Topic: @theymos It's time to make DT blacklist. - page 3. (Read 2291 times)

Kind of ashamed of you frankly, you usually are one to promote logical discourse instead of this mob hectoring that these control freaks depend on to constantly dismantle any discussion of changing the system that doesn't serve them personally. This place is just a big joke to them, and the user base toys to be played with. This is why they need standards applied to them, because they can't regulate themselves.


Especially since you merited this post...



I guess being part of "the in crowd" is more important than principles huh?

Fell better now?

Everyone take a good look at them all closing ranks in a really pathetic attempt at marginalization and derailing. Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok. I guess it is just another case of rules for thee and not for me right?

Suchmoon ran out his feigned ignorance card and called in reinforcements to make sure they preserve the illusion this is just me and no one else agrees. Also it is a nice bonus chill effect to any one else thinking of speaking up. These are the people responsible for deciding who can and can't trade here, with zero oversight or repercussions to their abuse. After all, who is going to disagree with them and make themselves targets of their harassment and exclusions just for advocating for a change in the trust system?

We need a standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.



P.S. Nutilda I know you are embarrassed you made yourself look dumb in Politics & Society, but this is too cute. Also "snarky" is your buzzword not mine.

I'm getting cryptohunter vibes here, but I guess this statement is also harassment/abuse.

Probably but I already invested enough time in making a 3x3 card. It's more like TECSHARE tic-tac-toe.

I deeply apologize for derailing the thread by my lack of reading comprehension and creating a hostile environment in the process.

That's unfair and a gross abuse of my constitutional rights. I did all the hard work and you just swoop in for the kill.

You could easily win a 6x6 here though.

Wait... Hold on a minute... I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

A standard can't enforce itself. There needs to be some action, some... I don't know... perhaps


for non-compliant behavior. So what would it be? Blacklisting? Exclusions? Are you going to get theymos and/or 50% of DT1 on-board?


If you had facts of me doing the above you could knock me down quite quickly. But you don't so you resort to insinuations. Poor show for someone so vocal about "standard of evidence".

Yeah. No. I really don't. This is again more pathetic derailing tactics from the fact that the current system is widely abused with no recourse for anyone to have that abuse adressed. It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

The small handful of people I refer to are you and your pals that operate in lockstep attacking anyone who has any sort of complaint about your abusive behaviors. Just like corrupt cops behind your thin blue line you back each other up even when you know they are being abusive, inventing whatever narrative you need to create to discredit all complaints.

After all there is no penalty for you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

The trust system needs an objective standard for users to be held accountable to or this rift is going to destroy this community and turn it into a complete wasteland of fraud and trolling. I warned about this years ago, and here we are as it metastasizes and the little power thirsty trust cops are spinning the same exact tales to avoid their own accountability...

In order for that to be true you would have to prove that I control, or am part of, the "little trust cartel" that you're talking about. Otherwise it is indeed a conspiracy theory.

And your solution is not viable unless you could at least show how it can be enforced. Insinuations about some "small handful" are meaningless when there are 60+ users in DT1 and you can't muster 5 inclusions.

Oh I see, more implying then pretending you aren't implying so you don't have to actually justify your words. You are dictating to me what you think "the community" has decided, therefore you are explicitly speaking for "the community". "The community has spoken" after all, and of course in your view "the community" is a small handful of abusive users who all shore up each others power in this system.

What conspiracy theory? This is really simple stuff here. There are clear financial motivations to maintain this status of arbitrary application of force over the community. Gay frogs need not be involved. The fact is a small handful of people lord over the entire community with zero ability for users to have reliable redress of grievances.

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

I simply stated the fact that you're excluded. That doesn't require me to speak for the community, rather the community has already spoken.

Let me guess, if I tried to dispute your conspiracy theory about "trust system overlords" it would constitute a personal attack, derailing, etc?

And no, you haven't explained shit. Somehow magically everybody is supposed to follow your rules... which you can't be bothered to follow yourself, and you can't even formulate those rules without throwing a fit when a question is asked.

So you speak for "the community" now? Oh wow you mean a group of entrenched trust system overlords which abuse their power excluded me for reasons they will never publicly define or justify? Clearly I am a bad man and am wrong because I choose to present an argument that would put a serious check on their abusive behavior. I explained at least 3 times now how the standard would be enforced. Your feigned ignorance is now pretty overt at this point.

"The community" seems to be ambivalent at best towards your idea, seeing how you're excluded from DT1. So let me rephrase that: how would you force the community to enforce this?

I am sorry if your reading comprehension is so poor you can not see I have repeatedly answered your question. It is right there in the quote you selectively edited.

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

You're still failing to address the obvious issue of how this would be enforced.

So you are saying then your intent was to imply more ratings = due diligence? That makes sense? Also you then proceeded to say the standard I advocate for would only react after the fact, again making the implication that more ratings would prevent scams.

You made the implication of it being desirable, and there is really only one meaning it could have. You are trying to say more ratings protect people but without actually saying it otherwise you might have to demonstrate how it is true. Since it does not that would be difficult. There comes a point where quality is more important than quantity.

There also comes a point where your feigned ignorance becomes increasingly transparent.


We already do this every day. Only now we would try to meet the objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as opposed to whatever anyone feels like. People can still leave ratings for whatever anyone feels like, but those people will quickly find themselves with no influence in that system.

I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "protection".


I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "prevent scams".


My argument consists of "more due diligence is better than less due diligence". Your inability of acknowledging different opinions is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.


I understand that this is your opinion. It would be nice to have facts supporting it, such as

---

Yet you completely avoided explaining how this would be enforced in practice. For example, I could say that it would be really great if people didn't scam at all but it would be a useless statement if I didn't offer any plausible way to achieve that.

No you said this...


This statement makes a direct implication that more ratings is desirable and would offer more protection. It would not as I explained above. Furthermore your statement also implies that leaving arbitrary negative ratings will some how prevent scams. It will not. EVEN IF that was a valid argument, nothing is stopping anyone from leaving NEUTRAL ratings as a warning and making posts warning the forum in the appropriate "Reputation" or "Scam Accusation" subforums.

Your entire argument consists of "BUT THE SKY WILL FALL!", personal attacks, and thread derailing.



Yet I did explain it, above and and more detail elsewhere in threads I know you have red but for the sake of appearing like you don't understand you pretend you don't know..



Lots of frivolous red ratings. People go hey we aren't scammers. People learn red ratings don't always mean scammer. Red ratings now no longer useful warning. You understand?

In summary if the ratings actually have an objective standard they will ACTUALLY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE not just be a constant source of conflict, confusion, and cover for even more theft. Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not going to entertain your hypothetical bait to try to turn this into more interpersonal petty bickering. If you can't bring an argument against the logic itself then you have none.

I didn't say anything about "protection", only about due diligence. If people want to be reckless that's their right. And no, you haven't actually explained your theory that more ratings "provide cover for scammers". It would help to have some examples of scammers who are scamming in the current system and would be prevented from scamming in your proposed system.


This implies that someone would need to moderate the trust ratings and either remove non-compliant ones or exclude the users who post non-compliant ratings, i.e. enforce the standard.

At that point might as well get rid of the trust system and ban scammers instead.