Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 9. (Read 5185 times)

And I didn't say that you did.
I see no conflict in my logic. Do you see the conflict in yours?
Much patronising wow. Literally everyone I know irl would piss themselves laughing at that as a description of me.
Oh please.
Your OP litany of rhetoric
followed by your "Suggested Exclusion" blacklist, paints those on that list -including me- as conspirators in those actvities, all of which are antithetical to the existing protocol regarding use of the trust system.
I don't do any of that shit.
Nope, haven't used the word.
"Retaliation" I've used, in reference to your reaction to my exclusion of you. But yeah, I'll use it if you like.
In running your own anti-gang gang (interesting concept), you'll be able to project all sorts of solutions to your personal issues.

Cool story bro. You are just talking out of your ass now. Noble effort though. I will work on honing my ESP skills so I can object to being abused via the trust system before it happens next time.

If I proposed you stop hitting me in the face via the guise of a forum post proposing best practice for hitting people in the face objectively and providing a list of users I thought might be well-suited to judging when it's correct to hit people in the face, rather than simply just coming out and saying it?  Kinda, yeah.

1) I hit you in the face for no reason.
2) You propose I stop hitting you in the face.
3) You benefit from not being hit in the face.

Is your proposal self serving? I would say so. Is that wrong or dishonest? Seems like a stretch at best. In summary you are literally using the fact that I am being attacked to discredit my objections to it. You know what that is called? Circular logic.

1)  User doesn't like the tags they have been given by other users
2)  User proposes changes to the way tags are handed out
3)  User benefits if/when they are no longer tagged in a manner they don't approve of

Seems to follow logically to me.  Are you saying that doesn't sound self-serving?

I see. I propose a set of objective standards. Several users roll out various accusations, and I defend myself against them, and I am "making it about me". Almost none of people arguing with me want to have a legitimate discussion, so it doesn't matter what I say because they won't be convinced anyway.

This is more about everyone else observing than the ones directly attacking. I am absolutely being honest. Are you suggesting now because I would benefit from not having the trust system abused against me, that I am being dishonest? You seem to be straying from any logical argument now and just projecting at this point.

So it's all about you?  Do you honestly believe they would be more receptive to the idea if another user had been the one to propose it?  The way I see it, unless it's coming directly from theymos, few users are likely to alter their usage of tagging based on something a forum user is advocating.  Particularly when it seems to be an act of self-interest that would directly benefit the user proposing it.  You said it yourself:


That's the angle here.  You want to influence their behaviour in how they act towards you.  I think people see it for what it is, which is why they're giving you a hard time about it.  Why would you expect an honest debate when you can't be honest about your goal?

I didn't say you shouldn't respond. The problem is the conflict in logic demonstrated in your response. You don't need to be conspiring to be part of an aimless mob, it is human nature to just mindlessly follow the group. "You were told" huh? By who I wonder? Please, do quote where I accused you of "violating existing forum trust protocol". You were saying something about projection?

Good that you're sure of that.
That makes your "false equivalence" point a redundant fantasy, along with your previous assumptions.


I haven't demanded, condemned or blurred anything here. You do entirely what you please, but if that includes projecting your agenda onto me, then I will respond. 
I posted here because I was told you have put me on some list, purportedly for violating existing forum trust protocol, an accusation that I completely reject.
You also imply that I am part of some sort of conspiring, power tripping forum gang.
Absolutely fuck off with that one too.

This made me LOL.
Intellectual dishonesty....talk about pot and kettle.

What if the person later announces they knew it was a scam and they promoted it anyway?

(See the OG/Pirate partnership for more info)

That is correct.

Hm, so tecshare saying that I used slandering tactics, he defamed me?

for the record, i'm not sure i agree with the basis for the ~tmfp exclusion.


you can accept the truth (see below) or you can keep dwelling on a nothingburger.


i thought we were just having an honest debate, and i was responding to your argument. at most, you could say i exaggerated for effect, which i don't think is particularly out of line.

when i was talking about "attacks" i was referring to ad hominem/character attacks. i don't understand how that applies here.


i think that's debatable, but point taken.


"fraud" is a necessary standard. i assume it would fall under "violation of applicable laws". intentional deception to secure unlawful gains seems to apply here. if we're talking about coin-stealing malware, then it constitutes theft as well. if proven, it seems tag-worthy.


this one is pretty loaded. what does "obvious" mean? do we actually know it's a ponzi scheme?

what do you mean by "supporting"? are we talking about actively operating the scheme, actively shilling for it? wearing a paid signature advertisement?


if proven, this seems like another case of fraud. victims are being intentionally deceived for the operator's unfair gain. red tags seem okay under this scenario, assuming the proof is well-documented, but i'm curious to see if there are opposing arguments.

thank you for engaging in a real discussion about the topic. this is exactly the sort of stuff i'm hoping we can discuss and build consensus around.

As you can see from the definition, you cannot slander someone on a forum.

Many people have used that word while claiming they are legal experts.  I just chuckle.

Libel is the written word. 

Are you now calling publicly available information slander?



Where did I lie you hypocritical prick

---

Why are you calling me to this topic over and over again if you don't want to discuss it?

Please, don't deflect I know you have read it...

Of course you are.  But don't claim you don't retaliate when you clearly did.  

Yes, I am sure it was just a total coincidence you excluded me and Vod at the same time drawing a false equivalence between him making baseless accusations against me and me defending myself against him. So am I free to choose my exclusions as I please or not? It seems you like having this right for yourself, and of course no explanation is needed. Yet here you are condemning me for exercising the rights I have within the system and demanding explanations.

Like I said before, you are all free to make your trust inclusion and exclusion choices, but when I do it, regardless of what is it, it is evidence of some kind of malpractice according to you and I am required to defend my choices.

Very convenient you are trying to blur the line between exclusions and abusive negative ratings so you can demand an explanation and evidence for yourself for not a rating but an exclusion. This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty that lead me to exclude you and put you on that list.





Once again, your exclusions are above reproach, and my exclusions are required to be substantiated and are evidence of malpractice. Your excuse doesn't explain why you didn't simply exclude the parties you objected to, or for that matter simply send me a personal message about your concerns. Instead, you participated in an exceptionally well coordinated and very public clown show, joining in the public smear campaign in this thread, of course not having the spine to call me out by name but instead hiding behind the pretext of a theoretical scenario that just so happens to match the exact situation you had an issue with me over. Of course you were taking a page out of marlboroza's nutless slandering tactics.

This was two days after this false and baseless accusation here that no one ever substantiated, but multiple people have used as an excuse to negative rate me over. Also lets not forget this, this, or this. I am sure I am missing at least one or two other threads. You swear up and down you weren't participating in a coordinated public attack attempting to smear my character in perfect synchronization with those who have a documented history of abusing the trust system against me, but not only the timing of your actions and the method they were carried out demonstrate to me very clearly your intent to attack my character, not just to see positive change made with in the trust system. You are disingenuous and talk out of both sides of your mouth, and I don't trust you, which is why I excluded you.

If you are going to continue to make accusations against me, please provide substantive evidence.

I have never shied away from explaining my inclusions or exclusions, and every time it's brought up I've explained yours.  There was a time (about a year ago) when I had you included in my trusted list.  Then something happened that caused me to really scrutinize my trust list a bit more thoroughly.  Someone popped up on DT2 that really surprised me, at first I thought it was a bug, and I even started a thread about it.  

But then I found the connection and made an adjustment to my trust list which I felt was necessary.


It wasn't personal, it had nothing do with whether I trusted you or not.  It was solely due to your inclusions, which lead me to conclude your judgement for inclusions is in conflict with mine.  And again, that's the only reason I excluded you when you finally made it to DT1.  I didn't want your inclusions to influence the reviews I see.  I've explained myself many times, and provided this evidence before, which you continue to ignore when spinning your narrative.  

The real reason you excluded me was because I excluded you.  In fact, you excluded me from yours mere hours after I adjusted mine.  It was retaliation, pure and simple.  Any other excuse you suggest is a demonstrable lie.

The way I used my trust list is exactly how it should be used, the way you suggest it should be used in your OP.  The trouble is you're not following your own standards.  And furthermore, you attack belittle, and flat out insult anyone who does follow your standards, but doesn't agree with your inclusions.

The trust system is subjective, it relies on people using their own judgement, and picking people who's judgement they trust.  It's not right or wrong, it's their judgement.  I've never asked you (or anyone else) to revise your trust list, because even if I disagree with some of your inclusions or exclusions, I don't believe it's any of my business.

So, again, please provide substantive evidence if you are going to claim you know why I excluded you and especially when it conflicts with reality.  Or better yet, stop lying about it.  It only forces me to expose your own narcissism and hypocrisy.

How about we remove those lists and just get a list of members that wish to operate and abide by a set of transparent objective standards that ensure warnings are given to scammers, or those that are attempting to scam or setting up a scam. There must be objective independently verifiable evidence of direct financial damage or where members are being encourages to place themselves in directly dangerous and vulnerable positions like having to reveal their priv keys and such.

Once we have a large guild, we can create a Suitable includes list and observe their behaviors. Only then can suitable lists be created.

Past performance is not always guarantee of future performance. The list should be dynamic.

Once the guild is of a critical influence then we can lobby theymos to remove negative tags or null the belligerent trust abuse as it is revealed.

I prefer the total removal of tagging so that the system does most of it's own self regulating rather than always having to wait to spot abuse and fix It.

This thread will only revolve around the list selection which will be leveraged against the guild. Those wishing to retain their ability to abuse the system will either present subjective negative views of non perfect members and claim double standards or else claim their are alternative selfish motives for the includes / excludes.

These arguments will be debunked if the lists are objectively dependant upon their own abilities to operate within the transparent objective standards.

Why not remove those lists and make 2 new lists : Those that say they will operate within and abide by Those standards and those that say no they will not. Those that want to join the guild and those that wish to be excluded by their refusal.  

We can think about how those lists are to be used for trust inclusions exclusions later on.

This will prevent this attempt to derail and discredit the admirable and net positive goals of the guild.

You claim to be complying with the "standard" so maybe you should tell us what the criteria for "regularly" is. So far you seem to be waiting for someone else to give you examples of bullshit in your trust list so that you could come up with suitable thresholds to excuse it.

As I've already asked earlier in the thread, does a trust rating from February 17, 2020 still count or did the statute of limitations run out on that too?


It's nice to have some vague words like "minimal" and "regular" in your "standard", isn't it?


Talk about straw people. Don't care in the slightest? I don't go around creating vanity threads to boast about whatever criteria I use for my trust lists, I just do it. And no, I don't comply with TECSHARE's standards and I consider them utterly ridiculous, designed to stroke his ego and to give excuses to weasels like you.

I do!  In a self moderated thread by a neutral party?   Any deflection or ignoring of a question could simply be deleted.  The same way Judge Judy does not let people deflect.