Topic: Trust System Abuse By Nullius - page 9. (Read 5692 times)

So no reason to rush then?


I didn't red-trust PN7. Or am I supposed to complain about something that you didn't state in your red trust on PN7?

At any rate, that's hardly relevant to what should be done here, i.e. clean up after nullius.

Hey thanks

Well that was quicker and easier than I expected and I didn't even cast a vote yet..

I'm still looking for a good ref to evidence against Kalemder..
I don't understand it..


Vod has a very long history here of positive contributions despite the fact that he has gone off the rails lately..
Maybe SM doesn't see fit to remove/exclude him yet.. Also it is not like any of us agree with every opinion of those we include.. It is always some compromise.

Vod's tag is probably retaliation against TS for the OGnasty situation..

nutildah’s reference is a nothingburger.. All assumptions..

SM including Vod does not necessarily mean SM agrees with all Vods ratings..
As I said Vod has a long history of positive contributions therefore is harder to see him as net-negative.. You however have almost zero history and therefore the relativity of agree/disagree with you could be much higher...

Notice I haven't even excluded Vod despite calling out his recent shit because I hope he can get over himself yet..
I haven't even excluded you because I am conservative with my exclusions.. Yet..

Although the discussion of Lauda’s tag is important in itself, it is not the key issue here.  At least as of Loyce’s last scrape, suchmoon was ~Lauda, and had been for some time.  It would at least be consistent for suchmoon to both ~nullius and ~Lauda, even if I think it is wrong.

Whereas the issue that suchmoon has been consistently avoiding is that I supported two negatives (plus the implication of a neutral that said to be “countered”—hereby irrelevant; I assume it was a negative downgraded to neutral).  One is Lauda’s.  The other is Vod’s.  Whereas suchmoon is not only not ~Vod, but positively includes him.

I have repeatedly said that my position will not change:  suchmoon, go ahead and ~nullius, just as long as you also ~Vod because it’s also his tag that I am supporting.

And Vod’s tag is not about trolling.*  It is about trust abuse.

(* Actually, I think that Lauda’s tag is about more than trolling as it seems it’s being characterized; but I will set that aside for now.)

Parenthetically, I must note that nutildah’s referenced evidence of trust system abuse by TECSHARE, which I quoted fully above, is in my opinion far stronger than the evidence that nutildah presented against PrimeNumber7’s identity—evidence which suchmoon did not consider to be inadequate.  (To avoid a red herring, I emphasize that I am only comparing evidence by nutildah that was deemed adequate by suchmoon; hilarious’ separate evidence on PN7 is irrelevant in this thread, as is the PN7 issue generally.)

I briefly set forth the above, yet again, in the hope that the discussion will not continue to be diverted away from this issue.

---

As the thread stands, it seems the outcome must be a choice between the following:

• suchmoon excludes me for a tag that says on its face that it is supporting two tags, one of which she agrees with—whereas it is clear that I would have made the tag if either Lauda’s trolling-tag or Vod’s trust-abuse tag existed.  Excluding me for a tag that you partly agree with, partly disagree with, is not a sound exercise of judgment.
• suchmoon excludes me for a tag that she wholly disagrees with, but fails to exclude both the authors of the tags that I am supporting.
• suchmoon fairly excludes everybody who has made these tags contradicting her standards.  I would not argue further with this.  I would think it’s wrong; but this is one point where I would simply “agree to disagree”.
• After having been on good terms with me since 2018 without any specific criticism of my tags, suchmoon searches my sent feedback history for new reasons to exclude me in the manner of a prosecutor with a vendetta who decides, “We’ve got to get this guy for something!”  I will avoid commenting on how corrupt I think that would be.
  
  
  Quote from: suchmoon on January 29, 2020, 11:36:29 AM
  Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2020, 11:21:08 AM

  a singular rating which you disagree
  

  
  Definitely not a single rating in nullius' case. At least one other was already mentioned in this thread, and that's just for the last two days. There are 3 or 4 other reds that I consider inappropriate so for me that makes the signal-to-noise ratio bad enough for an exclusion.

Some of these options are mutually exclusive; some may overlap with others.  Any which way, I really do not see any other options here; suggestions would be duly appreciated.

Sorry, am getting lost. I wasn't aware of this evidence nor this user I think.

It's been 4+ months since the referenced events, what's the rush to tag him now and not wait until you're ready to un-withhold the knowledge?

See my update, which was just shortly before you responded. Also, you did not complain this much about any unstated evidence on PN7 = QS. This is a double-standard.

Also, DYOR =/= following my reference.

Statistical evidence of success (and/or withholding knowledge) =/= arguing from authority. It's again one of those times, one we had last month. The rating on Kalemder will stand.

---

Good example @OP:PHI1618. See here why I tagged him: (Reference).
This is how I tagged him:


According to the last update on Loyce's website, there's this:


Seriously? Those arguing against it: Find a single, objectively non-deceptive, and objectively non-malicious reason for this and I will reconsider my tag (even though this is a single example of many).

---

Many post updates, please update only to latest.

calling me ignorant doesn't change the fact that your claims are not self-evident. you're essentially arguing from authority, saying that you don't need to justify yourself to anyone.

i've researched the reference you included; it does not appear to prove anything. you say that Kalemder is engaging in "manipulation" and "chicanery"---how, just by having mutual trust list inclusions?

How can he DYOR... DHOR if the things he's unfamiliar with are not present in your feedback or in the reference post? Either put it out there or hold the red paint until the "investigation" is complete.

I think he may be referring to high-IQ individuals who are criminals may become lawyers (and other entities e.g. bankers - which would be the low level layer enabling the higher level's). This part of nulliuses post:



Wrong. My rating on Kalemder is more than accurate (deceptive behavior is appropriate reasoning), and it's further extended by things that you are unfamiliar with. DYOR before claiming my ratings are invalid.

Except it doesn't.

perfect description of the situation. i'm baffled by the reference post. it proves nothing. if you don't like someone's trust inclusions, then ~ them. that's long been established as the appropriate response. negative DT2 feedback should not be based on such baseless speculation.

it looks like nullius got kicked off DT2, but Kalemder 's account still has one seemingly undeserved DT tag.

Criminal lawyers are good as long as they work as intended.

Maybe I should have said

(Criminal)  Criminal Lawyers.

Happy now?

That's what the link was for, to counter your arguments.

Please don't talk if you don't actually have anything to counter my arguments.

Criminal lawyers are bad? You must not believe in due process or basic fairness. Without criminal lawyers, you won’t really know who is actually guilty and it will lessen the effect of being labeled as guilty because others will question if anyone is truly guilty when there is no due process. 

Ah look, another person that can't handle being called out on their bad behavior who thinks the trust system is a weapon to fight their petty vendettas with.

Given that trust is not moderated, and theymos has taken steps to remove himself as "leader" of the trust system, I don't think he would ever come out and say "Users must" or "Users should", so I think "In his view" is the closest we are going to get to guidelines or rules for use of the trust system.

Now, although I don't agree with these ratings, and I wouldn't leave them myself, I'm unlikely to exclude anybody over them. The same is true for feedback left for the other trolls I mentioned in my previous post; in fact, looking at TOAA's trust wall for example, there are more than few users who have left him a negative I don't agree with whom I actively include. No one is ever going to have the exact same standards as you regarding leaving trust, and so your own trust list can never be anything more than a compromise.

As Lauda has pointed out above, there are a myriad of reasons why a user may not want to trade with another user. If you feel a reason warrants negative trust, then I might argue against it, but ultimately you are entirely free to leave said red trust. However, if someone else disagrees with your ratings, then they are entirely free to exclude you so they don't see them. The same unmoderated trust system that permits you to leave ratings others don't agree with, permits others to place exclusions you don't agree with. Exclusions aren't personal attacks, simply a disagreement of opinions, and sometimes a compromise in an imperfect system.

The thing most people missing here is, trust works in layers. Like a pyramid.

At the top of the pyramid, there are common scums like hyip/ponzi promoters, people who say that they can crack the genesis block, bsv promoters etc. These are obviously scammers and there are no problems with the negative trust ratings you leave on them. [Layer 1]

Then there are account sellers and account farmers. These belong to the layer 2 on the pyramid. These are getting negative trust ratings too. Do you know why they are getting tagged? It is because they are enabling the upper layer of scammers. I am sure nobody here is arguing against this. [Layer 2]

Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]

Now, why it is appropriate to tag an account seller but not a trust abuser? An account seller can be trusted as long as he delivers what he promises. If you ask him, he'll tell you that he is doing an honest job!! Both the buyer and the seller are happy. The buyer gets his account, the seller gets his money, who are you to tag both of these people? He didn't scam anybody on paper!

If you are tagging account sellers&farmers, why is there a problem with tagging a trust abuser?

None of the accusations made against me by Vod, Nutilduh, Lauda, or you have any basis in reality whatsoever, but you all have one thing in common, you really don't like what I have to say and want to find any way you can to punish me for saying it, using the trust system and lots of creative writing skills if need be. By definition, everyone on the default trust list "manipulates" it in some way. The claims against me have no factual support, and are just the fantasies of some one with severe antipathy toward me and who I choose to put on my trust list. It is rather convenient for them they just get to unilaterally decide who is acceptable to add to trust lists and who is not, and if you choose people they don't agree with then you are "manipulating" it, or "trading votes".

None of these people have any evidence of this whatsoever, they just have logs showing additions of people to trust lists, which they claim are proof of vote trading because they happened within a short time of the other. This same standard could LITERALLY be applied to anyone on the default trust making changes to their lists, the only difference is some of you are looking for a reason to confirm your own bias against me, and this was plausible enough for you to feel like it wouldn't blow back against you for supporting the theory. Everything else past this point is just more people with serious grudges/obsessions with me attempting to spin this initial baseless accusation to get their own retribution using the trust system as a weapon to do so.

Very few people around here are willing to put up with this kind of systemic abuse in the name of speaking freely. If there is no one willing to call out these types of people who perpetuate it because they don't want to deal with the attacks, then this community will be ruled by abusive tyrannical control freaks. Which is worse, me being annoying from time to time calling them out, or them? People like me are easy to avoid. People like them attempt to insert themselves into every facet of your lives.

Fair point, and thus I withdraw that in relation to nullius and you. However, I'm also arguing that it shouldn't be done for singular cases in general, otherwise it will undermine stability and strengthen nepotism and chaos ("comply with every single order or you're out" kind of thing).