better fits your above analogy.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your posts aren't A.I.D.S., your subjective use of trust ratings are. Like the A.I.D.S. virus, trust police are like an over active immune system causing the body to attack its own healthy cells.

You don't align with any of these cliques, you just have most of them in your trust list and share most of the same inclusions right? Requiring evidence is not a "unilateral solution", it is a very simple basic standard, one that is required for any rational justice system.

Censorship? What the fuck are you even talking about? You know what fosters censorship? When people can just make up any excuse they like to use the trust system as a tool to punish people who say things they don't like, and they never have to prove anything.

You aren't thrashing about pulling various justifications out of your ass here? You could have fooled me.

You're wrong.

Humans have trouble being objective. If you actually bothered reading the thread you would see I am advocating for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE being presented exactly for this reason. You complain about abusive trust ratings but still have that user in your trust list. Based on this OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, you aren't exactly one to be giving advice and analysis on the trust system.

You seem to be letting personal disputes cloud your judgement. If you believe you can present a robust argument to retain subjective tagging then simply produce it.

You can not defer to theymos's unilateral single entity design and instructions when it suits you ( usually as a defense of faux rebuttal or where any other robust argument evadeds you all ). Then claim all of this abuse and subjectivity is required to ensure no single entity decides or dictates the way things are here.

Where the optimal conditions are robustly defined by the adoption of transparent objective standards that ensure the equal treatment of all members. Then the empty and spurious claims of motivation, intent, insincerity or otherwise irrelevant squeals of the defeated and broken can be sensibly ignored.

If people don't wish to uphold objective standards that are optimal for the forum,then they don't need to join the guild.

Simple.

The point of objective standards is to ensure there is no bosses or gangs. Everone is treated equally.

I have no interest in responding to a post from the latest in a long line of alt accounts, riddled as it is with disingenuous nonsense and deliberately misleading claims to altruism.
Before I leave this toxic thread, I'll make clear that my posts and use of the forum systems are inline with the current guidelines laid down by the forum administrator.
My so called AIDS posts are meant to inform and hopefully educate, and any feedback I leave comes from the same motivation.
I don't align with any of these apparently rife? cliques which are endlessly referred to, and I have no financial incentive for posting or for the content of my posts.
I don't disagree that some abuse of forum systems exists. I disagree completely about unilateral solutions to it, especially when the main driver behind this proposed imposition is a hypocrite of the highest order.
The idea that the censorship you propose somehow supports and encourages "free speech" is beyond absurd.
You and anyone else can include or exclude me from their trust; I won't blatantly retaliate, then thrash about pulling varying justifications out of my ass, like your boss does.

Since you have pointed me to this thread; I thought I wud present my views on objectivity here as well.



#peace

It doesn't matter what the subject is, you will manufacture a way to slide the topic regardless.

You seem to be misrepresenting this guild as anti gang. You are wrong.

Objective, transparent, independently verifiable standards are anti collusion. They will ensure accurate, credible and valuable warnings. They will protect free speech and ensure the fair and equal treatment of all members.

Stop joining with suchmoon, marlboroza and other members that are attempting to prevent this undeniable and irrefutable upgrade taking place.

I will not speculate on your motives. Suchmoon appears to need no motive. His only concern appears to be looking smart, and being snarky and sarcastic. He seems to have no issue moving to an objective standard and has run away from presenting a credible argument to retain the subjective abused tagging system. Besides motives are unimportant.

In your case I am sure that if you agree to work within the objective standards the guild membership requires you can be added to the inclusions list. If you wish to retain the subjective tagging system and can provide no argument that stands up to scrutiny then clearly you must be excluded from the guild. Make a choice.

Same for every other member on the forum. Everyone will be treated equally.  

Don't appear to be seeking to retain the subjective abused tagging system if your only real gripe is being excluded from the guild.

This guild will certainly expand as word spreads to push for what is fair treatment for all members. I think those determined to retain subjective tagging for their own personal profit Wil be the long term losers here.

Say you want to be part of the guild and will abide by the objective standards or stop worrying you are not in the guilds inclusion list.  

Just enjoy your remaining days where subjective abusive tagging is permitted in peace. Those days are going to end.

So the subject is no longer the punitive nature of a neutral rating? Or is it only punitive when you receive it but not when you send it? Please elaborate.

Thanks for the demonstration of exactly how hard you will work to stray from the point of a subject and argue as many peripheral issues as possible.

Synonyms are not definitions or descriptors. Neutral by definition is impartial but since you're redefining it as punitive will you review your own neutral ratings?

I did in fact, you are just insisting that you get to reinterpret my words how you prefer to interpret them and then expect me to defend your interpretation, not what I actually said. This is common practice for you.

Synonyms for punitive

    disciplinary
    penal
    punishing
    retaliatory
    vindictive
    punitory
    castigating
    correctional
    in reprisal
    in retaliation
    retaliative
    revengeful

That word has more than one definition, I put the applicable descriptors in bold to make it easier for you. If it was positive it wouldn't be punitive by definition.



When did I call him a criminal exactly? Please quote. More disingenuous projection for hyperbolic effect.



Ah I see, you bring up politics and I am the one pushing a political agenda. You should get a part time job at a movie theater, at least there you would get paid for all that projecting you are doing. I am not a leader of anything. I am just a person setting an example by standing up to a collection of little people who are dependent on the ability to abuse others to maintain their own perception of self worth.

I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding. He probably meant that scambusters are "aides". Except tmfp obviously, who must be a criminal of some sort, how dare he exclude TECSHARE.

Yes, I thought that reference would push your Agenda Button.
Maybe I'm a commie?

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of Default Trust?"

---

Classy.

It really should be bigger, and in a suitable font. Look cool on your bowling shirt.


To prospective members of the anti-gang gang, this is what your anti-leader leader decrees.
Are you cool with that?

I am so confused, did you just suggest everyone to include "A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world" to their trust lists  

---

Now this is very interesting, seems account poochpocket is tagged as an alt of hacker:



I would usually ask for proofs, but according to OP and some of his suggested trust inclusions and mutual agreement that it is ok to have such tag as long as "it depends" and/or "is lower than some number" or "it's ok", I guess it is "it's ok" then.

No, you didn't. You just keep repeating that it's "punitive" (even stretching that claim to a "fact") without explaining what's the punishment. Would it be punitive if it was positive, same words?

I absolutely answered your question, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. I am not suggesting anything be done about the rating, but the fact it was left is evidence of the fact that there is no redemption with people like you, and any corrections made are just leveraged to apply more punitive action, much like when I removed iCEBREAKER from the list in the OP.

That doesn't answer my question at all. What's wrong with that rating? Are we now at the point where we're bitching about soft-positive neutral ratings?

The fact it is a rating is not the issue, it is the obvious conflict in intent. Like I said, if I did something right here, why exactly was this necessary? "Phrased somewhat positively" lol ok. It is just more evidence that all you people know how to do is be punitive, and there is never any credit for positive correction, and it is only leveraged to make excuses for more hectoring and punitive actions. Then you all pretend to wonder why I tell all you clowns to go fuck yourselves.