Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 8. (Read 5196 times)

What's wrong with that one? It's a neutral rating, phrased somewhat positively, doesn't violate your "standards".

It is not at all a straw man. It is called an metaphor. A metaphor designed to point out that indiscriminate attacks can be quite effective at disabling a target if you disregard innocents effected. That doesn't make indiscriminate attacks desirable. Scambusters are the A.I.D.S. of the Bitcointalk world.

Yeah, you claim that is all you are concerned for. Maybe your intent is even legitimate. Unfortunately your instincts and suspicions are not infallible, and most forum cops here are more interested in feeling effective than being effective. Real life police use that as a defense too. They still regularly rob and murder people in the name of "defending innocents". Lack of accountability is the only thing that allows these abuses to continue.

Reasoning =/= Evidence

If the whole forum watches, what do we need full time forum cops for digging through everyone's shit looking for excuses to condemn them to raise their own reputation? Sure plenty of people are watching, how many people are willing or able to challenge incorrect or abusive ratings? The VAST majority of grievances are just immediately and summarily dismissed as scammers crying because they "got their comeuppance". Anyone that has a reputation to stand on, that reputation is then leveraged against them to silence them. Just look at this thread for plenty of examples of the mouth frothing levels of attacks that result any time anyone suggests these people might be held to higher standards.

Politics now? Are you another person with hidden motives using forum issues as a method to attack me for my political opinions like several of the others here because they can't manage a logical debate on the subject? Maybe you want to project some more, accuse me of projecting, then deny you accused me all in the same breath? You can't even account for yourself let alone others.





I just thought I would post yet another example of there never being anything good enough for those wanting to attack:

Last of the V8s   2020-02-25   Reference   "Didn't quite go overboard for once"

Did I do the right thing or not? If so why exactly are you attacking me for it by leaving these retarded and hectoring ratings? This is why I never give an inch to these people, because even when I make a correction, all they ever focus on is the fact that something was wrong at one point. There is no credit given for taking correct actions, only more punitive actions. Why the fuck would I even acknowledge you people with your petty nit picking when all you offer is disincentive?

While waiting hacker1001101001 to reply, I noticed that you avoided few observable instances regarding Objective Standards Guild https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53895539, please...

Juvenile strawman rhetoric.
That's precisely the reason for doing it, "a concern for innocents".
What "evidence free" suspicion?
Red trust should be reference linked to the reasoning behind it.
More flowery strawman bullshit from the king of OCD.
The whole forum watches.
Anyone who wants to object to my posts or my feedback is more than welcome to dispute them, show me where I'm wrong.
I have no interst in being a poster child in this nonsense, but it's simple: retaliation for my exclusion of him. He now wants his anti gang gang to copy it.
Pick thru his tedious narrative above for his changing "reasons" for it.

Put me on your fucking blacklist, accuse me of shit that I don't do: standard right wing American control bullshit masquerading as being "in the public interest".

Nigeria has a lot of scammers right? If I nuked Nigeria I would objectively be "fighting scammers" now wouldn't I? "Fighting scammers" is easy if you have little to no concern about innocents. Yes yes, I am sure your evidence free suspicion is above reproach and you never ever catch innocent people up in your OCD dragnet... not that anyone is watching the watchers.

So you basically repeated what I said.

If you want to talk about not objective double standards of "objective" guild, start from here:


----------------------------------------

"if user regularly and repeatedly ignores the Core tenets"

So you claim this is it, but you agreed with tecshare's reasoning for exclusion of forum member tmfp?  You morons are suggesting users to exclude someone who fights against crypto scams.


This is more like:

If "I" like you
then welcome to objective standard guild
else excuses and suggested exclusion.

---

Can you please post number of allowed trust abuses (according to guild rules)? Just to make sure people who are in this guild don't cross their allowed abuse(abuse, according to core tenets) limits. Just hit me with the number.

It's more like.

If ( user follows Core tenets)
  {
      "Welcome to the Object Standards Guild";
  }
else if ( user regularly and repeatedly ignores the Core tenets)
  {
     Suggested exclusion;
  }

Simple to understand, your code seems totally based on your own double standards perspective.

This is exactly what they want you to say. They want to shift focus, attack your character, derail and drive you out.

Don't let them do it over and over again.

Stick to the core points that are indisputable.

* The trust system should provide accurate, credible, quality warnings for scammers, those that are trying to scam or attempting to set up scams. There must be objective independently verifiable evidence of direct financial threat or the huge list of undeniably net negative insoluble problems is generated.

Stick to this inviolable truth and they have no argument that will stand up to scrutiny.

You guys are making it very easy for them to throw doubt on the objectivity of those standards that form the basis of the guild.

A list of all those that agree to operate within objective standards that have been repeated time and time again.

Notice how suchmoon and malboroza or any other critic dare not refute the or even try to form any rebuttal against the implementation of those objective standards.

They only want to pick apart the past behaviors of those in the lists. I expect since it has been fully acceptable for people to give lemonade drinkers red tags for a while that nobody will have upheld impeccable standards for their entire history. Of course their own lists likely include those that have abused trust far more regulatory and ruthlessly.

That makes no difference to them at all. They will operate as they always do: if they can not defeat your core and central points they will find any other minor detail, irrelevant or unimportant detail or even just make things up to list and discredit the possibility of losing their favorite, subjective, and manipulated weapon :the red tag.

Losing the subjective excuse to abuse people and maintain their advantage in many areas, including financial selfish gain, is going to mean they will try anything to prevent objective independently verifiable standards that ensure all members are treated equally are introduced.

Stop playing right into their hands.  Force them into one open decision:

support a shift to an objective standard or produce and argument that stands up to scrutiny. That argument does not exist. There is room to crush every aspect of their argument, and still maintain clear objective definable standards and removal the insoluble problems.

Stop allowing them to focus on non essential details that are not required for the shift to an objective standard to take place.

Who cares who makes the choices and warnings so long as they are accurate, credible, valuable warnings that prevent scammers, those attempting to or setting up scams from operating unanswered.

Neg tags need removal. Neutral or positive only and the warnings are taken care of by flags and only for those posing direct financial threat.

How hard can it be to realize there has been no possible counter argument that will stand up to scrutiny? don't give them any other non essential details to cling on to.

Failure to support the objective standard for warnings going forward can get you on the excluded list no problem.  The lists will be dynamic anyway and being added on either will only be that members own choice to operate and abide by the objective standards or not.

I have not seen one valid argument stand against the core ideology or goals of the guild. Only trying to pick holes in the lists. Take away their detailing material, we don't even need it.

Does this guild have a sarcasm limit?

Stop making everything about you figmentofmyass! You are supposed to sit silent and let everyone lie about you. Doing anything else is narcissistic and dishonest!

If number of negative feedback is lower than number of negative feedback which suggested exclusion sent
    then welcome to guild
        else suggested exclusion.

Am I allowed to respond to your response, or is that one of them non-standard things?

You did the same thing in the Quickseller thread, so spare me the bullshit about your character and motive and ardor for a serious discussion when you just make shit up to support your argument, and throw a tantrum when your word is not taken as gospel.

Any news on standard compliance within your trust list? Have you come up with serious guild-approved excuses yet?

that's because you and nutildah kept attacking me for it.......
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53882615
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53892511
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53893544

my bad, didn't realize i wasn't allowed to respond to claims about my character and motive.


never wrong? i admitted i accidentally misinterpreted what nutildah said, quite a while ago. that seems like a weak basis for this ad hominem attack.

it seems like anyone who wanted to have a serious discussion is long gone. successful derailment guys! i'm done here.

Don't project your personal interpretations on to me. I have been absolutely transparent in my goals and motives. You however have been trying really hard to use the fact that the trust system has been used against me as some kind of evidence that what I am arguing is not legitimate.... because the trust system has been abused against me.

The system is designed currently to allow people to make their own custom trust lists that users can change based on who's methodology they find most useful, of course like I explained before, when I do that it is evidence of "sly" practices. You aren't interested in a factual debate. You have a conclusion and you want to build a narrative around me to support it. You aren't interested in a legitimate debate about the topic. You are being quite disingenuous here yourself while accusing me of the same.

Confirmed.





Don't try to correct my acronym, its perfect.

Dude... you kept going on about it for 2 or 3 more posts even after it was pointed out that you're talking shit.

As far as guild membership goes, I think you're fitting right in. It just needs to be renamed to The Never Wrong Guild and your flexible standards and ridiculous rhetoric will work just fine.

Bolded part wasn't there when I hit reply.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's some sort of Machiavellian-esque plot.  You've just gone about it in what, to me at least, appears to be a slightly sly way.

Coming back to the logic part, you've included a list of suggested exclusions from this little brigade of yours.  How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?  I'm not quite following that part. 

oh. well that's disappointing. and here i thought this discussion was finally bearing some fruit.


that sounds truly awful of me, i admit.

that clarification was buried in a later reply to TECSHARE. naturally i didn't notice it because i was responding to your earlier post directed at me. you can blame me for not reading every subsequent post in the thread before replying to you, but that's about it.

is this really worth beating a dead horse over, 9 pages later? it's pretty obviously a nothingburger.

I already explained why I excluded you, and why you are on that list. You projecting your interpretation in bold above is not my responsibility. I didn't say those things about you, you said those things and are turning it into a straw man and expecting me to defend words I didn't say, but you are saying on my behalf.



You don't even know what you said let alone what I said.




On another note...


I saw this today and couldn't help but be reminded about this debate here regarding the fact that trust system abuse drives away good users.

Right, so the "truth" is you continued to have a misconception about my words after I had already clarified what I meant. That renders your assumption unreasonable.


As reasonable as they may be, I'm not really interested in your opinions on these subjects. These questions were directed at TECSHARE as he is the one who opened this thread. Your answers have been noted, however.